Board reviews student-discipline procedures; members press for clearer appeals and use of resource officers

Board members spent an extended portion of the Jan. 29 policy subcommittee meeting reviewing student discipline (Policy 218) and the district’s disciplinary procedures, with several members pressing for clearer due-process protections and faster appeal timelines.

The discussion grew out of a board-member account of a past case in which a parent and student said administrators’ actions and selective sharing of information with law enforcement produced what the parent called an unfair outcome. That board member urged the district to explore stronger procedural safeguards so students facing suspensions or educational reassignment can exercise their rights and have timely access to appeals.

What administrators described Superintendent Doctor Perry and administrators said the district maintains a multilayered disciplinary process: teacher-level interventions, building-principal review, informal hearings, superintendent hearings for higher-level actions, and formal board hearings for expulsions. Perry described annual administrative training conducted with the district solicitor (referred to as Stock and Leader) that covers levels of offense, informal and formal hearing rules, and investigators’ responsibilities. Perry said resource officers are already involved in investigations and can advise administration and help document events.

Parents’ perspective raised by board member A board member recounted a case in which administrators presented selective information to an investigating officer and the parent later provided additional material that changed the law-enforcement view; the parent said administration proceeded with discipline despite a later law-enforcement determination that no criminal charge was warranted. The board member said such cases left families feeling they had "no true due process" and asked whether additional neutral review mechanisms (for example, a panel that can review evidence) or faster appeal timelines would be feasible.

Timing and appeals Administrators replied that informal hearings generally occur within three days and superintendent hearings occur for suspensions of 10 days or more. They acknowledged that appeals can take time and that a multi-step process may mean a student serves several suspension days before completing all available internal appeals. Perry said the board-authorized superintendent hearings and other safeguards are intended to reduce the need to place an expulsion 'red sticker' on files but acknowledged the system cannot guarantee complete elimination of administrative error.

Board suggestions and next steps Board members suggested: clearer handbook language describing the appeals path (teacher → principal → superintendent → board), considering neutral reviewers or using retired law-enforcement experts as consultants for disputed events, and ensuring families receive all available investigatory information when law enforcement is involved. The superintendent agreed to ensure handbook updates and to continue training administrators; the board agreed to consider whether a subcommittee or separate meeting should examine additional structural protections.

Ending No immediate change to Policy 218 was adopted at the meeting; the subcommittee recorded recommended updates to the student‑handbook appeals information and directed the administration to continue training and to report back with options for faster or clearer appeal procedures and for involving resource officers or neutral reviewers as appropriate.