Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ferndale board hears extensive revisions to student code of conduct, sets rapid rollout
Summary
Board reviewed a detailed rewrite of the student code of conduct emphasizing tiered interventions, restorative practices, clarified search-and-seizure language, and differentiated responses by grade; administration said the document will be posted and staff training begins immediately.
The Ferndale Public Schools Board of Education reviewed a comprehensive revision to the district's student code of conduct at its Aug. 19 meeting, with administration describing new language intended to align discipline procedures with the superintendent’s five pillars of excellence.
Presenters described several substantive changes: expanded and clearer attendance expectations; specific search-and-seizure language distinguishing individualized searches from locker/desk searches of district property; a tiered intervention framework (tier 1 classroom strategies, tier 2 targeted supports, tier 3 administrative interventions) and a four-level consequence matrix tied to progressive responses. The revised code includes explicit restorative-practices supports and assigns personnel responsibilities (MTSS team, RP coach, counselors and social workers) for implementation.
Administrators noted specific classifications and examples introduced in the revision, such as A11 (teasing/disrespectful or unkind behavior), B24 (other prohibited conduct) and other level designations for offenses and responses. Board members pressed for clarity on implementation details: how infractions will be tracked, limits on suspensions for K–2 students, parent notifications and whether discipline logs should carry forward when students transfer schools.
On implementation, the board heard that the document will be shared with staff the following day in a district professional development session and that building-level PD will follow to ground the code in daily practice. Administration said it will work to incorporate violation categories into the district’s data system (MyStar/Panorama) and to define which incidents are kept at school vs. entered into central records. Board members suggested policy options to limit lifetime tracking of minor incidents and to grant students clean slates across school transitions when appropriate.
Administrators emphasized the district's intent to prioritize interventions and supports over exclusions: the code aims to reduce suspensions for lower grades, provide restorative agreements on return from disciplinary actions and ensure transparent communication with parents. The board did not vote on the code that evening because it is administrative guidance rather than a board policy; administration said drafts would be distributed for review.
Board members thanked staff for stakeholder engagement on the long document and for the implementation plan; several asked administration to return with specific tracking and rollout timelines.
