Beaverton SD 48J highlights restorative practices as exclusionary discipline affects small share of students, board presses on disproportionality

Beaverton School District 48J staff presented an equity-centered overview of student discipline and semester 1 exclusionary-discipline data at a board work session, and board members pressed for more detail on disproportionality, investigations and supports for students with mental-health and housing instability.

District staff opened the presentation by tying discipline work to the district’s equity lens and its Safe and Thriving goal area, and described a tiered “continuum of care” that centers proactive practices, restorative approaches and calibrated administrative responses.

Why it matters: staff said only a small share of enrolled students experienced exclusion (suspension or expulsion) in semester 1, but board members said that even small numbers can reflect persistent racial and disability-based disparities that the district must address. Trustees asked for more data, for clarification about investigation procedures and for follow-up memos and another work session.

District framing and practices

Heather (staff member) told the board the district’s “equity lens centers our actions” and said the lens guides professional development, the code of conduct and how the district calibrates responses across buildings. Todd Corsetti, a high school principal, described the district’s three-tiered approach: universal practices for most students, targeted interventions for a smaller group and intensive individualized supports for the smallest cohort. “We know that context is key and that relationships matter,” Corsetti said.

Dr. Reggiani described restorative practices in classroom and school settings, explaining that most students are served by tier 1 supports and that restorative circles, conferences and connected conversations are used at higher tiers. Staff said the district collects social-emotional data through MySabers (three times per year) and uses BHNW teams (behavior/health/wellness teams) and building leadership meetings to calibrate responses and to align interventions with the Safe and Thriving strategic goal.

Code of conduct, suspension and expulsion

Staff explained the student code of conduct is an administrative resource that is reviewed annually and aligns with school board policy. As presented, the code contains 38 conduct references and four levels of intervention; most day-to-day responses fall in levels 1 and 2 (classroom and administrative supports). The district summary defined suspension and expulsion as follows: suspension may be in-school removal from class or out-of-school removal for up to (but less than) 10 days; expulsion is a termination of a student’s right to attend that does not extend beyond one calendar year and is treated as a last resort with attention to earliest-return conditions.

Semester 1 exclusion data (as presented)

- Elementary: enrollment reported as 16,690 students for semester 1. Staff reported 1.2% of elementary students experienced an exclusionary outcome in that period; presenters showed a table in which the total number of elementary students with exclusionary incidents was 195, and 94 of those 195 were listed as excluded for disorderly or disruptive conduct.

- Middle school: enrollment reported as 8,644 students. Staff said 4.6% of middle school students experienced some level of exclusionary outcome in semester 1 (district slides showed the count of affected students at the middle-school level and labeled the figure in that percent band).

- High school: staff said 3.7% of high school students experienced exclusionary discipline at the levels presented (level 3 and 4). Staff called attention to the increasing presence of bullying/harassment as students age and said the district is using restorative responses and other individualized steps before exclusion when possible.

Expulsion counts and trend note

Staff reported the district currently had nine students expelled for the year-to-date period discussed (seven high school students and two middle school students), and contrasted that with the pre-pandemic annual count the presenters said ranged “upwards of 40 to 50” expulsions per year. Presenters said expulsions typically involve level-4 behaviors and note state regulations that govern responses for incidents such as drug sales and certain safety violations.

Bullying and harassment data (scope and limits)

The presentation included bullying data that show only incidents which led to exclusion. Staff cautioned that many bullying incidents are addressed at tier 1 or tier 2 and therefore do not appear in exclusion statistics. Specific counts presented for exclusionary bullying events included 22 elementary students excluded for bullying (six of whom were identified as Hispanic in the slide detail), 78 middle-school students excluded for bullying and harassment, and 62 high-school students excluded for bullying and harassment. Staff emphasized the district measure compares the percent of excluded students in each subgroup against that subgroup’s percent of total enrollment to identify disproportionality.

Investigation process and evidence

When asked how bullying and harassment incidents are investigated, district presenters described a multi-step process: reports can come from students, staff or families; staff said they interview every party and surrounding witnesses, review available camera footage where relevant and take time (often a day or two) to assemble the evidence before determining consequences. A staff member who described that procedure said, “We interview every party,” and noted teams collaborate to match witness statements with any camera evidence prior to a final decision.

Board questions and requested follow ups

Trustee Ugonna (board member) pressed district staff on investigation practices and mitigation of bias, stressing that reliance on a single teacher report can produce inequitable outcomes. Other trustees asked for more detail about mental-health supports, services for students experiencing houselessness, how students with disabilities are supported (special-education staff or specialized teachers intervening to avoid exclusion in at least one cited example), and whether school-resource-officer (SRO) involvement is being tracked. Trustee Tammy asked whether the district collects data on calls to SROs for code-of-conduct incidents and requested clarity on how the district ensures families understand the code of conduct they verify at enrollment.

Staff and the chair agreed to gather additional information in writing and return for a follow-up work session; board members were asked to submit specific questions to Sarah (district staff) so presenters could prepare a memo or slide packet for the next meeting.

What the district said it will do next

Presenters signaled three immediate follow-ups: provide a written memo with requested breakdowns (including SRO involvement if available), supply comparative year-to-year numbers on expulsions and exclusions, and return to a future work session with expanded time to address the board’s questions. Staff also noted ongoing calibration work with principals, equity modules for staff and continued use of MySabers and BHNW teams to refine interventions.

No formal votes or policy changes were taken during the session; trustees requested more data and scheduled a return for additional discussion.