North Kingstown advisory committee recommends PBIS, districtwide code of conduct and formalized restorative practices

The North Kingstown temporary advisory committee on district discipline voted Monday, Feb. 10, 2025, to forward a set of recommendations to the School Committee calling for adoption of a Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) framework, a districtwide code of conduct with a tiered behavioral framework and steps to formalize restorative practices across schools.

The recommendations, approved unanimously by members present, ask administrators to draft a consistent code of conduct by September 2025, assemble a review committee of teachers, students and families to amend the draft by Nov. 15, 2025, and to prioritize trainings so staff can implement the changes. The committee also recommended sending additional high school administrators to PBIS training in May and adopting a train‑the‑trainer approach for restorative practices in the following school year.

Why it matters: Committee members said the district’s suspension and discipline data show persistent disproportionality and inconsistent practice by school. Members argued that a common language and shared frameworks would reduce discretionary variance and provide clearer expectations for students, families and staff.

Meeting discussion and supporting details - Scope and intent: Members repeatedly framed the package as a practical effort to improve consistency and transparency, not as a broad attempt to “solve systemic discrimination” on its own. Several speakers said the goal is to ensure similar incidents are handled in comparable ways across elementary, middle and high schools.

- PBIS as an umbrella: Committee members recommended PBIS as the philosophical umbrella to provide common language, definitions and tiered supports K–12. The group discussed PBIS training opportunities and noted the New England PBIS leadership forum scheduled for May; members cited a per‑person cost in the meeting of about $256 for that event.

- Code of conduct and tiered framework: The committee asked that school administrators draft a consistent code of conduct with tiered behavioral levels and a range of possible interventions (rather than a rigid “if A then B” matrix). The draft is to be created administratively by September 2025, then reviewed by a committee of teachers, students and families, with amendments due by Nov. 15, 2025.

- Restorative practices and implementation: Members recommended formalizing restorative practices after PBIS and the code are in place. The committee discussed train‑the‑trainer models, in‑district rollout, and student panels or peer supports as possible components. Several speakers emphasized that restorative options must be paired with training and resources for staff to administer them.

- Data, documentation and tools: Participants debated Aspen (the district’s student information system) and Branching Minds (an intervention tracking tool). The committee identified inconsistent documentation practices and coding in Aspen as an obstacle to accurate data and to tracking students across years. Members proposed clarifying what is recorded and ensuring teachers and relevant staff can access the right information while observing privacy rules.

Decisions and next steps The committee voted to approve the recommendation package and to forward it to the School Committee. Key implementation steps recorded by the advisory committee include: - Send additional high‑school administrators to PBIS training in May (exact attendees and final cost to be confirmed); - School administrators to draft a districtwide code of conduct and tiered behavioral framework by September 2025; - Form a review committee of teachers, students and families and submit amendments by Nov. 15, 2025; - Begin a phased plan to formalize restorative practices, including train‑the‑trainer sessions, in the subsequent school year; and - Principals to review the new code with faculty and identify site‑specific implementation needs (training, subs, summer planning time) before full rollout.

The committee chair (name not specified in the record) read the recommendations aloud and members moved and seconded the proposal; the motion passed unanimously with all those present voting “aye.” The committee agreed the formal recommendation would be placed on the March 4 School Committee agenda for submission and discussion.

Context and constraints Committee members stressed that drafting the code and training will require time and resources (budget allocations and scheduling of professional development). They noted that some administrators and teachers have already implemented PBIS‑consistent practices in pockets, and that any rollout must account for differences between elementary, middle and high school settings while preserving consistent definitions and expectations where possible.

What the recommendation does not decide The advisory committee’s vote was to send recommendations to the School Committee; it did not itself adopt district policy or change student‑discipline rules. Formal adoption, budget approval for trainings, and specific implementation plans remain decisions for the School Committee and district administration.

Ending note Committee members asked the advisory group chair and staff to research PBIS and restorative training providers and add specific dates and costs to the draft recommendation package before submission to the School Committee.