Parent urges board to keep independent out-of-school-suspension appeal; administration seeks streamlined single-level review

At the Fayetteville School District board meeting a parent urged the board to reject proposed changes to the out-of-school suspension (OSS) appeal process, saying the revisions would remove meaningful impartial review for families of students with disabilities.

Joe Askins, who identified himself as a Fayetteville parent, told the board his 6-year-old first grader—who has autism—was suspended four times during the school year, including two suspensions of two days each. Askins said the suspensions were direct manifestations of the child’s disability and argued that the child’s individualized education program (IEP) and behavior plan were not followed. ‘‘When staff lack proper training, when staff ignore key supports, the district fails this child,’’ Askins said. He urged the board to preserve a process that allows appeals to an impartial reviewer outside the immediate chain of discipline.

Claire Wilkinson, who presented the district’s proposed policy revisions, said the change on the table would move OSS appeals to a single-level review model aligned with the Office of Teaching and Learning. Under the proposal, an appeal of an assistant principal’s suspension would go to the principal; if the principal were involved in the initial decision, it would go to an executive director in the Office of Teaching and Learning. Wilkinson said the revision is intended to reflect organizational changes since a broader overhaul of the discipline policy in 2023 and to reduce confusion from multiple channels of discipline-related communication.

Wilkinson and other administrators said expulsions remain subject to separate procedures and that the proposed OSS process is intended for suspensions of 10 days or fewer. She also noted that recent state legislation (identified in meeting materials as Act 565) and federal IDEA rules overlap with district discipline procedures and that the district expects to provide training and follow DESE (state education) guidance as rules are promulgated.

Askins asked the board to retain an appeal structure in which reviews can be performed by an impartial administrator outside the immediate supervisory chain; he argued that relying on supervisors who previously endorsed a suspension turns an appeal into a mere formality. Askins said a meaningful appeal ‘‘ensures that individual decisions are fair and well considered’’ and preserves checks and balances for families.

Board members discussed the policy changes and asked questions about how the proposed single-level appeal would work in practice. No board vote was taken on the change at this meeting; Wilkinson said revised policies will return to the board for a formal vote after additional review and potential revisions.

Details and context: Askins said his daughter’s suspensions began in kindergarten and that multiple suspensions removed the child from therapies and school supports; he asked the administration to provide data about the volume and nature of OSS appeals if it claims the current process is burdensome.