Assistant Superintendent Andrea Tope told the Schenectady City School District Board on Dec. 3 that the district has made incremental reductions in suspension rates but that disparities persist, especially for Black students and students with disabilities.

"We have been successful in making some incremental reductions in percentages each year," Tope said during a presentation that compared multi‑year and quarter‑to‑date figures. Tope said the district’s quarter‑one suspension rate currently stands at about 16.2 percent and added that the district uses a relative‑risk ratio to identify disproportionality; the district’s goal is to keep relative risk below 2 and as close to 1 as possible.

The presentation showed 3,025 incidents involving 1,386 students in the 2024–25 school year, and, for quarter 1 this year, elementary schools recorded 76 short‑term suspension incidents involving 67 students. Tope said longer suspensions and superintendent hearings (six or more days) decreased from 59 incidents and 79 students in last year’s quarter 1 to 41 incidents and 53 students this year’s quarter 1.

"Black students are suspended at nearly twice the rate of their peers," Board member Jamaica said in opening remarks, urging the board to distinguish real progress from symbolic reforms and to hold the district accountable for implementation fidelity.

District staff described several interventions meant to reduce suspensions: diversion programs that offer three hours per day of academic and social‑emotional support with intake assessments and individualized treatment plans; a larger restorative practices team; expansion of therapeutic crisis‑intervention training; and MTSS (multi‑tiered system of supports) rollout with attendance and behavior protocols.

"We began using a diversion program model for students back in 2016," Tope said, and noted the district now provides diversion programs in each secondary building and has expanded clinician support so students can earn an early return or an "abeyance" from suspension when they make progress in treatment plans.

Angela Castizo, assistant director of student support services, said restorative positions increased this school year from 14 to 23, though seven openings remain. She described office efforts to log restorative interventions in Infinite Campus and to add exit surveys for diversion participants so the district can better capture whether an intervention prevented a suspension.

Christina Howard, director of student attendance and behavior intervention, described MTSS guidance and how building teams use screening and fidelity data to plan Tier‑1, Tier‑2 and Tier‑3 supports. She said the district is working to centralize templates and data protocols so principals can take action informed by consistent data.

Board members pressed for more granular information. Alexandria asked whether added staffing can be linked to fewer removals; Tope said isolating the effect of a single program is difficult because the district layers many interventions but said staff are developing ways to measure return on investment. Jamaica asked for comparisons of academic outcomes for students who received interventions versus those suspended; staff said that specific analysis had not been run for tonight but could be prepared. Vivian asked for clarification about whether charts show incidents or unique students; staff confirmed both metrics are shown and agreed to provide drill‑downs on repeat suspensions and building‑level disproportionality.

The board heard that the district tracks codes for behavior in Infinite Campus and is moving toward easier visualizations through EduCLIMBER to identify common locations and referral types by building. Tope said the district will continue to refine the code of character and has moved some subjective codes to lower levels to reduce disproportionality.

The presentation prompted the board to schedule a future meeting to discuss the purpose, scope and potential cost of an audit of suspension practices; two board members previously requested an audit and staff said the data tonight will inform whether an audit is the right next step.

The board did not take a formal policy vote on any discipline item at the meeting; presenters were asked to produce further analysis — including building‑level relative‑risk runs, intervention‑before‑suspension timelines and restorative practice outcome tracking — for a follow‑up session.

What happens next: staff agreed to produce the requested drill‑downs and the board will decide at a future meeting whether to request an external audit of suspension practices.