Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discipline Policy K2 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and advocates urge New Hanover board to end out‑of‑school suspensions for K–2; board hears calls to adopt alternatives
Summary
Multiple speakers at the district meeting urged the school board to end out‑of‑school suspensions and seclusion for 5–7 year olds and to adopt in‑school supports, citing research and state examples; the board received requests to revise short‑term suspension policy and to consider Maryland-style limits.
A string of public commenters asked the New Hanover County Schools Board of Education to end out‑of‑school suspensions and seclusion for the district’s youngest learners, arguing the practice harms early development and asking the board to revise its short‑term suspension policy.
Speakers cited research and reports — including material they referenced from the Duke Children’s Law Clinic and the Education Justice Alliance — and urged the board to adopt alternatives such as in‑school suspension, positive behavior interventions, individualized behavior plans, restorative practices, and referrals to support teams. One commenter outlined a Maryland education code approach that limits out‑of‑school suspension for pre‑K through second grade to exceptional circumstances and requires rapid school‑based interventions and restorative measures.
Multiple commenters said that, based on district data for the first half of the school year, relatively few K–2 students (commenters cited the district figure of 18) would require targeted, exceptional interventions — an argument they used to say the district could implement in‑school supports rather than exclusionary discipline. Speakers urged rapid policy change, asked the policy committee to review proposed language, and requested disaggregated public data on early‑grade suspensions and their outcomes.
Board members acknowledged the concern and heard requests to revise short‑term suspension policy 4351 and to examine alternatives such as in‑school suspension and restorative practices. Several public speakers and board members referenced research from the American Academy of Pediatrics and recent policy judgments from other states. No formal policy change was taken at the meeting; several speakers asked the board’s policy committee to bring proposals back for consideration at a future meeting, and some board members asked staff and policy counsel to return with options for discussion.
Speakers also raised related questions about current practices such as seclusion and asked for public disclosure of how often seclusion is used and what alternatives are in place. Board members who spoke said they wanted to review the report material and asked staff to follow up with additional data and proposed policy language.
