Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discipline Due Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee examines new suspension, expulsion and readmission language, sparking concerns about rehabilitation and equity
Summary
HR director reviewed updates to suspension and expulsion procedures including adherence to grievance processes for discrimination complaints, mandated rehabilitation plans with periodic reviews and readmission assessments, and a duty for the board to assist students in locating services; members warned the language could stigmatize students and questioned contradictions around denying readmission.
The HR director summarized Regulation 5.1.4.4.1 on suspension, expulsion and due process, noting the district last updated its language in April 2025 and the CSBA-recommended language adds specific procedural safeguards and rehabilitation planning.
The HR director said the updated language requires that "No student may be disciplined prior to finding being made pursuant to the grievance process established by 34 CFR 106.45," referencing federal grievance requirements for discrimination and harassment complaints. The regulation also calls for a tailored rehabilitation plan developed in consultation with district staff and community resources, periodic review of that plan, and a preliminary assessment for readmission at least 45 days before the end of an expulsion term.
Board members expressed serious concerns. Sam Black warned the nondiscipline removal and rehabilitation provisions could be used to push students out and that charging parents for services the board deems necessary could create inequities. Black said the package "creates a world of contention" and called for clearer language and stronger preventative supports such as counseling and mental-health services.
Members also highlighted contradictory readmission language: while the plan "shall not be a basis to deny readmission" if not completed because of transportation or financial barriers, other sections allow denial when a student has not substantially satisfied rehabilitation conditions despite having access to viable opportunities; HR director acknowledged the apparent contradiction and said staff would review the drafting.
No formal votes or expulsions were taken; the committee requested clarifying edits and additional implementation detail.
