District outlines SBAR discipline framework, cites disproportionate suspensions and gaps in elementary supports

District staff presented data and a new administrative framework for responding to student behavior, showing more threat assessments this year and persistent racial disparities in out‑of‑school suspensions. Staff described a five‑level SBAR continuum for responses, stressed restorative practices and urged more in‑school behavioral resources for elementary students.

Presenters said the district has seen an overall increase in threat assessments compared with the same point last school year; most of that increase occurred in incidents classified as no‑concern or low‑concern, and the district reported only a small increase in higher‑priority threat assessments. Staff also told the board that suspensions remain concentrated among a small number of students and that Black students are suspended at substantially higher rates than white students.

The SBAR framework the district described separates (1) discipline sanctions for accountability, (2) behavior interventions focused on skill building, and (3) instructional supports to limit academic impact when students miss class. Administrators explained five levels of response: classroom‑based interventions (level 1), higher school‑based supports and MTSS referrals (level 2), short‑term removals and functional behavior assessments (level 3), long‑term suspensions (11–45 days at level 4), and the most serious cases that may be referred for board review or expulsion (level 5). Staff noted Virginia rules that require special procedures for students with IEPs when suspensions reach certain thresholds.

The presentation emphasized the time and people required to process a single incident: gathering witness statements, reviewing any footage, checking prior interventions, notifying families and implementing follow‑up supports. District staff said most incidents receive one or two behavioral interventions (for example, an administrative conference plus parent contact) while a subset receive exclusionary discipline and instructional make‑up work.

To address gaps, staff recommended expanding proactive, skill‑building options in the elementary grades where options remain limited. The district is exploring hiring board‑certified behavior analysts (BCBAs) and registered behavior technicians (RBTs) to provide supervised, evidence‑based behavioral support; staff said the plan would likely start with one supervising BCBA and grow from there. Staff also described plans to increase sensory/regulated spaces accessible to more students (not only students with IEPs) and to continue aligning data across SEL screeners, chronic absenteeism, and discipline to identify the small number of students generating repeated incidents.

Board members raised questions about data disaggregation, audit and fidelity of interventions, home visits and family engagement, and whether restorative processes are consistently applied. Staff said monthly monitoring is in place (building reports and VDOE‑required notifications) and that teams are triangulating multiple datasets to identify students who need targeted attention. Staff also said that some incidents that result in out‑of‑school suspension are concentrated among relatively few students and that the district tracks both the number of suspension days and the number of distinct students affected.

The board did not adopt new policy at the meeting but directed staff to continue work on hiring and supervision plans for behavior support staff, to develop guidance on elementary options and sensory spaces, and to provide more disaggregated reporting (student counts, days and school‑level breakdowns) in follow‑up materials.