Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Keystone Central SD keeps student-discipline policy under review after debate over stricter penalties
Summary
At a March 12 policy meeting, board members debated adding firmer penalties for student fighting to Policy 2.18 but agreed to have staff research other districts and return with options in April rather than change the policy immediately.
At its policy meeting on March 12, the Keystone Central School District policy committee agreed to keep Policy 2.18 (student discipline) on the agenda for further review after members debated whether the district should adopt firmer penalties for student fighting.
Board members pressed for clearer, stricter consequences for students involved in physical altercations, citing community concerns about safety on buses and in hallways. One board member suggested a three‑strike rule: "If you involved in an altercation with fighting, first time, then you get the discussion. Second time ... third time you're suspended 3 days third time you're suspended more," the member said. That member added: "If a student throws a punch, except for in self defense, there needs to be strict discipline, and we need to put the hammer down on all of this that's going on."
Staff cautioned that state law and the district's approach require administrators to consider context. "The 3 strike rules are broadly not very effective. It's much better to have something where the principal looks at past history," said Dr. Redmond, a staff member, describing the district's emphasis on progressive discipline and individual review. Dr. Redmond said administrators examine what led to an incident and the student's background before assigning punitive measures and pointed to data the district has used to track referrals and expulsions.
Board member Elizabeth, who reviewed other districts' policies, asked staff to compare Keystone Central SD's handbook and Policy 2.18 with practices in other Pennsylvania districts and high‑performing districts statewide. "I would be curious to see ... what other school districts — I'm not just saying regional school districts. I'm talking about the top tens public school districts in Pennsylvania — how they address this," she said, and offered to share materials she has already gathered.
The group discussed narrower options staff could present, including clearer language for reintroduction plans and a single sentence clarifying expectations for fighting, while avoiding a rigid, automatic three‑strike scheme. Members noted ongoing conversations among building administrators about progressive discipline and said data shows a decrease in significant referrals for violent behavior.
Outcome: Committee members agreed to keep Policy 2.18 on the agenda and asked staff to research other districts' approaches and return with recommended language and implementation options at the next meeting in April. No policy changes were adopted at the March 12 meeting.
The committee said it will monitor incidents (including reports about bus behavior) and review any proposed language changes for consistency with Pennsylvania law and the district's code of conduct before taking formal action.
