finalreport

Page | 1
Final Report:
Ad Hoc Committee on Student Rights and
Responsibilities
Steve Stuban, Chair
Craig Mehall, Vice-Chair
March 20, 2013
Office of the School Board
Fairfax County Public Schools

Page | 2
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON STUDENT RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
I. Background on Students Rights and Responsibilities
II. School Board Charge
III. Ad Hoc Committee Membership
IV. Ad Hoc Committee Process
V. Recommendations for Action
VI. Other Issues To Be Considered
VII. Executive Summary
Appendices:
Appendix A Discipline Procedures for Students with
Disabilities
Appendix B Guide to The Manifestation Determination Review
Appendix C Working Groups Membership
Appendix D Committee Voting Records
Appendix E Issues Matrix
Appendix F Summary of Community Dialogue Meetings
Appendix G Community E-Mails
Appendix H Committee Recommendations Not Forwarded to
The School Board
Appendix I Vote Matrix

Page | 3
The Ad Hoc Committee on Student Rights and Responsibilities would like to thank the
following individuals:
Megan Johnston Dr. Alma Abdul-Hadi Jadallah
James Meditz Julia Morelli
Bruce Engelbert Dr. MaryAnn Panarelli
Dr. Kathleen McQuillan Susan Barrett
Clarence Jones Recardo Sockwell
Lora Cornell Kathleen Thomas
Beverly Madeja Grace Winters
Ken Martin Robin Sheare
Diane Harazin Jill Zuber
Lidi Hruda Alice McDonald
Patti Parisi Tom Stanley
William “Geoff” Robbins Hailey Cornell
Sue Kirkbride Betty Hatt
Gatehouse Custodial Staff Annie Meier
A special Thank You to the FCPS staff for their extra effort.

Page | 4
I. BACKGROUND ON STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The legal rights and responsibilities of students in the public schools of Fairfax County and the rules of
conduct and disciplinary procedures applicable to students are explained in this booklet in accordance
with the current version of Fairfax County School Board Policy 2601, which provides: The Fairfax
County School Board recognizes that in our free and democratic society the law imposes
responsibilities upon public school students and guarantees to them constitutional and other legal
rights appropriate to their ages and levels of maturity. To help all students understand and appreciate
both their rights and their responsibilities, it is the policy of the Fairfax County School Board that the
Division Superintendent develop, subject to review by the School Board, and maintain written
regulations stating the legal rights and responsibilities of students in Fairfax County Public Schools
(FCPS) and the rules of conduct and disciplinary procedures applicable to students. This information
shall be provided to each student and teacher in the form of a Student Rights and Responsibilities
(SR&R) booklet.
The Fairfax County School Board is committed to ensuring respect for the civil rights of all members of
the school community, as guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Our policies and regulations are designed to recognize the essential dignity
of each student, teacher, and staff member and to create an atmosphere in which learning may
flourish.
No student in FCPS shall, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or
disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any education program or activity.
PURPOSE
To establish, for use by students and parents or guardians, a booklet describing the rights and
responsibilities of students as prescribed in the Code of Virginia and Fairfax County School Board
policy and regulations.
PROCEDURES AND DISTRIBUTION
The Department of Special Services shall develop, for the Division Superintendent’s review, a
booklet for teachers, students, and parents or guardians, stating the legal rights and responsibilities of
students in Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS). The booklet shall also define the rules of conduct
and disciplinary procedures applicable to students. This booklet shall be reviewed annually by the
Department of Special Services, and revisions shall be published as necessary. A supply of the
booklets shall be sent to each school for distribution to students in grades K through 12. General
distribution to students shall be completed prior to September 30 of each year. Each new student who
enters FCPS after the general distribution shall be given a copy at the time of registration. The current
version of Regulation 2610.P, Removal (Suspension, Expulsion, or Exclusion) of Students from School,
will be used only for due process. As required by Section 22.1–279.3 of the Code of Virginia, the
parents or guardians of each enrolled student shall be sent a copy of the rules of conduct within
one calendar month of the opening of school.

Page | 5
STUDENT AND FACULTY ORIENTATION
All principals are requested to review the Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) booklet
with their faculties prior to the opening of school and to pay special attention to any changes.
Principals shall develop procedures to ensure that each student has an opportunity to become familiar
with the booklet. This includes appropriate adaptations for students with special learning challenges.
Principals are encouraged to discuss, with the cluster assistant superintendents, their plans for
distributing booklets and for conducting student and faculty orientations.

Page | 6
II. SCHOOL BOARD CHARGE

Page | 7
III. STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Organization Name of Nominee
Fairfax Association of ES School Principals Mark Bibbee
MS Principals Association Terrence Yarborough
Fairfax County HS Principals Association Abe Jeffers
Fairfax Association of School Psychologists Cynthia Kirschenbaum
Fairfax Association of School Social Workers Quyen Duong
Elementary School Counselors Marlene Guroff
MS Directors of Student Services Association Brooke Samuelson
HS Directors of Student Services Association Jim Rixse
Fairfax Education Association Nancy Hammerer
Fairfax County Federation of Teachers Steve Greenburg
Association of Fairfax Professional Educators Theresa Poquis
Hearing Officer JD Anderson
Fairfax City School Board Penny Rood
Fairfax County Government Bob Bermingham
Student Advisory Council Jamie Yang
Student Advisory Council Suraj Telhan
Advisor and Facilitator Dr. Rich Moniuszko
Advisor and Facilitator Dr. Kim Dockery
School Board Member Name of Nominee Name of Nominee
Tammy Derenak Kaufax Craig Mehall-Vice Chairman Liz Dunn
Sandy Evans Renee Lucero Dr. Rita Giles
Pat Hynes Bettina Lawton Fabiana Ciammaichella
Ryan McElveen Ralph Cooper Matt Bell
Megan McLaughlin Robert Kane Karen Cogan
Ilryong Moon Steve Lee Quy Vo
Patty Reed Steve Stuban-Chairman Sheree Brown-Kaplan
Elizabeth Schultz Dr. Margaret Fisher Sydney Sawyer
Kathy Smith Tina Wallace Debbie Kilpatrick
Dan Storck Kristina Wilkerson Avis Catchings
Janie Strauss Judy Howard Dave Edelman
Ted Velkoff Jill Beres Caroline Hemenway

Page | 8
IV. AD HOC COMMITTEE PROCESS
The Committee Membership’s earliest discussions sought to gain clarity on the Fairfax County School
Board’s (FCSB) expectation from the Committee. As detailed in the minutes of the Committee’s
proceedings, some members believed its work was to be focused exclusively on the Student Rights
and Responsibilities (SR&R) document itself with an emphasis on simplifying its language and
reducing the size. Other members pointed to the School Board’s direction that the Committee was
expected to ensure the SR&R was consistent not only with School Board policies and Virginia laws, but
with the community’s values. In reviewing how the School Board itself accomplished its annual review
of the SR&R and studying the types of recommendations and amendments School Board members
had offered and considered, the Committee concluded that all aspects of Fairfax County Public
Schools’ (FCPS’) student disciplinary policies, procedures and processes were eligible for the
Committee’s consideration.
Similar to the technique employed by the FCSB in the Spring of 2011 when it began an annual review
of the SR&R, the Committee divided itself into six separate teams and devoted a session to
brainstorming issues and concerns related to student discipline in FCPS. At the end of the session, the
teams briefed their results to the entire Committee. Nearly 50 issues and concerns were thus initially
identified. These issues and concerns were then binned into five thematic groupings with the intent that
the Committee would assign itself to subordinate Working Groups based on the identified themes.
The five thematic groups so identified and established were:
The SR&R Document (Working Group #1)
Prevention, Intervention and Range of Responses of Students (Working Group #2)
Students with Disabilities (Working Group #3)
Parent Involvement and Parent Rights (Working Group #4)
The Discipline Process (Working Group #5)
Committee members were asked to self-select the Working Group to which they desired to be
assigned. Upon initial assignment, the Committee Chair and Vice-Chair reviewed Working Group
membership to ensure each had appropriate FCPS stakeholder representation. Adjustments were
suggested and agreed upon by specific affected Committee members that resulted in the finalized
Working Group membership (see Appendix C, Working Groups).
With establishment of the Working Groups, each was requested to validate the issues binned to it.
Working Groups were allowed the latitude to delete issues from their Group, add issues, recommend
coverage by other Working Groups, and identify additional issues they believed to be relevant to their
Groups theme. Review of the adjusted issue mapping revealed 47 discrete issues mapped to the
Working Groups. In some cases a single issue was mapped and accepted by more than one Working
Group. Although that was a concern in terms of duplicative effort, multiple assignments of an issue was
allowed and viewed as a means by which diverse proposals could be realized. The spreadsheet at
Appendix E documents the issues mapped to the five Working Groups.
The use of Working Groups was envisioned and intended to facilitate the Committee’s ability to review
the multitude of issues identified. With little more than four months available until a report was due to
the FCSB, it was unrealistic to expect that the Committee could work as a single body in thoroughly
assessing each of the issues. Each Working Group would therefore discuss the issues assigned to it
and develop appropriate recommendations responsive to those issues. Recommendations supported
by the majority of the Working Group’s membership would then be advanced to the entire Committee
for consideration. Recommendations that did not achieve majority support within the Working Group
first would not be allowed to advance for the Committee’s consideration.

Page | 9
Once the Working Groups were established, their membership finalized and issues assigned, the
majority of the Committee’s scheduled sessions were devoted to deliberations at the Working Group
level with periodic updates to the entire Committee. A “Recommendation” template was developed for
the Working Group’s use. The template would serve to format the information desired on any
recommendation, and was envisioned to be directly exportable to the Committee’s final report once the
voting record and minority opinion (if needed) were included. The template included sections for:
Recommendation narrative
Background and rationale for the recommendation
Pros and Cons pertinent to the recommendation
The recommendation’s expected impact on the disproportionality of minority student discipline
instances
Following several weeks of Working Group discussions, a series of Community Dialogue sessions
were scheduled for February as follows:
4 Feb, 7-9 PM, Hayfield Secondary School
5 Feb, 7-9 PM, Stuart High School
5 Feb, 7-9 PM, Westfield High School
7 Feb, 7-9 PM, McLean High School
23 Feb, 1-3 PM, Falls Church High School
The Working Groups had by that time developed several draft recommendations, but also recognized a
need for community and stakeholder input on issues still under consideration. The Community
Dialogue sessions were viewed as an opportunity to gain that invaluable feedback and socialize some
of the recommendations being finalized. Feedback from the Community Dialogues (see Appendix F)
was distributed to the Committee’s membership to allow them to validate that recommendations under
development were consistent with the values and viewpoints expressed by the community and FCPS
stakeholders.
The Committee’s last three sessions were reserved for presentations by the Working Groups of
recommendations they supported for the full Committee’s consideration; in practice, four Committee
sessions were required to consider all recommendations.
All recommendations advanced to the Committee for consideration are captured in this report.
Recommendations that were approved by a majority of the Committee are offered for the consideration
and approval of the FCSB. In instances where 20% (eight members) or more of the Committee
membership voted in the minority on any recommendation, that minority viewpoint was allowed an
opportunity to document a minority or dissenting opinion attached to the specific recommendation.
Doing so was viewed as having value for FCSB members in understanding all stakeholder viewpoints
on any given recommendation.

Page | 10
Fairfax County School Board
Ad Hoc Committee on Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R)
V. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations Proposed by Working Group 1
THE SR&R DOCUMENT
Recommendation 1.1: Language and Tone
Improve the language and tone of the document by re-naming it, including a preamble* which
includes the purpose and philosophy behind prevention and disciplinary practices with
positive, balanced language.
COMMITTEE VOTE: Yes – 35 No – 0 No Vote – 0
Background – Rationale for Recommendation
The Fairfax County School Board has until recently performed an annual review of the School
Division’s disciplinary policies with an eye toward updating the Student Rights and Responsibilities in
time to meet distribution at the start of the next school year. The subcommittee on revising the SR&R
document (Working Group #1) was charged with focusing on addressing the negative tone and
apparent emphasis on discipline in the current document, as well as encouraging the understanding by
parents and other populations of the partnerships and responsibilities of all stakeholders required to
make the policies successful. We were charged with making the content of the document one that
better educates all. Restrictive language was one item the subcommittee was to focus in on in this
area.
Pros
 Sets the tone for partnership and focuses on prevention and intervention.
 Clarifies the roles, rights and responsibilities of all stakeholders using positive language and
reinforcing the importance of all working together for the best interest of our students.
 **Preamble (Recommended sample within this recommendation):
Cons
 Revisions may need to be made to the current document, which will require staff time and money.
 Increased expectations for partnership require participation by all stakeholders (commitments of
time and focus).
Impact on Disproportionality
The positive and balanced approach that focuses on partnerships and shared expectations should
reduce concerns over issues of disproportionality, including students/families of color or special needs.

Page | 11
**Preamble (Recommended Sample):
Title (TBD) of Handbook
Every child is an individual. It is with this belief that Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS), in
partnership with parents, strives to inspire and empower students to meet high academic standards,
lead ethical lives, and be responsible and innovative global citizens.
The information in the (name to be determined, if not simply…) ‘Handbook’ will present what you can
expect from FCPS and what FCPS can expect from you. It is presented to several target audiences in
language and content most meaningful and appropriate for that group:
Students (K-3; 4-6; 7-8; 9-12)
Parents and Guardians
Educators
Administrators
Other FCPS Staff
Community Members and Leaders
Each version includes a brief overview with key points featured for each target audience. More in-depth
information, as well as videos and activities, are featured in the on-line version of the Handbook at
<<insert FCPS Handbook resource link>>. Full text versions of all FCPS policies and regulations, and
Commonwealth of Virginia codes and statutes are also available online.
Our Handbook is divided into the following sections:
Rights and Expectations
Responsibilities
Interventions and Procedures
Glossary: Terms and People <<involved in the process or listed in this Handbook>>
Resources
Code of Virginia
Finally, a signature of the student, parent or guardian, and the student’s school principal – is required
on the page located toward the back of the Handbook. The acknowledgement of these three people
means that we have formed a partnership to help ensure that we will do our best to keep our school
successful and safe.
<< Note: Follow this preamble with a Letter from the Superintendent, that should include sections
relating to Beliefs, Mission, Vision, Looking to the Future, Commitment to Opportunity, Community
Support, Achievement and Accountability.>>

Page | 12
Recommendation 1.2: Accessibility of SR&R Document
Improve the accessibility of the document by producing developmentally / age appropriate
formats and versions on multiple platforms for different audiences.
document (Working Group #1) was charged with focusing on addressing stakeholder accessibility
issues, broadening the inclusiveness of the document, ensuring student-friendly language and visuals
are utilized, and providing resources (including those relating to safety).
Pros
 This would address ‘age appropriateness’ of the document:
Previous Practice: Continue FCPS practice to have SR&R versions for K-4 and 5-12.
Documentation: 2003-04: K-3 and 4-12; 2004-05: K-3 and 4-12; 2006-07: K-3 and 4-12; 2007-
08: K-3, 4-12
 Many other school divisions have separate sections for students with disabilities in their codes of
conduct. This may help with disproportionality concerns.
Sources: Philadelphia, Boston, New Orleans districts, etc.
Cons
 Multiple platforms will require an assessment of both FCPS and student / parent infrastructure
needs.
 Addresses developmentally appropriate considerations or "adapted" versions --- Continue FCPS
practice to have a version appropriate for students with significant cognitive disabilities, primarily
Intellectual Disability and Autism.
 Addresses age appropriateness – Continue previous FCPS practice to have SR&R versions for K-4
and 5-12. Documentation: 2003-04: K-3 and 4-12; 2004-05: K-3 and 4-12; 2006-07: K-3 and 4-12;
2007-08: K-3, 4-12

Page | 13
Recommendation 1.3: Readability and Language
Improve the readability of the document by using simplified language, improved formatting and
graphics, data organizers, and relocating/revising the signature page and glossary. Where
appropriate, sentence length and the amount of text should be considered and reduced.
document (Working Group #1) was charged with focusing on addressing compatibility with the
organization of material presented in the Parents Handbook (to encourage better parent understanding
and education), and reducing the document’s length while improving its readability.
Pros
 Improvements in these areas will result in a better understanding of the documents content, and
the specifics of the disciplinary policies.
 Better understanding of the content (through improved readability) will assist in the education
component, as stakeholders can assist each other in the process, i.e., the parent who understands
the document can better explain it to his/her child.
- Suggestion: Do not use acronyms in the document (community states it causes confusion).
- Suggestion: Provide a brief Table of Contents (with page numbers) to designate where
information can be found in the Handbook.
- Suggestion: Provide a Glossary of Terms, as well as a section listing a ‘Who’s Who in the
process,” i.e., Principal – who he/she works for, job description, and what his/her role is in the
process.
- Suggestion: Integrate charts and graphs (such as the sample provided from Mt. Vernon HS on
Discipline Guidelines) in the handbook to communicate more efficiently for visual learners or
organizers vs. text formatting).
Cons
 FCPS stakeholders come from many educational and cultural backgrounds. Meeting the needs of
all will present challenge.
By addressing educational, formatting, and cultural considerations the document should be more user-
friendly and encourage better content understanding by all stakeholders, including those of color or
special need.

Page | 14
Recommendation 1.4: Balance of SR&R Document for All Target Audiences
Ensure the document is balanced to include content directed to all appropriate and necessary
stakeholders, as well as resources and remedies available for students/parents of students
engaged in inappropriate behavior, and students/parents of students who are adversely
impacted by the inappropriate behavior.
Division’s disciplinary policies with an eye towards updating the Student Rights and Responsibilities in
document (Working Group #1) was charged with focusing on addressing the safety and rights of all
students (with balance between discipline expectations and the rights of all students), emphasizing
victim’s rights and restorative justice.
Pros
 All students have a better understanding of their rights (including resources) and the discipline
process, and feel their perspective is as important as another student’s.
 Parents have expressed a desire to better understand the rights of both the adversely affected and
those who engaged; these sections should assist in educating them.
- Suggestion: Include a process and rights section specifically for those who engaged in the
inappropriate behavior, as well as those who were adversely affected.
Cons
 Increased awareness of ‘victims’ rights and restorative justice expectations may result in a need for
further review or revision of the document.
The balanced focus on the rights of both the adversely affected, and those who engaged in the
inappropriate behavior should provide safeguards and better education for all groups. Students with
disabilities and students of color may be targeted, so these sections should provide them with the
education and protection of their rights.

Page | 15
Recommendation 1.5: Ongoing Consultation and Collaboration
Provide for on-going consultation and collaboration between FCPS staff and at least one
member of each Working Group (#1-5) in regard to the creation and implementation of the
new SR&R document and procedures, as detailed and accepted from the collective
recommendations by the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Rights and Responsibilities to the
School Board and as accepted by the School Board.
document (Working Group #1) was charged with focusing on addressing the negative tone and
apparent emphasis on discipline in the current document, as well as encouraging the understanding by
parents and other populations of the partnerships and responsibilities of all stakeholders required to
make the policies successful. We were charged with making the content of the document one that
better educates all. Restrictive language was one item the subcommittee was to focus on in this area.
Our experiences (on the committee) in working on the document revisions and gathering community
input provide the working group members with unique insight into how we envision the revised
document.
Pros
 Continues the collaboration and tone for partnership between FCPS staff and the community.
 Ensures the intent and vision of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Rights and Responsibilities is
honored and accurately presented.
Cons
 Time and human resources will be needed to complete the project collaboratively.
 Increased expectations for partnership require participation and time from both working group
representatives and FCPS staff.
The partnership between FCPS staff and working group representatives should produce a document
that reflects the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Rights and Responsibilities vision for the document,
and reduce concerns over issues of disproportionality.

Page | 16
Recommendation 1.6: Administrators and Teachers Review Revised Handbook
Time (at the beginning of the school year) must be designated to teachers and administrators
to review the new user-friendly version of the SR&R ‘Handbook’ (title TBD) with parents and
students. This must be communicated as a ‘priority’ by the Fairfax County School Board, and
support must be provided at the program site level for principals and teachers to accomplish
these tasks.
document (Working Group #1) was charged with focusing on addressing parent and student education,
encouraging understanding by parents, and providing resources to support effective implementation of
the new document/program.
Pros
 By using the new ‘user-friendly’ version of the SR&R document, teachers and administrators can
better educate all stakeholders on the content and formatting of the new handbook.
 Clarifies the roles, rights and responsibilities of all stakeholders using outreach and collaboration,
reinforcing the importance of understanding the document and all working together for the best
interest of our students.
- Suggestions:
- Parent Orientation nights by principals
- SR&R (‘Handbook’) lessons in class educate students and reinforce rights and
responsibilities
Cons
 New (developmentally appropriate) versions of the SR&R will require staff time and money.
 Time will need to be provided to educators to hold orientations and teach classroom lessons.
By better educating students and parents proactively on the SR&R document, concerns over issues of
disproportionality can be addressed more constructively.

Page | 17
PREVENTION, INTERVENTION AND RANGE OF RESPONSES
Recommendation 2.1: School Administrator Discretion
The SR&R should state: “In determining appropriate disciplinary actions, the principal is
expected to, consistent with School Board regulations, consider relevant factors such as (i) the
student’s age; (ii) previous disciplinary infractions (including the nature of the prior misconduct,
the number of prior instances of misconduct, and the progressive disciplinary measures
implemented for such misconduct); (iii) cultural or linguistic factors that may have played a role
in the misconduct; (iv) information about the student provided by parents, teachers,
counselors, and/or other school staff; (v) the circumstances surrounding the misconduct; and,
(vi) other mitigating or aggravating factors. Nothing herein shall require or prohibit the use of
progressive disciplinary measures or establish the order in which disciplinary measures may
be imposed.” [“progressive disciplinary measures” should be defined in the Glossary]
This language expresses a move away from mandatory disciplinary consequences imposed without
regard to context and circumstances. It supports the use of discretion by administrators, implicitly
including the discretion to use positive behavioral interventions when appropriate, rather than
punishments. It supports collaboration between administrators and other school staff in deciding on a
response to misconduct. It acknowledges that School Board regulations may in specific instances limit
the principal’s discretion, such as when a violation carries a mandatory suspension and
recommendation for expulsion.
Pros
 Supports administrators in tailoring a disciplinary response that is appropriate to the student and
the circumstances and therefore more likely to be equitable and effective in changing the student’s
behavior.
Cons
 Consideration of context and use of discretion may lead to greater real or perceived inconsistency
in how students are disciplined.
This provision will support principals in developing targeted interventions most appropriate for specific
subgroups. Also, currently, some students whose parents are effective advocates, well-versed in
school system procedures, may be able to argue for the use of administrative discretion when the
student becomes involved in the disciplinary process, while other students, who lack effective
advocates on their behalf, may face unmitigated consequences. This provision makes it clear that
principals should consider relevant contextual factors when disciplining all students.

Page | 18
Recommendation 2.2: Range of Responses
We recommend that the Fairfax County School Board (FCSB) revise its policies, procedures,
and programs to establish a tiered range of responses to behaviors using methodologies that
produce reliable and valid evidence-based approaches to school discipline.
We further recommend that, to ensure these actions successfully accomplish their intent, the
FCSB establish a method for training staff, monitoring and measuring success, tracking
progress on reducing disproportionality and achievement gaps, and implementing corrective
actions and improvements.
We further recommend that the FCSB establish a work group consisting of stakeholders from
staff and the community and staff to develop appropriate language for a specific
recommended tiered structure (such as the number of tiers, the behaviors falling within each
tier, and the range of responses appropriate for each tier), consistent with best practices.
This recommendation expresses a move away from mandatory disciplinary consequences and
supports the goal that the vast majority of disciplinary issues should be addressed at the classroom
level by teachers, or within a student’s base school or school attended when the disciplinary event
occurred, and that in all instances, school discipline should be reasonable, timely, fair, age-appropriate
and should match the severity of the student’s misbehavior.
Several jurisdictions are successfully implementing this approach, including Anne Arundel County MD1,
Denver, and Philadelphia2, following a model promoted by The Advancement Project 3, which has
become a best practice across the nation.
Stakeholders are essential to successful implementation of such programs because when they are
involved in creating, implementing and monitoring them, trust is built between schools and the
community. Stakeholders on the task force should be well-acquainted with the FCPS discipline system
and national best practices, should represent school-based staff, parents, students and experts in
childhood education and discipline, and should reflect the diversity of the student body.
While FCPS provides for some disciplinary responses that are less punitive than suspension in the
SR&R, it does not require that any of these responses be issued first or instead of other more punitive
responses, and even within the list it provides, most are still punitive and exclusionary in nature.
This recommendation supports the use of discretion by administrators, implicitly including the discretion
to use positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) when appropriate rather than
punishments. It supports collaboration between administrators and other school staff in deciding on a
response to misconduct. It acknowledges that individual schools may need to emphasize different
interventions and responses while ensuring that the process itself is carried out consistently across all
schools.
It acknowledges that school board regulations may, in specific instances, limit the principal’s discretion,
such as when a violation carries a mandatory suspension or recommendation for expulsion.
The use of measures such as out-of-school suspensions, expulsions and referrals to alternative
schools that exclude students from school should be minimized. These measures have resulted in the
loss of valuable instructional time and student disengagement from school, and should be reserved for
1
http://www.aacps.org/html/studt/studenthandbook.pdf
2
http://www.philasd.org/offices/administration/policies/CodeofConduct.pdf
3
http://www.stopschoolstojails.org/content/model-discipline-policies

Page | 19
infractions that cannot be appropriately addressed through other interventions and disciplinary
responses.
FCPS data show that the majority of students who are deprived of educational services as a result of
disciplinary measures go off track from on-time graduation. Substantive research shows a direct
correlation between suspension rates and dropout rates in school systems nationwide, and that
dropouts are costly to the community at large. FCPS data demonstrate there is disproportionate use of
out-of-school suspensions, expulsions and referrals to alternative schools.
Pros
 Supports the goal of keeping students in the classroom or otherwise in school to minimize loss of
learning.
 Does not remove severe consequences that currently exist for various infractions, but supplements
them with a tiered range of options that can be implemented in a sliding scale.
 Staff from The Advancement Project have stated they are prepared to work with the FCSB to help
with developing and implementing this approach, a free resource of national stature.
 Promotes the educational component of “discipline” by providing means for teaching students
better behavior habits and enhancing personal responsibility (through restorative justice and other
methods).
 Allows FCPS to take advantage of all of its existing resources and county services, with support by
the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors as offered in its resolution of Feb 8, 2011.
 The district can seek input from and partnerships with social workers, drug and alcohol counselors,
mentors and other providers so that students learn appropriate behavior and so the root problems
underlying behavior are addressed.
 FCPS already uses PBIS which can be enhanced as part of a range of responses, such as parental
contact and involvement, rewards, peer mediation, conferencing, conflict resolution, service
learning, character education, and alcohol and drug intervention programs, which are relatively
easy and cost-effective to implement.
 School systems that have implemented a range of responses (with suspensions or expulsions as
measures of last resort) along with PBIS have found this approach supports the following
outcomes:
- School discipline is best accomplished by preventing misbehavior before it occurs, and using
effective interventions after it occurs.
- School safety and academic success are formed and strengthened when all school staff and
personnel build positive relationships with students and are actively engaged in their lives and
learning.
- School discipline that is paired with meaningful instruction and guidance offers students an
opportunity to learn from their mistakes and contribute to the school community, and is more
likely to result in getting the student re-engaged in learning.
 Effective school discipline through these means maximizes the amount of time students spend
learning and minimizes the amount of time students are removed from their classrooms due to
misbehavior.
 Research shows that school connectedness is the strongest protector against substance use,
school absenteeism, early sexual initiation, violence and risk of unintentional injuryi. It is also
critically important in protecting adolescents from emotional distress, eating disorders, and suicidal
ideation and attempts.ii
 This approach emphasizes restorative strategies, which are problem-solving interventions that
focus on the harm caused and how it will be repaired, and which should be a basis of disciplinary
practices in FCPS. Examples of restorative strategies include circles, group conferencing, and
victim offender mediation.

Page | 20
 Therapeutic and resources strategies are done by the offending student, and include such activities
as mental health counseling, anger management or other types of skill classes or training, informal
mentoring and coaching, and behavioral plans. This recommendation supports making more of
these strategies always available.
Cons
 Changing a school system’s culture takes time and resources.
 A range of responses could exacerbate disproportionality since principals will have the discretion to
provide a different consequence depending on the student’s circumstances.
 Making efforts to ensure each student has a trusted adult to talk to so students don’t get off track is
critical to connectedness, safety, well-being, behavior and success. It will take resources, training
and staff focus.
 The majority of discipline outcomes, including short- and long-term suspensions, are related to
subjective behaviors and are disproportionately leveled against minority students and students with
disabilities. Resolving more of these issues without resorting to suspensions and by requiring that a
larger range of responses be used before suspensions are considered would reduce this
disproportionality.
 A range of responses would introduce measures more suited to students with a range disabilities
than exists now.
1 Center For Disease Control and Prevention, available at http://www.cdc.gov/Features/ConnectToSchool/#one. (citing
Resnick MD, Bearman PS, Blum RW, et al. Protecting adolescents from harm. Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on
Adolescent Health. JAMA 1997;278(10):823–832).
1 Id.

Page | 21
Recommendation 2.3: School Discipline Plan
Each school shall establish and disseminate a School Disciplinary Plan (SDP) setting forth
guidelines that the principal and other school staff will use in addressing and imposing
consequences for student misconduct. The SDP may incorporate provisions of the SR&R and
may set forth a range of disciplinary responses more specific than, but not inconsistent with,
those set forth in the SR&R for various types of student misconduct. A school’s SDP should
operate in tandem with the school’s positive behavior intervention plan. The SDP should be
tailored to the needs of the school, and shall be developed and reviewed annually by the
principal in collaboration with other school staff, parents and students. The annual review of
the SDP shall include consideration of relevant data and the effectiveness of the SDP for
subgroups of the student population.
An SDP would provide a road map to school staff, students, and parents regarding how discipline is
handled at the school, and the types of consequences or interventions students can expect for various
types of misconduct. Its focus would likely be less severe violations that are addressed only very
generally in SR&R. For example, what sort of progressive consequences can students expect if they
are tardy to class, if they are disruptive in class or in the halls, etc.? Most schools have established
practices for such things, but they vary (and the terminology varies) somewhat from school to school.
An SDP would still permit administrators to impose discipline appropriate to the circumstances, within
the general guidelines set forth in the plan. A school’s positive behavior intervention plan, its School
Discipline Plan and the SR&R would collectively address the whole disciplinary continuum.
Pros
 Would support school-based management and disciplinary approaches tailored to the needs of the
school.
 Would increase transparency and likely increase parental involvement and buy-in.
 Would encourage use of data in reviewing effectiveness of disciplinary approaches.
 For some schools, would merely formalize something they are doing already.
Cons
 May increase real or perceived inconsistency in disciplinary responses between one school and
another
 Time and resources required for principals and other school staff to develop and annually review
the plan (including gathering and analyzing relevant data), and for central office administration to
supervise compliance as appropriate
The annual review of the SDP would cause attention to be paid to disproportionate numbers of
disciplinary infractions being committed by students in particular subgroups, or disproportionate
consequences being imposed on students in particular subgroups. This would support development of
interventions designed to keep all students in school, resulting in better academic outcomes.

Page | 22
Minority Opinion
The primary reason this recommendation could not be supported was because of the prescriptive
phrase ‘shall establish and disseminate.”
There are over two hundred schools in the FCPS system and no two schools are alike. While many
secondary schools, which tend to see greater numbers of discipline incidents, already have school
disciplinary plans, many if not most of our elementary schools do not have them. Elementary schools
currently use the SR&R document as the "school discipline plan.” The SR&R lists a variety of offenses
and a range of consequences for each offense. Principals refer to this document on a case-by-case
basis. Forcing a school to recreate a discipline plan when one already exists and is approved by the
School Board is a work in redundancy and takes time away from operating the school efficiently. For
some schools, creation of such a plan would be an additional burden at the building level to create
something that will not be used as it is not needed.
SR&R is the discipline document for the school division and all schools within it. The schools that
create SDPs are schools that find the same problems recurring from year to year and want to call
special attention to them. As changes recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee do not detail
inappropriate behaviors but only a range of consequences, stipulating to schools that they must detail
inappropriate behaviors along with the range of consequences is unwarranted.
Schools that need SDPs have them. Best practices are that they review them annually, and would
make changes already. This recommendation is not necessary, will create undue work for many
schools, especially in elementary schools, and therefore should not be adopted by the School Board.

Page | 23
Recommendation 2.4: Language and Philosophy
Topic Forwarded to Working Group 1

Page | 24
Recommendation 2.5: Positive Behavioral Approach
We support integrated PBA principles in all schools. There are a variety of models that exist,
including PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports) and Responsive Classroom.
The guiding principal is that “Zero-Tolerance” or punishment-based systems are not as
effective as a positive behavioral approach to discipline, according to a large body of research.
We recommend that the School Board fund a school-wide behavior intervention and supports
continuum in all schools by providing training, teaching aides, staffing and ongoing evaluation
of program effectiveness. In addition, PBA programs should be multileveled to address the
entire student population. They should address the majority of students with school-wide
positive behavioral expectations, positive reinforcement and parental involvement. For
students whose behaviors are not responsive to the first level there should be a more
intensive response. The final level for students whose behaviors are unresponsive to the
other levels of intervention should include an even more intensive individualized approach.
Schools should promote an atmosphere of positive expectations and interventions. There
needs to be a data system to gauge the effectiveness of each school’s PBA system. This data
should be available to school staff in real-time so they can make immediate adjustments to the
system. PBA systems that are not demonstrated to be effective should get the support to
make the modifications necessary for success, primarily being defined as a diminishing
number of discipline events and a decrease in disproportionality.
COMMITTEE VOTE: Yes – 28 No – 4 No Vote –1
Susan Barrett from the U.S. Department of Education presented on this issue to the full committee.
Based on her presentation we came to the conclusion that PBA programs are now well established as
more effective than previously used systems of discipline. During the presentation our own school staff
MaryAnn Panarelli and Kathleen McQuillan from FCPS Special Services presented to the committee
as well. They informed us that there are already PBA standards in place at FCPS. The committee’s
understanding is there is a combination of PBIS, Responsive Classroom and School-Specific PBA
plans already in place. However, without an evaluation process we have no idea whether we have
successful implementation.
School systems such as Anne Arundel County, MD, have data showing lower suspension and
expulsion rates using PBA.
Some committee members attended the conference Closing the Discipline Gap: Research to Practice
in Washington, D.C. A variety of data was presented on the effectiveness of PBA programs. There is
a large body of literature on the subject too exhaustive to quote every source in this proposal.
Some useful websites:
http://www.pbis.org/
http://www.responsiveclassroom.org

Page | 25
Pros
 Research and data support a PBA approach in terms of decreasing discipline problems and
increasing desired outcomes, i.e., high school graduation rates, decrease in suspensions and
expulsions.
 More positive school environment for students and staff
 A more effective discipline system will free staff time for other activities
 Lowers discipline referrals over time (longitudinally)
 Focuses on the individual needs of each student
Cons
 Resources will be involved, including funding and staff time
 It requires a change in culture and practice, difficult for some staff and communities
 With PBIS, the number of discipline incidents is decreased in all groups, including minorities.
However, the data collected to date for PBIS indicates it has not decreased disproportionality for
African American males. The disproportionately represented groups in FCPS in the discipline
system are males, students in grades 8 through 10, special education students, African Americans
and Latinos.
 Any approach that reduces suspensions would help reduce disproportionality. This support would
improve student engagement at school, which has a direct effect on positive behavior,
achievement, and graduation rates.

Page | 26
Recommendation 2.6: In-School Academic Support
We recommend that the Fairfax County School Board provide in-school academic support by
qualified staff to all students during disciplinary consequences that remove them from the
classroom and provide appropriate designated space to do so.
We further recommend that this support be given in a manner that keeps the student on track
for successfully completing his or her courses and on track for graduation, and that the School
Board establish a method for training staff, monitoring and measuring success, tracking
progress on reducing disproportionality and achievement gaps, and implementing corrective
actions and improvements.
This recommendation supports a range of responses to behavior issues when a situation calls for a
student being removed from the classroom. This academic support should be available for students
under a tiered range of responses approach, such as when a student is undergoing peer mediation,
the restorative justice process, detention (Saturday or otherwise), a school-based alcohol or drug
intervention program, or other situations where the student cannot attend class.
When students are out of class for any length of time, they lose academic ground and need meaningful
academic support. Such support can ensure a smoother transition back to the regular classroom
environment. This approach can tie in with support for students returning from suspension out of school
or transferring from another school.
disciplinary measures go off track from on-time graduation. Efforts to keep students on track
academically during suspension or other classroom removal will help ensure that students don’t fall off
track.
Pros
 Helps close the achievement gap since a large percentage of students in the discipline process are
African American, Latino and/or students with disabilities
 Allows for a range of responses to behavior issues short of suspension that keep students in school
and learning.
 Return on investment of keeping students in school and learning is proven.
 Keeps students on track with the rest of their class on assignments and supports research that
shows education continuity is critical to future success.
 Makes the transition back to the regular classroom smoother for students who are still in class, and
for teachers who would not have to differentiate for or remediate students who need to catch up or
put together extra packets of work.
Cons
 Additional short-term costs for providing staff and space.
 It may be difficult to have certified staff for all the different subjects at the secondary level.
 If certified staff are specifically hired or designated for this, resources may not be used 100% of the
time; schools could end up with inefficient use of space and staff, such as when there are no
students who have been removed from the classroom.

Page | 27
The majority of the students in the discipline process are African American or Latino, and students with
disabilities. Any alternative to suspension would help reduce disproportionality. This support would
improve student engagement at school, which has a direct effect on positive behavior, achievement,
and graduation rates.

Page | 28
Recommendation 2.7: Suspension with Support
We recommend that the Fairfax County School Board provide effective academic support by
certified staff to all students during suspensions or during other disciplinary consequences that
remove them from the school for longer than one day.
We further recommend that this support be given in a manner that keeps the student on track
for successfully completing his or her courses and on track for graduation. Educational
services should include:
Classroom work, corrected and returned to the student.
Posting assignments to BlackBoard and daily presentations.
At least one staff person assigned to be the liaison between teachers and the various
students on out-of-school suspension.
We further recommend that where the term “suspension” is used in the SR&R, it be replaced
with “suspension with support (SWS).”
When students are out on suspension of any length, they lose academic ground. Suspended students
also risk becoming involved in more serious disciplinary infractions while on unsupervised suspension.
Some suspensions, especially those with recommendations for expulsion, can last for weeks or even
months.
disciplinary measures go off track from on-time graduation.
Homework packets and periodic phone calls “checking in” on them is not enough. Students on out of
school suspension (OSS) need meaningful academic support, including access to alternative facilities
where their studies can be supervised by resource teachers or teacher assistants. By providing support
during suspension, FCPS can ensure smoother transition back to the regular school environment,
which will lead to better academic outcomes in the long term.
Students who return from suspension may need extra assistance before or after school or during the
school day, or during lunch or other free periods. Providing this kind of additional support when the
student returns to school can lead to better academic outcomes.
Students who receive in-school suspension (ISS) or are otherwise removed from class but kept in
school should receive similar academic support during the school day from qualified staff, for the same
reasons OSS kids should - to keep them on track and engaged.
Efforts to keep students on track academically during suspension or other classroom removal will help
ensure that students don’t fall off track again. Kids would rather be the “bad” kid than the “dumb” kid.
When students feel they are failing academically after being suspended, it can take away their drive to
succeed. We want all children to succeed, even those who may have fallen off track prior to a discipline
outcome.
The term “suspension with support” emphasizes that all suspensions come with support, in line with a
focus on a restorative and rehabilitative approach to discipline issues.

Page | 29
Pros
 Suspension with support (SWS) is the right thing to do; FCPS does not throw away any child.
 SWS helps close the achievement gap since a large percentage of students out of school and left
behind are African American, Latino and/or students with disabilities
 SWS keeps students on track with the rest of their class on assignments.
 The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to work closely with the school
system on measures that can address discipline issues, which includes methods for supporting
students out of school.
 SWS would allow for a range of responses to behavior issues short of suspension that keep
students in school and learning.
 An SWS program would not require classroom teachers to put together or grade extra packets for
students who are suspended.
 SWS makes the transition back to the regular classroom smoother for students out on suspension,
students still in class and teachers who would not have to differentiate for or remediate students
who needs to catch up.
 SWS gives the student a sense that he or she is still cared about by the school system and still part
of the overall school family.
 Research shows that education continuity is critical to future success.
 With proper support during suspension, there is no need for a set-apart process to “ease” students
back to school, which further delays a student’s return to the regular learning environment.
 Academic success results in fewer future discipline infractions
 With overall reductions in out-of-school suspensions because of successful prevention and
intervention programs, cost of meaningful suspension with support is not prohibitive. In the past,
support on suspension using existing alternative classroom resources and resource teachers or
teacher assistants costs $500,000 to $750,000.
 Support on suspension was funded in the 2011 “budget reconciliation process” by reallocating
money that was set aside but not spent.
Cons
 Additional short-term cost in tight budget cycle.
 Community may not care about throwing away these kids.
 Community may not wish to allocate additional resources.
 Requires working with county staff for out-of-system resources.
The majority of the students in the discipline process are African American, Latino and students with
disabilities. Discipline disproportionality and the achievement gap are related. The longer it takes to get
students back in their classrooms, the more they continue to be alienated and detached from the value
of school and education. When they are kept out of the classroom without adequate support, it is more
difficult for them to transition back. They also lose the sense of being part of the general population.
Substantive research shows a direct correlation between suspension rates and dropout rates in school
systems nationwide, and that these dropouts are disproportionately Black and Latino.
Providing proper support to this population of students returning from suspension increases their
chance for academic success and reduces the chance of additional discipline infractions. If FCPS does
not provide the proper support, it will have the same disproportional outcomes – academically and with
discipline.

Page | 30
Recommendation 2.8: School Transfer Support
Create robust programs or improve programs in place to help students as they move from one
school to another, and provide support throughout the year for students to ensure a successful
transition, with the particular aim of reducing disciplinary infractions among 9th
grade students.
The program should be monitored throughout each year with data gathered in real time for
success regarding this aim.
Statistics show that a majority of students who have been charged with disciplinary consequences
(suspensions) are those who are in their first year of high school. The transition from middle school to
high school is extremely important in determining a student’s future and a robust program needs to be
implemented. This will help ensure that these students are being taken care of and that they
understand the new guidelines and rules in their new school’s environment. Even though this is
directed mainly toward rising freshmen, students transferring to a new school could also be positively
impacted by a “new students” program. Everyone knows transitioning to a completely different school
can be difficult so we need to help make it easier for students to become accustomed to the new
atmosphere and the new school system. It is understood that there are schools that currently have
programs guiding new students, but we believe these programs need to be strengthened. Successes
of these programs need to be monitored and show a reduction in freshman discipline.
Pros
 Connect the new students to the new school
 Learn the nuances of a new school culture
 Develop a mentor (for navigating the school building, developing relationships, and understanding
what is expected)
 If student mentors are used to help the new students, it could count as community service for
current students who need hours
Cons
 Logistics (implementation with fidelity)
 Funding (ex: transportation, staff, food)
African American and Latino students, students with disabilities and males are disproportionately
represented in the discipline system, especially in 9th
and 10th
grades. Any program that helps
students during school transitions in a way that prevents them from entering the discipline system will
help reduce this population in the system. This will allow these and all students gain a better
awareness of and become accustomed to their new surroundings so they are more confident and are
engaged in school, which is shown to reduce behavior issues.

Page | 31
Recommendation 2.9: Attendance Task Force
We recommend that the School Board establish a task force that includes essential
stakeholders and reflects the diversity of the student body to address causes of and solutions
to attendance issues.
Attendance is critical to achievement and to elimination of the achievement gap; empirical evidence
demonstrates a direct link between absences and infractions; having access to children in school
provides opportunities for interventions; and data show absences (truancy, tardiness, skipping classes
or school) continue to be a problem in many FCPS schools. Thus, a comprehensive review of the
causes of and solutions to this issue would benefit all students, teachers, principals, and other
administrators, as well as families and communities struggling to keep their children in school and
learning to their potentials.
Pros
 Supports the goal of keeping students in the classroom or otherwise in school to minimize loss of
learning. Absenteeism, along with misbehavior, poor performance, and lack of participation in
extracurricular activities are considered to be among signs disengagement that are linked to
dropouts and discipline issues. Studies4 show that where there is one “sign,” the others exist or
can follow.
 FCPS has a multitude of approaches for keeping students in school and engaged once they are
there. Many of these may be successful, but it would benefit all schools if they were reviewed
comprehensively for those that demonstrate success so these success factors can be replicated
among schools.
 A task force could address root causes to attendance issues and work with county services to
identify existing cross-functional and cross-jurisdictional solutions, identify where improvements
could be made and new approaches adopted, and identify national best practices for consideration.
Such an approach could identify economies of scale and eliminate redundant programs.
 Allows FCPS to take advantage of all of its existing resources and county services, with support by
the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors as offered in its resolution of Feb 8, 2011.
 A task force that includes all essential stakeholders, especially classroom teachers, parents from
at-risk populations, child development experts, and other advocates, reduces the dangers of “what
we don’t know we don’t know” and ensures that problem-identification and recommended solutions
are realistic and achievable.
 Fairfax County is home to a large population of experts willing to donate time for improvements in
education. Because FCPS staff suffer from work overload, a task force can take advantage of
expertise to supplement that of FCPS staff and share the burden of tackling the attendance
problem.
 By figuring out how to keep students in school, society at large benefits in both the short- and long-
run. There would be less criminal or delinquent activity because students would not be
unsupervised in the community and instead would be in school, where they have access to positive
behavior supports and interventions.
 Students who stay in school are held accountable for learning while in school or in class, which
requires time put toward positive instead of negative outcomes. They learn the value of education
and the associated benefits because the instructor sets the expectation that failing is not an option.
4
http://www.palmbeachschools.org/dre/documents/Predicting_Graduation_and_Dropout.pdf

Page | 32
Studies show that these students are less likely to drop out and more likely to be contributing
taxpayers over their lifetimes.
 Students who choose to stay in school become examples to their peers and could take on
leadership roles that encourage school engagement among their cohorts.
 The task force can explore the large body of work conducted across the country to resolve
absentee problems that could be replicated here. For example, according to a comprehensive
review of absenteeism in Indiana5, attendance rates impact achievement for all racial groups. It
identified successful programs such as the one in Baltimore.
 The City of Baltimore has implemented a School Every Day! initiative, which utilizes the help of
volunteers to break down the barriers to school attendance by delivering alarm clocks, school
uniforms, umbrellas and winter coats to students and families in targeted neighborhoods.
Volunteers connect families with support they need, whether material or emotional, create a peer-
to-peer messaging system where older students write to younger students letting them know they
are missed when they are absent, and solicit gift certificates from local merchants to offer
incentives to students for good attendance. The goal of the program is to reduce chronic
absenteeism by 20% in the neighborhoods where it operates. The program is funded by the Abell
Foundation and housed in the BCPS Office of Engagement (Attendance Works, 2012c).
Cons
 A task force would require resourcing and demand quality time from everyone involved. It would
have to be highly focused and demonstrate value.
 According to a recent report6, “Chronic absenteeism is most prevalent among low-income
students.” Reducing absenteeism in this community is essential to reducing disproportionality in
discipline and related outcomes in this population.
 Cultural awareness of why Black, Latino and low-income kids, and students with disabilities do not
attend class is essential to address disproportionality in related outcomes. The task force should
also look at ways to engage and teach African American, Latino and low-income students, and
students with disabilities when they are in the classroom to foster a desire to complete their
education.
 Students don’t learn when they are not in class so it is important to specifically review and look for
approaches that encourage them to be in the classroom instead of, as evidence show they do,
creatively finding ways to beat the system through tardiness and absences.
 A new emphasis on being in class will inspire this population to work toward a meaningful future
instead of suffering negative discipline outcomes that are attached with poor attendance and
tardiness.
5
http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V10N3_2012_EPB.pdf
6
http://new.every1graduates.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FINALChronicAbsenteeismReport_May16.pdf

Page | 33
Recommendation 2.10: Literacy Task Force
We support policies and programs that ensure all students read at grade level by the end of
third grade, and at grade level every year thereafter, and recommend that the School Board
make this a priority goal.
We support policies and programs that establish and maintain an effective means of
connecting school staff with parents/guardians of students at risk and recommend that the
School Board make this a priority goal.
Because literacy and academic achievement have direct links to appropriate behavior and good
judgment, we support the FC School Board’s goals to improve these outcomes in all students. Literacy
requires support from parents/guardians and other adults in a child’s life outside of school. Research
shows that strong, ongoing relationships between families and school personnel are critical to positive
outcomes in students. Likewise, children who read at grade level are more likely to maintain an interest
in and be successful at learning, and thus have incentives to say “yes” to good behavior and “no” to
temptation to misbehave. Programs that support these outcomes can be considered “root solutions” to
fundamental challenges, with wide-ranging and long-term benefits throughout a child’s life.
Pros
 Data shows that third grade reading proficiency is critical to future success in a classroom
environment.
 A multitude of studies show that parent/family engagement in a student’s life and with a student’s
school has a direct correlation to that student’s school readiness, behavior, attendance, and literacy
outcomes, among many other outcomes. Improving the relationship between schools and families
is likely to be a root solution to many negative outcomes in a student’s life, and should be a priority
goal.
 FCPS is starting the process of making literacy by the end of third grade a priority, one that is tied
to evaluation of instructor performance at the end of the year. For students who come to class and
continue to fail, both the instructor and student need to be held accountable. Teachers inherit
students who were not reading on grade level in prior years and now are tasked with bringing them
up to speed. A task force could address concerns teachers have with conditions and contributing
factors that are or have been out of their control.
 Literacy is tied to behavior and is directly tied to achievement and fundamentally necessary to it.
Poor performance, along with misbehavior, absenteeism and lack of participation in extracurricular
activities are considered to be among signs of disengagement that are linked to dropouts. Studies
show that where there is one “sign,” the others exist or can follow.
 FCPS has a multitude of literacy approaches. Many of these may be successful, but it would
benefit all schools if they were reviewed comprehensively for those that demonstrate success so
these success factors can be replicated among schools.
 A task force could address root causes of illiteracy, including those associated with different
demographics, and work with county services to identify existing cross-functional and cross-
jurisdictional solutions, identify where improvements could be made and new ones adopted, and
determine which are not successful. Such an approach could identify economies of scale and
eliminate redundant programs.
 A task force that includes all stakeholders, especially classroom teachers, parents from at-risk
populations, child development and literacy experts and other advocates, reduces the dangers of
“what we don’t know we don’t know” and ensures that problem identification and recommended
solutions are realistic and achievable.

Page | 34
 Fairfax County is home to a large population of experts willing to donate time for improvements in
education. Because FCPS staff are already suffering from work overload, a task force can take
advantage of expertise to supplement that of FCPS staff and share the burden of tackling the
attendance problem.
Cons
 A task force would require resourcing and demand quality time from everyone involved, a precious
commodity. It would have to be highly focused and demonstrate value.
 The school board would have to demonstrate a commitment to the effort by seriously considering
all recommendations, and being open to a range of resourcing options for them. Long-term thinking
would be necessary because evidence so far suggests that some solutions would have a “return on
investment” seen only in out-years — higher achievement rates tend to create benefits seen only
after students graduate.
 Illiteracy and low literacy levels are difficult challenges to address because so much contributes to
them. For example, students, like adults, have every incentive to hide illiteracy, and do, so even
identifying it can be a trial. The attitude of “good enough” — and the fact that “good enough” is
better than “failure” — can thwart focused interventions. Parents who are themselves illiterate can
have difficulty supporting interventions.
 Early childhood intervention, from post-natal support onward, is shown to contribute to literacy, but
is out of the direct realm of FCPS. However, cross-functional approaches are possible, especially
since families with older children in the system can be reached to influence younger children.
 Low-income students, ESL students, students from families that are non-native English speakers
and those with disabilities make up the largest populations of students with low literacy rates. Many
of these do not have ready access to appropriate reading resources outside the classroom — and
sometimes in the classroom. Many don’t have computers at home. They lack extracurricular
support for or exposure to reading resources. They lack transportation to libraries or community
centers or other venues where they can be exposed to resources or to the idea that reading is
important.
 Cultural awareness of why certain Black, Latino, low-income kids, ESOL students, and students
with disabilities may suffer from low literacy is essential to address disproportionality in related
outcomes, such as behavior issues.
1 http:www.palmbeachschools.org/dre/documents/Predicitng_Graduation_and_Dropout.pdf

Page | 35
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
Students with disabilities — who comprise only 14% of the population — continue to make up
approximately 40% of all suspensions and expulsion cases before the FCPS Hearings Office. The
disproportionate discipline of students with disabilities is a complex issue to address and involves many
different factors. Some of these factors are associated with the deficits of an individual child, such as
impulsivity, difficulty in weighing choices or academic failure. However, other issues which contribute
to the problem of the disproportionate discipline of students with disabilities lie with factors independent
of the child. These include, but are not limited to: a lack of effective IEP services and supports,
inappropriate educational placements, failure to plan for the transition from middle to high school (9th
graders have the highest rate of suspension), incomplete understanding of the child's disability, and
inappropriate expectations. The Fairfax County School Board must acknowledge these persistent
problems and set priorities in addressing them.
Work Group 3 reviewed the issues surrounding the legal rights and unique needs of students with
disabilities and investigated the codes of conduct of numerous school divisions in crafting its
recommendations. In many of the new measures it proposes incorporating into the SR&R, Work
Group 3 sought to reflect the best practices identified and successfully implemented by other school
districts. Work Group 3 also consulted with members of the Advisory Committee on Students with
Disabilities to help ensure its recommendations reflected local community values and parent concerns.
Work Group 3 endeavored to provide solutions to reduce the disproportionate number of suspension of
students with disabilities by clarifying requirements, improving safeguards and putting into place better
tools for the Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) process. Fundamental to these
recommendations is the move toward practices that focus on prevention and intervention and that
utilize suspension and expulsion only after a clear pattern of misbehavior has been established or in
"special circumstances" defined by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) — i.e.,
incidents involving drugs, weapons or "serious bodily injury". An approach toward discipline that relies
on prevention and intervention reflects community values that are fundamental to the spirit and
purpose of IDEA and the School Board’s expectations in Student Achievement Goals 2 and 3.

Page | 36
Recommendation 3.1: Identify and Include in the SR&R Community Values Regarding
the Discipline of Students with Disabilities
That the Fairfax County School Board (School Board) identify and include in a preamble to an
SR&R section on students with disabilities — in addition to the statutory and regulatory
requirements regarding the discipline of students with disabilities — the following community
values which are fundamental to the spirit and purpose of both federal law and [FCSB]
Student Achievement Goals 2 and 3.
Every student is to be treated fairly. The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and
Virginia's implementing regulations recognize that students with disabilities have a right
to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and that their unique educational needs
require special accommodation in the administration of school discipline. Our
community acknowledges that fairness does not mean the same as equal and that we
have an obligation to respond to the behaviors of students with disabilities based on
their unique needs and circumstances.
The purpose of education is to develop productive members of society. According
to IDEA, schools must focus equally on the academic, functional and behavioral
success of students. In addition, the School Board has established expectations for
behavior in Student Achievement Goals 2 and 3. Accordingly, prevention and
intervention need to be the primary approaches to dealing with the challenging
behaviors of students with disabilities. In addition, schools need an accurate
understanding of the underlying reasons for misbehavior in order to determine to the
appropriate disciplinary pathway to ensure student success.
Students need equally safe and supportive learning environments. IDEA, state
regulations and research-based practices offer school personnel positive behavior
approaches to respond to students with disabilities whose challenging behaviors
interfere with their learning or the learning of other students. Clear procedures exist for
schools to deal with exigent circumstances, but the legal requirements in dealing with
the discipline of students with disabilities reflect a community value that healthy school
communities require measured and restorative responses to misbehavior.
IDEA permits removing a student with a disability from his/her IEP placement only for behavior that is
not related to a child's disability or in "special circumstances" defined by law (i.e., incidents involving
drugs, weapons or "serious bodily injury") — USC 300.530(g). Fundamental to these restrictions is a
move toward practices that focus on prevention and intervention and utilize suspension and expulsion
only as a last resort. Nonetheless, students with disabilities — who comprise only 14% of the
population — continue to make up approximately 40% of all suspensions and expulsion cases before
the FCPS Hearings Office. The disproportionate discipline of students with disabilities is a complex
issue to address and involves many different factors. Some of these factors are associated with the
deficits of an individual child, such as impulsivity, difficulty in weighing choices or academic failure.
However, other issues which contribute to the problem of the disproportionate discipline of students
with disabilities lie with factors independent of the child. These include, but are not limited to: a lack of
effective IEP services and supports, inappropriate educational placements, failure to plan for the
transition from middle to high school (9th graders have the highest rate of suspension), incomplete
understanding of the child's disability, and inappropriate expectations. The School Board must
acknowledge these persistent problems and set priorities in addressing them.

Page | 37
Pros
 This provision addresses the charge of the School Board to the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on the
SR&R to, among other things, "ensure consistency with our community’s values, School Board
policies, and Virginia laws." The creation of Work Group #3 by the committee reflected the value
the community places on students with disabilities — those provided special education services
through an IEP — who comprise about 14% of the population but continue to make up
approximately 40% of all suspension and expulsion cases before the Hearings Office. With this
preamble statement, the School Board has an opportunity to reflect such values in the SR&R.
Cons
 May add slightly to the length of the SR&R.
The aim of this recommendation, and the others proposed by Work Group 3, is intended to help reduce
the disproportional representation of students with disabilities and minority students in the FCPS
disciplinary system. In 2011-2012, students with disabilities — who comprised less than 14% of the
total school population — made up about 40% of all cases brought before the Hearings Office. Of
these cases, 71% involved minority students (42% Black and 29% Hispanic).

Page | 38
Recommendation 3.2: Publish Collected Data on Disproportionate Discipline
That the School Board require publication on the FCPS website the state-mandated
disciplinary offense and outcome data collected by race, ethnicity, gender, and disability
category for each school. This data should be published in a manner that protects the
identities of individual students.
This action reflects legislation passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 2012 which requires the
Department of Education to collect and annually publish disciplinary offense and outcome data by race,
ethnicity, gender and disability category for each school division in the Commonwealth. See HB 367 -
2012 Session. In order for FCPS to report the mandated information to the state, it must collect data
from individual schools in the division. Disciplinary data for FCPS should be posted for local review just
as it is posted by the state.
Pros
Clearly compiled data made available to the public will assist in determining the causes of the
disproportionate impact of FCPS disciplinary practices on minority students and students with
disabilities. This provision requires no additional staff time and resources as these are already devoted
to compiling data due to state reporting requirements.
Cons
The time and resources to develop and maintain an additional web page or add this data to each
school's profile.

Page | 39
Recommendation 3.3: Establish an Advisory Committee to Study Disproportionalities
in Discipline
That the School Board establish an advisory committee to include academically and
professionally qualified individuals and members of the community to further investigate and
address the various factors which cause the disproportionate representation of students with
disabilities and minority students in the discipline process.
Students with "emotional disabilities" (ED) are disproportionally suspended with a recommendation for
expulsion compared to other students with disabilities. For example, in 2010-2011, students identified
with ED comprised 7% of all students with disabilities in FCPS but made up 29% of students with
disabilities suspended with a recommendation for expulsion. In addition, Black students are identified
as ED twice as often as other students. In 2010-2011, Black students made up 20% of those identified
with ED despite comprising only 10% of the entire student population. These factors may contribute to
the large number of Black students involved in the discipline cases before the Hearings Office. In
addition, FCPS discipline data reveals that students who have been suspended display lower GPAs
than average students and suffer from poor academic performance both prior to and after disciplinary
actions. One study Working Group #3 identified demonstrated that appropriately addressing the
academic deficits of disciplined students — especially those who are unable to read on grade level —
reduces recidivism: The Impact of an Intensive Multisensory Reading Program on a Population of
Learning-Disabled Delinquents. See ERIC EJ455783 - Annals of Dyslexia, v42, p54-66, 1992. An
advisory committee would permit more in-depth review of this data.
Pros
 Establishment of an advisory committee enables a more focused review of the causes of and
possible solutions for persistent disproportionalities in the FCPS discipline system.
Cons
 The time and resources to support an advisory committee.

Page | 40
Recommendation 3.4: Reduce Suspension/Expulsion of Students with Disabilities and
Minority Students
That the School Board, with input from the Advisory Committee on Disproportionality in
Discipline (see Recommendation 3.3), develop a plan to target and eliminate within 3 years
the disproportionate representation of students with disabilities and minority students involved
in cases forwarded to the FCPS Hearings Office.
In 2011-2012, students with disabilities — who comprised less than 14% of the total school
population — made up about 40% of all cases brought before the Hearings Office. Of these cases,
over 70% involved minority students (42% Black and 29% Hispanic). In addition, regardless of
disability status, minority students comprised a disproportionate number of all disciplinary cases
forwarded to the Hearings Office — Black students at 4 times and Hispanic students at more than twice
the rate of their White peers.
Working Group 3 recommends that the Fairfax County School Board make it a goal to end within 3
years the disproportionate discipline of students with disabilities and minority students. This goal
reflects the specific recommendations and actions taken by the Maryland Board of Education and
publicized in its report, School Discipline and Academic Success.
See http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/42ED8EDA-AF34-4058-B275-
03189163882D/32853/SchoolDisciplineandAcademicSuccessReportFinalJuly2.pdf, Page
6: "Disproportionate or discrepant discipline is, we believe, related to the achievement
gap. Understanding that relationship is critical. Closing that gap, by improving student learning and
performance, needs to be among our highest priorities. Therefore, we propose a regulation that
requires Maryland State Department of Education to analyze the impact of school discipline on minority
students and special education students within the school system....[and] requires that the school
system present to this Board a plan designed to reduce the impact within one year and to eliminate
that impact within 3 years."
Goals and annual benchmarks are commonly set by the School Board on a variety of issues. Student
Achievement Goals are tracked, measured and reported by the superintendent and his staff. As the
disproportionate impact of FCPS discipline policies and procedures on students with disabilities and
minority students contributes to the significant academic achievement gaps faced by these
populations, the Board has a vested interest in reducing the number of discipline referrals of both
students with disabilities and minority students. One clear data point, reported annually, has been the
disproportionate number of students with disabilities and minority students referred to the Hearings
Office. Establishing an aspirational goal of reducing and eliminating the disproportionate impact of
discipline referrals on student with disabilities and minority students is both a clearly stated and
measurable objective.
Pros
 Eliminating disproportionality in the number of students with disabilities and minority students
referred to the Hearings Office will improve the academic success, graduation rates and outcomes
of these students.
Cons
 This goal will be difficult to achieve within 3 years.

Page | 41

Page | 42
Recommendation 3.5: Establish a Separate SR&R Section on Students with Disabilities
That the School Board establish a separate SR&R section that contains the federal and state
requirements regarding the discipline of students with disabilities (see following wording of a
new SR&R section which includes existing statutory and regulatory requirements as well as
the proposed measures outlined in Recommendations 3.6 through 3.13.)
COMMITTEE VOTE: Yes – 27 No – 4 No Vote – 1 Away from Table - 1
Students with disabilities have specific rights regarding discipline procedures that are outlined in IDEA
2004 and Virginia's special education regulations. Information regarding these legal requirements must
be readily available and easily understood by schools, parents and students. Many other school
divisions have separate sections for students with disabilities in their codes of conduct. The following
codes of conduct reviewed by Working Group #3 have sections specifically covering students with
disabilities:
Philadelphia School District - Philadelphia 2012-2013 Code of Student Conduct
Boston School District - Boston Public Schools Code of Discipline, revised 2006 (Pages 46-52)
New Orleans Recovery School District – NOLA Code of Conduct 2008-2009 (Pages 24-26)
Denver Public Schools - Denver Public Schools Policies and Procedures
San Francisco Public Schools - SFUSD Student and Family Handbook 2012-2103 (Pages 66)
Chicago Public Schools - Chicago Public Schools Policy Manual 2011 (Pages 31,32)
Miami-Dade County Public Schools - Secondary Code of Student Conduct 2012-2013 (Pages
38-40)
Seattle Public Schools - Student Rights and Responsibilities 2011 (Pages 43-45)
Arlington County Public Schools - 2012-13 Arlington Public Schools Handbook (Page 27)
Detailed information about Virginia's procedures is outlined in VDOE's DISCIPLINE OF CHILDREN
WITH DISABILITIES: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RESOURCE DOCUMENT. See VDOE Discipline of
Children with Disabilities. Unless otherwise noted, this information is the source of the provisions
incorporated into the proposed SR&R section on student with disabilities. Additional material was
drawn from the model codes of other school jurisdictions.
Pros
 This recommendation supports the goal of eliminating the disproportionate discipline of students
with disabilities. Including a separate SR&R section on students with disabilities makes information
on the requirements about the discipline of these students easily accessible and promotes better
understanding of the procedures by schools, parents and students. Clearly stated guidelines on the
discipline of students with disabilities helps to ensure consistency in the application of the
requirements. In addition, having a separate section on students with disabilities removes from the
SR&R the provisions which do not apply to general education students, thereby improving clarity of
the document.
Cons
 A separate SR&R section on students with disabilities may add to the length of the overall
document but provides better information.

Page | 43

Page | 44
Recommendation 3.6: Implement Existing Tools for the Prevention of Disciplinary
Incidents
That the School Board require the following provision in the SR&R section on students with
disabilities: When a student’s behavior impedes his/her learning or that of others, the IEP
team shall use positive behavioral interventions, strategies and supports, taking one or both of
the following actions:
Develop IEP goals and services specific to the child's behavioral needs;
Conduct a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) and develop a Behavioral
Intervention Plan (BIP) to address the child's behavioral needs.
In addition, the SR&R section on students with disabilities shall include examples of interfering
behaviors, to include but not be limited to, non-disruptive behavior that shows avoidance of
learning, disruptive behavior, absenteeism, argumentativeness, defiance, aggression, bullying
or reactions to bullying, repeated removal from class and being suspended more than once in
a school year.
This recommendation complies with provisions of the Virginia special education regulations (8VAC20-
81-160,A,2) which implement the following mandates of federal law: IDEA requires schools, via the
IEP team, to consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports for any student whose
behavior impedes his/her learning or the learning of others (20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(B)(i)). In addition, a
Functional Behavior Assessment (Tier 3) must be conducted to address any behavior that results in a
long-term removal (20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(D)) when a child who does not have a Behavior Intervention
Plan is removed from his/her current placement for more than 10 school days (e.g., suspension) for
behavior that turns out to be a manifestation of the child's disability (20 U.S.C.
§1415(k)(1)(F)(i)). A Functional Behavioral Assessment should also be conducted, when appropriate,
to address any behavior that results in a long-term removal (20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(D)).
Working Group 3's recommendation is intended to encourage more effective use of the existing
prevention and intervention tools identified in IDEA to assist students with disabilities whose
behavior impedes their learning or that of others. The current SR&R identifies a range of responses for
the general student population. As federal and state requirements focus on prevention and
intervention of the behavioral needs of students with disabilities, the SR&R section on students with
disabilities should specifically state these measures. Prevention is a key to reducing the
disproportional suspension of students with disabilities. In addition, prevention will help improve
academic performance. In April 2012, FCPS reported that 65% of students suspended with a
recommendation for expulsion were on track to graduate before the disciplinary action. In the year
following the suspension with a recommendation for expulsion, only 12% were on track to graduate.
Pros
 Implementing positive behavioral interventions, strategies and supports will better support students,
help reduce discipline referral rates and support the goal of eliminating the disproportionate
discipline of students with disabilities.
Cons
 These federal and state mandates require adequate funding and resources to ensure they can be
successfully implemented.

Page | 45

finalreport

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to finalreport

Similar to finalreport (20)

finalreport