Parents, teachers and board members debate stricter discipline measures and supports after policy committee discussion

Several public speakers and teacher representatives addressed the board on June 17 during public comment, focusing on student behavior, the policy committee's recent work on student-discipline policy (JK) and the need to balance consequences with supports.

Why it matters: Student-discipline policy determines how schools respond to disruptive or violent behavior and what supports are available. The discussion highlighted a tension between calls for stricter immediate measures for persistently disruptive students and concerns that removing students without robust supports risks worsening outcomes.

Public comments and union feedback:

- Roger Stenerson, representing the grassroots group Rising to Learn, urged the board to pair any more aggressive discipline with expanded support services. Stenerson said removing students from classrooms without interventions can "place them back in harm's way" and asked the district for a breakdown of the "16,000 behavior referrals" referenced at a June 11 policy committee meeting to know how many fall into the most serious tiers.

- Mary Haringa spoke on behalf of the Washington County Teachers Association (WCTA). She said WCTA supports stronger consequences for disruptive behavior but warned that consequences must be age-appropriate and paired with additional paraprofessionals, behavioral supports and alternate classrooms, noting the current budget does not fund those expansions.

- Christy Gross, a veteran teacher and WCTA leader, invited board members to visit schools and meet teachers to deepen collaboration and improve policy decisions.

- Ethan Loewen urged a return to more traditional discipline and criticized restorative approaches; his remarks reflected a community faction advocating for stronger, direct consequences and greater order in classrooms.

Board response and direction:

- Board members acknowledged a broad constituency concern about classroom disruption. Mister Burkett (board member) and Mister Evans (board member) emphasized that the board is not advocating punitive measures that abandon supports, but rather seeks to ensure persistently disruptive students receive appropriate education in a setting where learning for others is preserved. As Mister Burkett said, removing a disruptive student without consideration "causes 20 to 25 other kids more trauma."

- Mister Gassford and other board members said the policy committee's discussion had been mischaracterized to some public speakers and asked stakeholders to reexamine committee notes; the board clarified its intent was to align discipline procedures with contemporary needs while ensuring supports are present.

- Direction to staff: The board asked staff to realign the district's behavior matrix and discipline ladder to reflect current classroom needs and to ensure regulations and exhibits match the board's practices. Staff previously confirmed they withheld recommending final regulatory changes until outstanding appeals under the board's jurisdiction were reviewed.

What the record shows: The meeting included a series of public comments urging both stronger immediate responses and expanded supports. The board accepted public input and recorded direction to staff to revisit the discipline matrix and the accompanying regulations; specific regulatory language and any changes to appeals forms will return to the policy committee and board.

Ending: The board did not adopt a final change to policy JK at this meeting; the discussion and public comment signal further work ahead on striking a balance between classroom safety, consequences and investment in behavioral supports.