Austin ISD administrators presented the board's first monitoring report for Constraint Progress Measure 1.2, which targets the disproportionate use of exclusionary discipline (ISS/OSS/ALC) for students identified as economically disadvantaged.

Brandy Gratton, director of discipline standards and accountability, said the district's progress-monitoring discipline rate for economically disadvantaged students stood at 73% (data through Nov. 3), under the year's target of 78% and moving in the direction of the long-term goal of 67% by August 2029. Gratton explained the CPM focuses on discretionary offenses (skipping class, insubordination, fighting) that can be handled in multiple ways and do not include drug/alcohol or weapon crimes.

Presenters identified two primary barriers: a heavy reliance on suspension as a primary tool for discretionary offenses and inconsistent, non-real-time reporting that can hide informal removals (so-called "shadow discipline"). The discipline team outlined steps taken to address these problems, including in-person training on discipline law, monthly data tracking and automated weekly reports to executive directors, stronger use of MTSS, alternative responses such as restorative circles, and a planned summer discipline conference to train campus teams.

Trustees probed for more granular analysis and safeguards against unintended consequences. Trustee Hunter and others asked how the district will detect and correct shadow discipline—students marked present but removed from instruction—and suggested randomized parent follow-up to validate reporting. Trustees also asked whether the measure could create perverse incentives for teachers not to report infractions; administrators said they are emphasizing nonpunitive, supportive coaching and regular discipline-action plans at nine-week intervals so campuses identify repeat offenders and implement tailored supports.

After the discussion the board voted to accept the monitoring report (motion by Vice President Whitley Chiu; second by Secretary Gonzales). Trustees directed staff to refine how data are presented, provide additional campus-level and subgroup contextualization, and to discuss possible reporting adjustments in a governance or future meeting.

No policy change was adopted at the information session; the vote accepted the monitoring report as an acknowledgment of the board's deeper understanding of current district data and strategies.