Rochester board pauses Code of Conduct vote after committee proposes broad revisions

President Camille Simmons opened the March 10 Rochester Board of Education work session by thanking members of the Code of Conduct Committee and turning the floor to board clerk Charisma Travis to summarize the panel’s findings and the administration’s response.

Travis told the board the committee’s review found gaps in how the district collects and reports data: the school‑climate survey does not explain why respondents feel unsafe; suspension practices in some cases do not match the matrix of offenses; and dissemination of the code to students and families is inconsistent. The committee recommended clarifying prohibited language, revising disciplinary‑response parameters and the interventions chart, aligning the matrix codes with the district’s internal reporting system, and updating definitions for students with disabilities and virtual instruction guidance. Travis also noted administrative documents in the packet, including a track‑changes version, a clean copy, committee findings, and an overview memo.

Commissioners voiced multiple concerns in response. Commissioner Feynman asked whether the draft treats recess as a permissible behavioral consequence, arguing recess should not be routinely taken away; she also called for stronger wording than "be aware" in student rights so families know how to access programs, and pressed whether administrators may contact parents when Child Protective Services are involved. Commissioner Santiago and others said the recommended revisions appear not to be sufficiently research‑based and that committee members did not always receive the data they needed to evaluate options. Several commissioners emphasized that inconsistent practice — not only policy text — appears to drive uneven outcomes across schools.

Superintendent Rosser, joining online, agreed administration must do better on implementation. He said deputy Wright now reviews long‑term suspensions and that the district will incorporate recommendations from the mental‑health and school‑culture work into how the code is operationalized. Rosser also committed to providing boards with presentations on the relevant data used to shape interventions.

The board did not vote on the Code of Conduct. Instead, members asked colleagues to submit specific concerns and data requests to the board clerk so administration and the committee can respond. Travis reminded the board a public hearing on the Code of Conduct is scheduled for Tuesday, March 17 at 5:30 p.m.; anyone wishing to speak must email publichearing@rcsdk12.org or call 262‑8525 by noon the day of the hearing. The board agreed to revisit the item at the April 7 work session and, if forwarded, the ordinary policy review timeline would move the policy to the March 26 business meeting for first reading and toward a May vote.

What’s next: Commissioners will email the clerk with questions and data requests. The board expects a follow‑up discussion at the April 7 work session and a public hearing on March 17.