Advisory committee flags inconsistent discipline data and urges multi-year PBIS/restorative plan

Committee members spent extensive time on how discipline incidents are recorded and tracked, noting inconsistent practice across schools and two different systems (Branching Minds for building-level entries and Aspen for major incidents). Members described how inconsistent definitions (what counts as a major versus minor incident) make districtwide trend analysis difficult and limit the utility of discipline data for informing systemic reforms.

The group reviewed prior recommendations from a temporary advisory committee on district discipline, which included adopting PBIS districtwide, establishing common language and definitions, implementing tiered frameworks with restorative practices, and creating clear accountability. Training has occurred in pockets, but members said follow-up and consistent implementation are incomplete; they recommended a designated coordinator or point person to manage cross-building implementation and follow-up so previously developed plans do not stall when staff turnover occurs.

Members discussed a three-year strategic sequence for change—year one awareness/reflection, year two practice/implementation, year three systems/leadership—and recommended that the forthcoming discipline-policy revision be tied explicitly to that implementation plan. They suggested a mix of measurement approaches (incident tracking plus periodic student surveys) to monitor progress and urged the district to clarify who owns discipline implementation and data collection.

As next steps, members asked administration (including Rob and building principals) for a plan linking the revised policy to training, data definitions and a named implementation lead who can shepherd building-level follow-up and provide status updates to the advisory committee.