Schenectady board weighs suspension data as officials press for deeper, building‑level answers

Assistant Superintendent Andrea Tope presented the Schenectady City School District’s latest suspension data to the Board of Education on Dec. 3, highlighting long‑term trends, quarter‑one figures and programs intended to reduce exclusionary discipline.

Tope said the district’s overall suspension rate at the end of the first quarter stood at 16.2%. She reported that, for the 2024–25 school year, staff logged roughly 3,025 suspension incidents involving 1,386 students and that the district uses a relative‑risk ratio to measure disproportionality. “A relative risk ratio of 1 means a recorded group faces no disproportionality,” she said, and the district has set goals to keep relative risk below 2.

Why it matters: board member Jamaica opened the night’s discussion by reminding colleagues that community members have raised concerns that Black students and students with disabilities are suspended at higher rates. “The district’s own numbers consistently show, which is Black students are suspended at nearly twice the rate of their peers,” Jamaica said. That pattern, she added, reflects national research showing compounded risk for students who are both racially marginalized and disabled.

What the district described: presenters traced steps the district has taken to reduce exclusions and support students. Tope and Assistant Director Angela Castizo described diversion programs for students serving six or more days; diversion clinicians provide multi‑hour daily programming with academic and social‑emotional support and use an intake screening instrument. Tope said 222 incidents involving 236 students went to superintendent hearings in 2024–25 and reported a recidivism rate of 17.37% among students who had hearings. Castizo said restorative practice (RP) staff grew from 14 full‑time RP specialists last school year to 23 positions this year, though seven openings remain.

Presenters also outlined other supports: more paraprofessionals, board‑certified behavior analysts, an expanded Trauma‑Sensitive Schools Institute, a CASEL‑aligned social‑emotional curriculum, and plans to maintain and expand Therapeutic Crisis Intervention (TCI) training for staff and families.

Board questions and follow-up: board members used a structured Q&A format to press for more granular evidence. Questions centered on whether added staffing produced measurable results, whether the district can produce building‑level disproportionality and the most frequently used behavior codes, and how many students received restorative interventions prior to suspension. Tope and other presenters said some of those cross‑tabulations exist but would require additional data pulls and fidelity checks; they also noted efforts to track when an RP intervention prevents a suspension.

Next steps: the board discussed scheduling an independent audit of suspension practices. As the presiding officer summarized, the presentation’s data will inform the board’s decision about whether to place an audit on a future agenda, at which point the board will consider scope and cost. Presenters committed to follow‑up reporting on building‑level disproportionality, intervention timing, and clearer measures tying restorative work to changes in suspension outcomes.

The board moved next to public comment and then to executive session to discuss personnel matters.