Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Behavior topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews SBAR behavior-response framework after data show racial disparities in suspensions
Summary
District staff reviewed the SBAR (Student Behavior and Administrative Response) continuum, threat-assessment trends and suspension data showing Black students are suspended at higher rates; the board discussed restorative practices, RBT staffing and the need for disaggregated student-level counts.
Charlottesville City Schools staff used a work-session format to review the district’s Student Behavior and Administrative Response (SBAR) system, present threat-assessment and out-of-school suspension data, and discuss supports the division says are needed to reduce exclusions and better serve students.
Ms. Rasnick and other staff explained that threat assessments — including both harm-to-self and harm-to-others evaluations — have increased in count but not in high-priority incidents. Presenters highlighted a persistent racial disparity in suspensions: as one presenter summarized in front of the board, "If you are a Black student here in Charlottesville City Schools you will be likely suspended 4 and a half times more than a white student." Board members requested disaggregated counts by student and school so the division could identify how many individual students account for repeated exclusionary days.
Staff outlined the SBAR continuum of levels 1–5, describing supports (classroom-level interventions, MTSS referral, behavior plans) that rise to administrative sanctions when needed. They said parental contact is expected at every SBAR level and noted recent state guidance limits long-term suspension windows to roughly 11–45 days, with special procedural protections for students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
The work session also covered operational realities of incident response: administrators often gather observer reports, student statements, camera footage and context about location and antecedents, and those investigations can take hours; communication back to teachers, families and providers is a required closure step. Staff emphasized that exclusionary discipline does not by itself change behavior and that the division must pair accountability with skill-building interventions and instructional continuity when students are removed.
Board members pressed on gaps in capacity, particularly at the elementary level: staff reported fewer alternatives and fewer dedicated behavioral supports for preschool–1st-grade students. To address that gap the division described plans to grow internal registered behavior technicians (RBTs) supervised by a board-certified behavior analyst (BCBA), expand sensory/regulation spaces in interim facilities and better coordinate MTSS, counseling and home-visits to reach families earlier.
On restorative practices, presenters said formal restorative circles are used when appropriate but require the buy-in of harmed parties; when face-to-face participation is not possible staff will use third-party message delivery or parallel restorative steps. The board asked about auditing for consistent SBAR coding and fidelity; staff replied administrative reviews and data triangulation (SBAR + SEL + attendance) are used to identify outliers and needed corrective steps.
Next steps the board requested: disaggregated, student-level counts of suspensions and days lost by race and school; a clearer picture of home-visit and counseling referral volumes; and a plan to staff elementary-focused behavioral supports.
