North Kingstown DEI committee urges clearer rights, tiered framework and stronger restorative practices in student discipline policy

The North Kingstown DEI Advisory Committee on March 18 reviewed proposed revisions to the district’s student conduct policy and urged language that centers equity and restorative practice while limiting out‑of‑school suspensions to narrow safety exceptions. Jen (staff member) opened the discussion with an update on personnel and the policy process and asked the committee to focus on what the DEI perspective should add to the draft JICD policy.

Committee members said the policy should start with concise, bulleted "rights and responsibilities" for students, parents and staff — modeled after Chicago’s approach — and explicitly name bias and discrimination as problems the district must address. Aaron Earl, school committee chair, and Shali Finglestein, North Kingstown High School principal, joined student members in recommending a tiered behavioral framework, regular equity‑focused data collection, and staff training so building practices align with district policy.

Members noted the discipline advisory committee produced recommendations in February 2025 but that implementation at the student‑impact level has been limited. The group highlighted three concrete proposal areas: (1) include a short, visible rights section so students know options and next steps; (2) add an explicit appeals or conflict‑resolution reference in the policy (not buried only under suspension sections); and (3) structure the policy into clear chapters or sections (purpose/philosophy, definitions, disciplinary actions, suspension, appeals) so administrators, teachers and families can find procedures without wading through multiple documents.

Students at the meeting said they often would not assert rights in the classroom and asked for an accessible appeals route and clearer handbook cross‑references. Will Moss, senior at North Kingstown High School, said students typically do not think about their rights during discipline and recommended simple, bulleted language in handbooks so peers know how to report perceived bias or favoritism without escalating conflict.

Administrators explained operational limits: restorative programming requires staff time and scheduling, and the current in‑depth interventions are constrained by the single counselor’s available hours. The committee learned that much of the high‑school suspension data comes from substance‑use incidents and includes repeat offenders, which members said suggests current responses are not reducing recurrence and may have equity implications.

On suspension policy, members agreed suspension should remain a last resort and proposed identifying narrow non‑negotiable safety exceptions in any move to restrict out‑of‑school suspension. The group discussed adding matrix language that designates certain infractions as requiring out‑of‑school action while offering restorative alternatives and in‑school options for others. They also recommended adding annual review language so the district can track whether policy changes reduce disparities in discipline outcomes.

Next steps: the committee decided to compile the points raised across the two most recent meetings into a concise list of recommendations for Rob (and potentially Mr. Minady) to consider when drafting the next policy version; members noted the policy was last substantively updated in 2012 and emphasized the need for clearer definitions, training expectations and data monitoring. The meeting concluded after a motion to adjourn was made and seconded.

The committee did not take a formal vote on policy language during this session; members asked staff to forward a redraft that incorporates the DEI feedback for review at a future meeting.