Asheville City Schools unveils 45‑page Student Code of Success; board raises questions on implementation and training

Kim Robinson, a district staff member presenting the policy, told the Asheville City Schools Board that the district had revised its Student Code of Success to give “more clarity on how the process goes” and to replace vague disciplinary writeups with a progressive, leveled model.

Robinson said the document assigns levels of response to conduct—levels 1 and 2 to be handled by teachers and levels 3–5 to be handled by administrators—and that teachers will enter narratives in Infinite Campus for minor incidents so administrators can track repetitive behavior. “The system itself is designed to be a progressive model,” Robinson said. “Level ones and twos are supposed to be handled by teachers themselves and 3 levels 3, 4, and 5 are more administrative.”

The board broadly welcomed the aim of consistent responses across schools but pressed for more precision on how staff will distinguish, for example, level 2 from level 3 conduct and how the district will train personnel so similar behaviors are handled the same way in different classrooms. “My real more important question is, how are we gonna train the teachers so that they know?” one board member said. Robinson replied that administrators and staff will receive training, and that the district will work with schools closely in August and September.

Maggie (district administrator) described the local‑school implementation approach: principals will craft school‑level progressive consequence lists and expectations so teachers know the sequence of responses in their classrooms. “What I’ve asked the principals to do is with their team and their leadership team, develop what their local school process is gonna be… so the first time a student in a classroom does x, here’s the consequence that a teacher would give,” Maggie said. She added principals will establish when a teacher should escalate an incident to an administrator.

Board members sought clarity on appeal timelines and which parties may file appeals. One board member cited text in the draft stating short suspensions must be appealed within three days by the student and longer suspensions within five days by the student or parent. Robinson and another district staff member said the appeals windows are set in state statute and existing board policy and that expanding those timelines would require a review with the district attorney and a policy cross‑check. The board was told board policy 4303 requires the superintendent to review the code annually with the board.

Board members also raised concerns about readability and whether the 45‑page document would be useful for parents and teachers as written. Several recommended moving the district’s “progressive support framework” to the front of the document so readers immediately see the incremental philosophy behind consequences. Robinson and Maggie said the long document is intended for administrators and that principals will prepare parent‑facing presentations and simplified materials.

District staff outlined supports to create consistency: training for administrators on standard‑setting, pulling and leveling past referrals to align responses, and in‑school coaching during the first months of the school year. Staff also described new expectations that teachers will record minor incidents in Infinite Campus, not automatically file major referrals, and that administrators will determine when repetition requires escalation.

No formal action was taken; board members were told the code will be presented again next week for information and that voting on a final version would follow the superintendent’s annual review process. The board asked staff to return with clarifications on appeals, the mechanism for distinguishing levels, and a plan for training teachers and administrators before the code is adopted for use.

The district staff emphasized that the code can be revised as issues arise and that principals will translate the district framework into school‑level procedures and parent communications.