Germantown School District presents first standardized disciplinary-data report; principals outline next steps

The Germantown School District Board of Education on July 15 heard an annual disciplinary-data report showing how student incidents were coded across six schools and discussed steps to make reporting more consistent. The report, prepared from the district student information system (Skyward), broke disciplinary entries into a reduced set of categories and showed totals by school and severity. Administrators and principals told the board that coding practices have been narrowed from more than 100 codes three years ago to a smaller, more consistent set but that work remains to standardize definitions for ‘‘major’’ versus ‘‘minor’’ incidents and for some labels that overlap with state-required reporting. Superintendent Dr. Reuter said the district has “scaled down and build[ed] consistent categories K through 12” and that the administrative team will take another year to define them at elementary, middle and high-school levels. He also announced a change in operations for the coming school year: “We change to residency verification every year now, for every grade level,”, a procedural change the district said is intended to confirm enrollment and funding eligibility sooner in the year. Principals at elementary, middle and high schools answered questions from board members about how incidents are categorized, when teachers are expected to document, and what supports follow repeated incidents. A principal at Kennedy described the classroom discipline cycle used there (teacher reteaching, parent contact and local interventions) and said major incidents come to administration directly. That principal added, “I would say our staff does a very good job of wanting to document these things. So I would say from my experience that these numbers are accurate.” Principals described differences by age and context for specific codes. Examples given in discussion (presented by principals and administrators) included: minor vs. major theft (a missing pencil vs. a stolen cell phone from a locker), minor vs. major physical aggression (rough play at recess versus a physical attack that causes injury), and technology violations (minor: playing games; major: damaging Chromebooks or using the internet inappropriately). Board members and principals discussed state-required reporting categories—such as weapons, certain levels of physical aggression, and civil-rights related incidents—that automatically map to major incident reporting to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI). Panelists also reviewed attendance-related flags driven by the district’s automated notices: the district issues a 5-day absence letter once a student reaches five unexcused days (the speaker said the state allows about 10 total days before additional steps). Kennedy’s principal said Kennedy sends an automatic letter when a student reaches five absences; a board member noted Kennedy had a reported 545 five‑day letters for the year and that Kennedy’s enrollment is about 875–900 students. Principals described interventions linked to the data: tiered meetings (tier 1–3), “check-in/check-out” mentor or adult support programs, short counseling groups, behavior intervention plans, crisis plans, and huddles that bring teachers, counselors and administrators together to assign roles and follow up. Rockfield’s principal described a tier‑2 team that meets every three weeks to analyze referral narratives and set action plans. Board members pressed for clearer definitions and cross‑building calibration so that minor/major distinctions and labels are comparable across schools, noting that inconsistent entry practices can make public-facing charts hard to interpret. Administrators acknowledged the report is in an early refinement stage: the district has begun entering minor incidents into Skyward only this year, producing higher minor counts in some schools where staff have been diligent about documentation. No formal board action was taken on the disciplinary data report; board members asked administrators to refine definitions, add severity rankings, and supply additional cross‑building analyses (for example, number of distinct students behind a given count versus total incidents) in future reports. The board also encouraged staff to continue outreach to families and to ensure teachers feel supported when they document incidents so the data can be used to guide targeted interventions.