Dear GCPS Community,

We see you, we hear you, and we are responding. I want to thank the many staff and family who have been sharing their input about the implementation of our most recent discipline policy approved by the board in August. I am writing today to clarify and communicate adjustments to our implementation of Policy JCDI based on your feedback and suggestions. While this is only one topic of concern raised during recent meetings, because safety and security are always our top priorities, we want to ensure school and classroom leaders have the necessary tools to keep our buildings safe.

This communication is a high-level clarification of behavior response levels defined by Policy JCDI based on your feedback and suggestions. Additional supporting documents are forthcoming. We will continue to clarify and communicate with you about discipline responses to student behavior.

Assigning Disciplinary Consequences

As GCPS principals, you are entrusted and empowered to make the discipline decisions that you believe are in the best interest of our students and our school communities. This includes assigning exclusionary consequences and/or pursuing a disciplinary tribunal in collaboration with your CST and the discipline office for students engaging in any illegal, dangerous, or substantially disruptive behavior. While any major infraction (resulting in a consequence in Levels III through V) could result in a disciplinary tribunal depending on the circumstances of the situation, all infractions at a Level V response should be brought forward to a disciplinary tribunal.

Interventions

There needs to be some clarity around expectations for how and when disciplinary interventions should be implemented in response to student behaviors.  As such, we will now refer to interventions in two distinct categories: 1) proactive interventions and 2) reentry interventions.

1. Proactive interventions are intended to curb and/or prevent the continued escalation of behaviors. Proactive interventions may also include collaboration between staff of a student’s previous and current learning environment. For example, a student who is known by staff from previous experiences/incidents/locations to demonstrate certain behaviors (i.e., physical aggression) can support the student’s current learning environment by sharing information with staff who are providing proactive interventions (i.e., regular meetings with a counselor/mentor, self-regulation strategies). This collaborative leadership may curb or prevent future occurrences before receiving exclusionary consequences. The frequency, types, and appropriateness of the proactive interventions needed for each student are up to the discretion and professional expertise of the principal and their staff.  However, all proactive interventions should align with Policy JCDI and schools are encouraged to collaborate with and seek guidance from district-level support personnel.
2. Reentry interventions, conversely, are intended to provide support and remediation for students as they reenter the instructional environment after being removed for any short or long-term consequence (i.e., temporary removal from class, ISS, OSS).  For example, a student who receives an out-of-school suspension for engaging in a confrontation with another student should be provided reentry interventions (i.e., mediation/restorative practices, conflict resolution training) to curb or prevent future occurrences to the extent possible.

Please note that while schools should always attempt to include both proactive and reentry interventions, there are instances when it may be impossible to provide proactive interventions for a student. For example, schools are not required to have provided proactive interventions before pursuing a disciplinary tribunal for a student who commits an egregious infraction, such as bringing a gun to school. In instances where exclusionary discipline is warranted, but proactive measures were either unable to be provided, were unsuccessful, or were inappropriate given the nature of the incident, reentry interventions would still be expected, as applicable.

Classroom-Managed vs. Office-Managed Behaviors

I recognize and have heard from Principals and from our Teacher Advisory Council that we need to clearly delineate between behaviors that the classroom teacher should manage as part of their classroom management plan and behaviors that should be escalated to the administrative level.

• Classroom-managed behaviors are generally considered less severe (Levels I & II) and should fall under a teacher’s classroom management plan. Teachers are asked to use progressive discipline (applying discipline consequences in the classroom in proportion to the severity of the behavior leading to the discipline) to manage Level I & II behaviors before issuing an Office Discipline Referral (ODR).
  
  Level I & II behaviors and subsequent consequences/interventions are logged and documented in our Synergy student information system but are not captured on an ODR. Please continue to work with and support your teachers in developing their classroom management plans.
   
• Office-managed behaviors are those behaviors resulting in Level III, IV & V consequences. As defined in Policy JCDI, Major Infractions or severe and/or potentially dangerous behaviors should be immediately referred to the administration. Level I & II infractions continuously repeated by a student despite the proactive interventions implemented at the classroom level should also be referred to the administration.
  
  While progressive discipline measures and/or proactive interventions may be implemented to address behaviors requiring consequences at these levels, depending on the severity of the behavior or situation, reentry interventions will likely be more appropriate.
  
  As you know from our Administrator’s Discipline Guidelines Handbook, the same discipline infraction may include a range of consequences across multiple levels. For example, fighting may result in a Level III, IV, or V response depending on the specific circumstances of a particular situation (i.e., the severity of the altercation and the history of the participants). Also, you will notice in the Handbook that all major infractions may result in a tribunal depending on the circumstances as well, and all infractions at a Level V response should go through the tribunal process.

Because discipline history is a factor in considering exclusionary discipline consequences for major infractions (Levels III, IV, & V), it is important that minor infractions that could and should be remediated at the classroom level do not unfairly impact a student’s discipline history. However, in reviewing the Student Code of Conduct and your feedback, some infractions will need to be realigned for clarity and consistency. One example is AWOL.  As it currently stands, AWOL is a Level I or Level II infraction which means it should be a classroom-managed behavior, but this infraction is more appropriately addressed at the administrative level. In most cases, schools should refrain from issuing exclusionary consequences for AWOLs, but classroom teachers are limited in their scope of authority to provide appropriate proactive and/or reentry interventions to these students. We will also be reviewing, adjusting, and providing clarification for other infractions that are not clearly aligned as either classroom-managed or administrative-managed; this includes updating the handbook information for students and families.

I know there are additional items of concern for you right now. I am working diligently with district leaders to develop action plans for all our initiatives and to identify our next steps. We will be soliciting your input and feedback as those are constructed.

Thank you for everything that you do, have done, and all you will continue to do to support our students, families, and staff.  

In partnership and service,

Dr. Calvin J. Watts

Superintendent