More than two decades of research have confirmed that out-of-school suspensions do not improve student behavior and, in fact, often exacerbate it. Students who are suspended lose valuable instructional time, and are more likely to fall behind in school, drop out, and enter the juvenile delinquency system at great cost to students and taxpayers.
LAUSD began the work developing an enlightened discipline policy in 2007 and has been a national leader in the effort. Good policy often hits a speed-bump in the implementation – and the operationalizing of LAUSD’s Discipline Foundation Policy has had it’s moments in a rush to deadline. In this case we may be ignoring the speed-bumps in our haste.
The most effective alternative to suspension is prevention.
Superintendent Deasy and Boardmember Garcia’s urgency in banning suspension for Willful Defiance - and calls for a School Climate Bill of Rights - are commendable – but policy bulletins and board resolutions are not magic bullets – nothing substitutes for the hard, thoughtful, continuing work of implementation, prevention, intervention, authentic community engagement and education. The fact that the movers and shakers in the original effort are not involved in the implementation is disturbing.
Willful Defiance is part of the job description of the early adolescent – a kid not testing the limits is a social aberration. Just like Discipline is neither the principal with a paddle nor a dominatrix in leather; Positive Discipline Policy is not a product and Restorative Justice is not a brand.
background
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Discipline Foundation Policy: School-wide Positive Behavior Support
from FixSchoolDiscipline.org | http://bit.ly/1aYPUkP
In March 2007, LAUSD released a Discipline Foundation Policy based on School-Wide Positive Behavior Support. This policy is grounded in the belief that every student, pre-school through adult, has the right to be educated in a safe, respectful and welcoming environment and every educator has the right to teach in an atmosphere free from disruption and obstacles that impede learning.
This policy mandated the development of a school-wide positive behavior support and discipline plan including positively stated rules, which are taught, enforced, advocated and modeled at every campus in LAUSD. It further mandated staff and parent training in the teaching and the reinforcing of the skills necessary for implementation of this policy.
Notable features include
- Responsibilities outlined for every student, parent/caregiver, teacher, school administrator, school support personnel, school staff, local district staff, central office staff, visitor and community members
- Oversight of ongoing and systematic review and evaluation of school practices at the Central Office and
- Mandatory professional development in the area of school-wide positive behavior support that is broad-based and inclusive of all staff involved in supporting schools and students.
APPROVED MEMO-School Climate Policy
A Response to the School Climate Policy Memo
To: LAUSD Discipline Task Force
From: Members of the Brothers & Sons Coalition and the Dignity in Schools Campaign
Re: Public Comment on the School Climate Bill of Rights Implementation Plan & Discipline Matrix
Date: November 21, 2013
The Brothers & Sons Coalition is made up of community organizations working to improve the lives of young men of color in L.A. Brothers & Sons partnered with Board Member Monica Garcia to bring forth the School Climate Bill of Rights Resolution to the LAUSD Board in the Spring of 2013. The L.A. Chapter of the Dignity in Schools Campaign is made up of community organizations working to end school push out and to promote positive alternatives to punitive and exclusionary school discipline.
As active members of the Discipline Task Force and community partners we submit these public comments on the District’s current Implementation Plan and Discipline Matrix, required under the School Climate Bill of Rights Resolution. We have developed and recommend a set of guiding principles shared below that we believe must be incorporated into the Matrix. We have also attached sample language that would address the points raised below that would ensure that the Matrix is wholly consistent with the Resolution. We urge the Task Force not to finalize the Discipline Matrix until the below concerns are addressed.
The Matrix is one important LAUSD tool to support the growing momentum throughout the nation, urging school districts, in partnership with community and policy stakeholders, to develop balanced, reasonable and fair approaches to school discipline that stop school ‘push out’ practices and the school-to-prison-pipeline.[1] To accomplish such goals and to be effective, a Discipline Matrix should be based on a holistic assessment of the disciplinary needs of schools in relationship to the best interests of students, families, school staff and the overall school climate. The Matrix should not simply assign alternatives to suspension, but help create a cultural shift at school sites.
The Brothers & Sons Coalition and the Dignity in Schools Campaign therefore recommend the following ‘Key Elements’ to be included in the Discipline Matrix:
1) Clear guidance explicitly linking the alternative disciplinary response to student behavior as a requirement prior to suspensions, expulsions, police citations or arrests[2];
2) Tiered interventions that require a graduated disciplinary response;
a. The range of tier I interventions must be used and documented before moving to Tier II or Tier III interventions.
3) Clear guidance preventing a law enforcement response to all student behavior that falls within the Discipline Matrix requirements for use of an alternative disciplinary response;
4) Documentation requirements on the use of alternative disciplinary responses;
5) Opportunities for partnership and participation of parents and caregivers in alternative disciplinary responses, early and frequently.
a. Interventions must incorporate families as assets to addressing underlying root causes of student behavior. Schools and their surrounding community shall act as a resource to the greatest extent practicable.
b. Not exclusively, but including sharing disaggregated discipline, citation and arrest data with parents and community members at every school’s SWPBIS team meetings in order to collaboratively analyze and produce recommendations regarding emerging issues illuminated by that data.
6) Clarification on all adult roles and guidance on the involvement of multiple adults on campus;
a. Behavioral incidents are often about breakdowns in relationships between students and amongst students and school staff. School-based interventions should involve all relevant parties and should seek to repair or ‘restore’ relationships.
7) Explicit commitment to refrain from the use of suspensions, expulsions, police citations or arrests overall except as an absolute last resort; and
8) Explicit commitment to eliminate the use of out-of-school suspensions or expulsions under the category of ‘willful defiance.’
Deputy Superintendent Michelle King’s Board Informative 11/18/13: Response to Board Resolution – School Discipline Policy and School Climate Bill of Rights
Our organizations appreciate the thoroughness of the Board Informative and the work that went into creating the plan. We urge the District to ensure that funding is attached for training and resources that support the cultural shift embodied in the Resolution, including but not limited to, prioritizing LCFF funds towards improving full implementation of SWPBIS and restorative justice. We do however have strong concerns about certain elements of the Implementation Plan:
· Role of School Police: (1) The School Climate Bill of Rights requires that “the District shall review and evaluate all current school police policies, practices and training relating to the equitable treatment of students” and we strongly believe that such review should happen in collaboration with community partners. (2) The Resolution calls for ‘clear guidance on the roles and responsibilities of campus police officers’ in order ‘to properly distinguish administrative responses to student conduct…from criminal responses.’ We believe this comprehensive response to define and limit the role of police on campus should be led by the District and is not satisfied by the LASPD initiatives included in the Implementation Plan. (3) The school police data should be publicly available and not require a formal request through the Office of the General Counsel.
- Independent Auditor: The Independent Auditor should be selected with community input.
- SWPBIS Complaints: There must be a clear process for response to complaints by the ESC.
- The School Climate Bill of Rights to be posted in schools must contain all of the rights. Currently omitted:
- Right to file a complaint if SWPBIS is not implemented
- Notification of right to appeal suspension when suspension issued.
- Clear language on the Role of School Police: The majority of student conduct shall be handled administratively utilizing school-based interventions that are intended to maximize student engagement in the classroom and school setting. The District is committed to a non-criminal enforcement model that supports strategic problem-solving models rather than citation and arrest-driven enforcement.
Submitted by: ACLU – Southern California * Community Asset Development Redefining Education * * Children’s Defense Fund * Community Coalition * Community Rights Campaign * Gay Straight Alliance Network * Inner City Struggle * Public Counsel * Youth Justice Coalition
[1] See for example the New York City School-Justice Partnership Task Force Report and Recommendations (2103) Recommendations A – C, pg. vii-viii (‘Adopt a graduated response protocol; Build improved capacity across schools with supports to implement positive discipline strategies and reduce reliance on suspensions, summonses and arrests; and Focus the role of school safety agents on behavior requiring law enforcement response).
[2] Such guidance should apply to all instances in which there is administrative and/or law enforcement discretion on the type of response instituted.
DISCIPLINE MATRIX PROPOSED REVISIONS
The Discipline Foundation Policy: School-Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) is a research-based, highly effective approach to creating, teaching, and reinforcing students’ social, emotional, and academic learning skills that improve and sustain academic achievement as well as the mental and emotional wellbeing of all students. In order to support students in engaging in positive behavior, all schools are responsible to adopt, implement, and maintain Tier I supports in alignment with the District’s Foundation Policy: School-Wide Positive Behavior Support and the LAUSD Board Resolution: Discipline Policy and School Climate Bill of Rights.
The most effective alternative to suspension is prevention. Tier I supports involve first and foremost building a sense of community and connection on the school campus, enabling all stakeholders (students, staff, parents/caregivers, community members) to participate in the process of developing relational norms and expectations. Positive behavior is a product of the explicit teaching and reinforcement of these norms. Even with preventive measures in place, breaches of behavior norms will occur. Tier II and Tier III ‘restorative’ practices are implemented to return individuals and the community to wholeness. Successful disciplinary practices should ensure that students have the opportunity to continue to be engaged in their school community and to reflect and learn from their mistakes.
The Discipline Matrix defines graduated responses and ‘other means of correction’ that school staff shall implement as supportive interventions and alternatives to suspension, for the majority of incidents falling within Ed Code 48900 et seq. The majority of student conduct shall be handled through the outlined tiered interventions that are intended to maximize student engagement in the classroom and school setting and to avoid punitive and exclusionary discipline measures. None of the incidents listed require notification to law enforcement under the Education Code.
When the physical safety of students is at risk, additional supports must be considered. This list is intended to provide guidance to select appropriate interventions and to avoid an over-reliance on disciplinary measures and law enforcement practices at school that are punitive and exclusionary (suspensions, expulsions, and police tickets and/or arrests). It is not inclusive of all possible alternatives to punitive discipline.
The following list of Tier II and Tier III interventions are aligned with the District’s Discipline Foundation Policy: School-Wide Positive Behavior Support and the School Discipline Policy and School Climate Bill of Rights, and MUST be utilized and documented before the issuance of suspension, in line with Cal. Ed. Code §48900.5 (unless suspension is required under state law).
In all cases, prior to assigning a Tier II or Tier III intervention staff shall conduct an informal assessment as a restorative practice that includes the following steps:
Step 1: Student tells his/her their side of story
Step 2: Designated school staff (teacher, counselor or administrator) counsels with student to determine whether the incident is related to an underlying need or school-based circumstance (include parent/guardian participation where possible)
Step 3: One or more of the listed interventions are assigned with student participation (include parent/guardian participation in assignment of intervention (s))
Step 4: Implementation and follow-up of interventions are documented
Level A: Defiance/Disruption
The majority of these incidents shall be handled through implementation of the Discipline Foundation Policy and Tier I interventions and restorative justice on an ongoing basis.
| Level A | Types of Incidents | First Incident
| Second Incident | Third Incident | Fourth Incident |
| Ed Code 48900 section (k) ‘willful defiance’ | Disrupting school activities, Not following dress code, Poor team work or incomplete work, Non-compliance with school rules, i.e., talking out of turn, missing class, swearing, conflict | Assess student settings for Tier I interventions | Tier I Or Tier II interventions | Tier II interventions Or Tier III interventions | Tier II Or Tier III interventions These are not incidents that should result in suspension. |
Level B: School Climate Factors
Interpersonal dynamics and conflict between students or amongst students and staff can have a lasting impact on school climate and students’ educational achievement. The primary goal in responding to each Level B incident is therefore to repair any harm caused, to build trust through a restorative approach and to identify any underlying needs of the student. To the greatest extent possible, schools shall conduct a restorative justice harm circle in response to Level B incidents.
| Level B | Types of Incidents | First Incident | Second Incident | Third Incident | Fourth Incident |
| Ed Code 48900 sections (a) (e) (f) (g) (i) (l) (o) (q) (r) (m) Ed Code 48900.3 Ed Code 48900.4 Ed Code 48900.7 | Causing or attempting to cause physical injury to student or staff, Using force, Threatening to cause injury to student or staff, Hazing, Intimidation, Bullying or Harrassment, Habitual Profanity/Obscenity, Theft, Property Damage, Imitation Firearm | Assess student environment for Tier I interventions. | Tier II or Tier III intervention Ensure meaningful parent/caregiver participation. | Tier II or Tier III intervention Ensure meaningful parent/caregiver participation. | Tier III intervention Ensure meaningful parent/caregiver participation. Utilize suspension as a last resort. Document implementation of interventions prior to a suspension. |
Level C: Substance Possession/Use
The purpose of District policy regarding student misconduct involving controlled substances, alcohol, tobacco, and intoxicants is to maintain safe and drug-, alcohol-, tobacco-, and intoxicant-free schools, as well as to provide programs and services that reduce and curtail student use of these substances. For each incident of use, many factors need to be considered to determine the appropriate action. In accordance with state and federal law, whenever possible, positive, non-punitive interventions that are designed to help the student shall be used. In other words, the initial administrative responses to drug offenses shall be to address the psycho-educational needs of the student unless other action is mandated by law. (See BUL 3277.1)
| Level C | Types of Incidents | First Incident | Second Incident | Third Incident | Fourth Incident |
| Ed Code 48900 sections (c) (d) (h) (j) (p) | Possession or use of tobacco, alcohol, marijuana or other controlled substances, Possession of drug paraphernalia, Selling Soma | Informal assessment and prevention counseling (See BUL 3277.1) | Tier II interventions Ensure meaningful parent/caregiver participation and support. | Tier II or Tier III interventions Ensure meaningful parent/caregiver participation and provide outside resources. | Tier III interventions Ensure meaningful parent/caregiver participation and provide outside resources. Utilize suspension as a last resort. Document implementation of interventions prior to a suspension. |
No comments:
Post a Comment