Alignment Audit · board kit

Fairview School District

PA · score 34/100 · full report · Model Policy Manual

This kitPrint for the board packet · 903 KBFull reportPDF · 4.0 MBVideo walkthroughNarrated, 1080p · 47.3 MB

Press release

Fairview School District, Pennsylvania, November 3, 2026. EarthPilot's Alignment Audit has scored the written board policies of Fairview School District against the published research record. The district received 34 out of 100.

The audit read 246 sections of district policy and checked them against 57 domains where controlled studies show what helps students and what harms them. In 0 of those domains the policy met the evidence. In 28 it partly met the evidence, in 5 it conflicted with the evidence, and in 24 it was silent.

The clearest conflicts sit in three policies. Section 204 Attendance departs from the evidence on chronic absence response, where early, supportive, family-facing responses cut chronic absence by roughly 8 to 23 percent and no rigorous US study shows that fines, prosecution or court referral improve attendance. Section 233 Suspension and Expulsion departs from the evidence on out-of-school suspension, which lowers the suspended student's own math and reading achievement and, at the school level, raises the chance of adult arrest and incarceration by 15 to 20 percent. Section 918 District-Wide Parental Involvement departs from the evidence on family engagement, where randomized trials show that specific, frequent, two-way teacher-to-family communication about a child's own effort, attendance and missed work raises engagement and achievement.

The largest silences are early literacy instruction and K-3 reading screening, dual enrollment and early college, and high-dosage tutoring, each backed by randomized trials and absent from district policy.

The full report, with every receipt and a recommended clause for each gap, is public at /d/fairview-pa. The scoring method is described at /manual.

Contact: EarthPilot, Alignment Audit. Report: /d/fairview-pa.

Memorandum to the Board

To the Board of School Directors, Fairview School District:

I am a district resident writing about the EarthPilot Alignment Audit, scored on 2026-11-03. The audit read 246 sections and checked them against 57 research domains. The district scored 34 out of 100. No domain fully met the evidence, 28 partly met it, 5 conflicted with it, and 24 were silent.

I ask the Board to take up three sections first, because each conflicts with well-tested research. Section 204 Attendance: no rigorous US study shows that fines, prosecution or court referral improve attendance, while early, supportive, family-facing responses cut chronic absence by roughly 8 to 23 percent at modest cost. Section 233 Suspension and Expulsion: out-of-school suspension lowers the suspended student's own math and reading achievement, and reforms that ended suspension for minor nonviolent conduct raised achievement and attendance in New York City and Chicago, while reforms with no replacement behavior system lowered achievement. Section 918 District-Wide Parental Involvement: weekly one-sentence teacher notes cut course failure 41 percent, and automated missed-assignment alerts cut course failures 27 percent.

I respectfully request that the Board place the attached proposed clauses on a future agenda for first reading. The full report is at /d/fairview-pa and the method at /manual. Thank you for your service to our students.

Proposed motions (47)

Each motion amends the named section or adds a new policy, in the district's own format. Numbers in rewritten clauses were checked against the model clause and the existing section.

Motion 1. Chronic absence response: Amend 204 Attendance

Current language. [15] School Attendance Improvement Conference If the student incurs additional unexcused absences after the issuance of the Notice of Illegal Absences, and a School Attendance Improvement Conference was not previously held, the district shall schedule a School Attendance Improvement Conference and notify the person in parental relation in writing and by telephone of the date and time.

Why. Missing 10 percent or more of school days lowers achievement and engagement from kindergarten on, and the share of students chronically absent nearly doubled after the pandemic. Controlled studies show that early, supportive, family-facing responses (mailed and texted attendance information, caseworkers who remove material barriers, structured adult mentoring) cut chronic absence by roughly 8 to 23 percent at modest cost, while no rigorous US study shows that fines, prosecution or court referral improve attendance.

204 Attendance Chronic absence shall mean missing 10 percent or more of enrolled days, excused or unexcused. Principals shall review attendance data at least monthly and identify each student chronically absent or missing three or more days in any 20-day period. Within 10 school days of identification, staff shall make a documented, supportive two-way contact with the family, in its preferred language, stating days missed, asking what makes attendance hard and offering help, without threatening penalties. A student still chronically absent after that contact shall receive within 20 school days a written attendance plan developed with the family, naming a staff member for weekly follow-up. A student missing 20 percent or more, or not improving under a plan, shall be assigned a case manager to assess transportation, health, housing, food, safety and school climate barriers and connect the family with services. No student shall be referred to truancy court, cited, fined, suspended, excluded from activities or denied credit for absence until the contact, plan and assessment are documented in the student information system. The Superintendent shall report quarterly to the Board, by school, grade and subgroup, the chronic absence rate, the share of identified students contacted within 10 school days, attendance plans opened and truancy referrals filed, and post each report on the district website within 30 days.

How the Board will know it worked. Percent of enrolled students missing 10 percent or more of enrolled days (the state chronic absence measure in the EDFacts or state report card file), by school, grade and subgroup; the share of identified students who received a documented two-way family contact within 10 school days; and the number of truancy referrals filed, each tracked monthly and reported quarterly. Target: Within 1 year every school reports the share of identified students contacted within 10 school days rising each quarter, with zero truancy referrals filed without a documented contact, plan and barrier assessment; within 1 to 3 years the chronic absence rate falls below the baseline in every school and subgroup, with a reduction in the range of 8 to 15 percent of the baseline rate consistent with the family-contact and caseworker studies. The Superintendent reports to the Board each quarter and publishes the figures on the district website within 30 days of each report; the Board reviews the annual chronic absence rate against the baseline at the end of each school year.

Eklund K, Burns MK, Oyen K, DeMarchena S, McCollom EM (2022). Addressing chronic absenteeism in schools: a meta-analysis of evidence-based interventions. School Psychology Review 51(1):95-111. doi · Li D, Singh S, Jeldi N, Chang S, Zhu M, Dailey K, Karabukayeva A, Cai C (2026). What works to keep students in school? A meta-analysis of interventions to reduce school absenteeism. Behavioral Sciences 16(5):697. doi · Rogers T, Feller A (2018). Reducing student absences at scale by targeting parents' misbeliefs. Nature Human Behaviour 2(5):335-342. doi

Motion 2. Early literacy instruction and K-3 reading screening: New policy (academics and access)

Current language. None; the manual is silent.

Why. Systematic, explicit phonics instruction in K-1 raises word reading, spelling and comprehension by a moderate amount (about 0.4 SD) and is the only reading-disability treatment whose efficacy is confirmed in randomized trials; curriculum-based screening in K-2 predicts later reading well enough to find at-risk readers early. State 'science of reading' laws raise high-stakes elementary reading scores by a small amount so far, mainly where the policy is comprehensive, and the gains on low-stakes NAEP are not yet statistically clear.

No. ___ SECTION: PROGRAMS TITLE: READING INSTRUCTION, KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE 3 The Board directs that core reading instruction in kindergarten through grade 3 shall be explicit and systematic in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. Instructional materials that direct students to identify words primarily from pictures, context or syntax, known as three-cueing, shall not be adopted as core or intervention materials. The Superintendent shall administer a universal reading screener with published classification accuracy to every student in kindergarten through grade 3 within the first thirty (30) school days of the school year and again in the winter and spring windows. Any student identified as at risk shall begin a documented, evidence-based intervention within fifteen (15) school days of the screening, and the student's parent or guardian shall be notified in writing within the same period. All teachers of reading in kindergarten through grade 3 and all elementary principals shall complete a Board-approved structured-literacy training within two (2) years of hire. The Director of Curriculum shall report to the Board each November and each June the screening participation rate, the share of students at risk by school and subgroup, the share of at-risk students receiving intervention within fifteen (15) school days, and third-grade state ELA results.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of K-3 students screened within the first 30 school days; share of flagged students beginning a documented intervention within 15 school days; percent of K-3 reading teachers and principals with completed structured-literacy training; third-grade state ELA proficiency rate and subgroup gaps. Target: Within 1 year, every K-3 student is screened within the first 30 school days and every flagged student begins a documented intervention with written parent notice within 15 school days; within 2 years of hire, every K-3 reading teacher and elementary principal completes the structured-literacy training; third-grade state ELA proficiency rises and subgroup gaps narrow over 1 to 3 years. Director of Curriculum reports to the Board each November and each June, by school and subgroup, with the third-grade state ELA results included in the June report.

Ehri LC, Nunes SR, Stahl SA, Willows DM (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 71(3):393-447. doi · National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read. NIH Publication 00-4769. link · Galuschka K, Ise E, Krick K, Schulte-Korne G (2014). Effectiveness of treatment approaches for children and adolescents with reading disabilities: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE 9(2):e89900. doi

Motion 3. Suspension and expulsion: Amend 233 Suspension and Expulsion

Current language. Exclusion From School - Suspension The principal or person in charge of the school may suspend any student for disobedience or misconduct for a period of one (1) to ten (10) consecutive school days and shall immediately notify the parent/guardian and the Superintendent in writing when the student is suspended.

Why. Out-of-school suspension lowers the suspended student's own math and reading achievement (Philadelphia student panel with instrumental variables), and attending a school with a one standard deviation higher suspension rate raises the chance of adult arrest and incarceration by 15 to 20 percent (North Carolina boundary-change natural experiment). Reforms that ended suspension for minor nonviolent conduct raised achievement and attendance in New York City and Chicago, while reforms that cut suspensions without a replacement behavior system lowered achievement and raised absences for most students in Los Angeles and Philadelphia.

233 Suspension and Expulsion - Out-of-School Suspension Out-of-school suspension shall be used only when a student's presence poses a danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of serious disruption to instruction, and only after the building principal has documented the less restrictive interventions attempted under the district's tiered behavior system. No student shall be suspended out of school for defiance, disrespect, dress code, tardiness, truancy or other attendance-related conduct. A single out-of-school suspension shall not exceed five school days except for conduct for which state or federal law requires a longer exclusion. Every suspended student shall receive assignments and instruction during the exclusion and a re-entry meeting with a staff member on the first day of return. Each building principal shall report monthly to the Superintendent the number of suspensions, days lost and the offense category for each, by race, disability status, sex and English learner status. The Superintendent shall publish to the Board by September 30 of each year a report for the prior school year showing suspensions and expulsions per 100 students by building and student group, the risk ratio for Black students and for students with disabilities, and the corrective plan for any building whose risk ratio exceeds 2.0. The Board shall review this policy against that report at a public meeting each October.

How the Board will know it worked. Out-of-school suspensions per 100 students and instructional days lost, by building and by race, disability, sex and English-learner status; share of suspensions for subjective or nonviolent categories (defiance, disrespect, dress code, tardiness, attendance); risk ratios for Black students and students with disabilities; attendance and achievement of non-suspended peers in buildings that reduce suspensions. Target: Within one year of adoption, zero out-of-school suspensions recorded for defiance, disrespect, dress code, tardiness, truancy or other attendance conduct, and no single suspension exceeding five school days outside the state and federal exceptions; within 1 to 3 years, every building's risk ratio for Black students and for students with disabilities at or below 2.0, with suspensions per 100 students and days lost declining each year while attendance and achievement of non-suspended students in those buildings hold steady or improve. Monthly principal reports to the Superintendent; an annual Superintendent report to the Board by September 30 covering the prior school year, published publicly, with the corrective plan for any building above a 2.0 risk ratio; Board review of the policy at a public meeting each October.

Bacher-Hicks A, Billings SB, Deming DJ (2024). The school-to-prison pipeline: long-run impacts of school suspensions on adult crime. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 16(4):165-193. doi · Lacoe J, Steinberg MP (2019). Do suspensions affect student outcomes? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 41(1):34-62. doi · Sorensen LC, Bushway SD, Gifford EJ (2022). Getting tough? The effects of discretionary principal discipline on student outcomes. Education Finance and Policy 17(2):255-284. doi

Motion 4. Dual enrollment and early college: New policy (academics and access)

Current language. None; the manual is silent.

Why. Two independent lottery-based randomized studies of early college high schools (North Carolina, followed 17 years, and the AIR national study, followed six years past graduation) find higher high school graduation, college enrollment, and degree completion, with very large effects on associate degrees and bachelor's gains for low-income and first-generation students. A Tennessee RCT of a dual-credit math course shifted students from remedial to precalculus and AP math and from two-year to four-year colleges, though it did not raise overall college enrollment. The What Works Clearinghouse rates dual enrollment as having positive effects on degree attainment, credit accumulation, and completing school.

No. 1XX SECTION: PROGRAMS TITLE: DUAL ENROLLMENT AND EARLY COLLEGE The Board shall maintain a written agreement with at least one accredited public college under which every district high school offers dual-credit courses, on the high school campus or online, in general education subjects that transfer to the Commonwealth's public universities. Tuition, fees, textbooks, and transportation for dual-credit courses shall be paid by the district or the partner college, and no student shall be charged. Any student who meets the partner college's placement standard or the state standard on the high school assessment shall be eligible. Principals shall notify eligible students and their parents or guardians in writing by March 1 for the following school year. The district shall operate, or partner with, at least one early college pathway in which students may earn an associate degree or 60 transferable credits by the end of grade 12 or 13. When the pathway is oversubscribed, enrollment shall be determined by lottery. The Director of College and Career Readiness shall report to the Board by November 1 each year on dual-credit participation, courses passed, credits earned and credits transferred, and early college enrollment and completion, disaggregated by school, race, ethnicity, income, English learner status, and disability status, together with postsecondary enrollment of the prior graduating class as reported by the National Student Clearinghouse.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of graduates who earned at least one transferable college credit in high school and share who earned 12 or more, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, income, English learner status, and disability status, plus dual-credit pass rates, share of credits that transferred, early college enrollment and completion, and postsecondary enrollment of participants versus non-participants from the National Student Clearinghouse. Target: Within 1 year every high school offers no-cost dual-credit courses and all eligible students receive written notice by March 1; within 3 years the share of graduates earning at least one transferable credit and the share earning 12 or more rise each year in every student group, gaps for low-income, first-generation, English learner, and disability-status students narrow, and postsecondary enrollment of dual enrollment participants exceeds that of non-participants. Director of College and Career Readiness to the Board by November 1 each year, posted publicly with the state report card and National Student Clearinghouse data, with the Board reviewing progress against the baseline at that meeting.

Edmunds JA, Unlu F, Phillips V, Glennie E, Mulhern C (2024). The Impact of Early Colleges on Postsecondary Performance and Completion. AERA Open 10. doi · Edmunds JA, Unlu F, Furey J, Glennie E, Arshavsky N (2020). What Happens When You Combine High School and College? The Impact of the Early College Model on Postsecondary Performance and Completion. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 42(2):257-278. doi · Edmunds JA, Unlu F, Glennie E, Bernstein L, Fesler L, Furey J, Arshavsky N (2017). Smoothing the Transition to Postsecondary Education: The Impact of the Early College Model. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 10(2):297-325. doi

Motion 5. High-dosage tutoring: New policy (academics and access)

Current language. None; the manual is silent.

Why. Across 96 randomized trials, tutoring raises achievement by about 0.29 SD, with the largest effects when teachers or paraprofessionals tutor, sessions run at least three days a week, and tutoring happens during the school day. Post-pandemic programs run at district scale have produced much smaller gains (0.04 to 0.09 SD in reading and no math effect in Nashville), and a 263-trial reanalysis puts the realistic effect of large, test-targeted programs at 0.16 to 0.22 SD.

No. ___ SECTION: PROGRAMS TITLE: TUTORING Authority The Board directs that each student who scores below the district benchmark on the fall or winter interim assessment in reading or mathematics shall be enrolled in tutoring in accordance with this policy. Guidelines Tutoring shall be provided in groups of no more than four (4) students, for no fewer than three (3) sessions per week of at least thirty (30) minutes each, and shall be delivered during the regular school day. Each group shall be served by a consistent tutor who has completed district training and who uses district-approved materials aligned to the core curriculum. Tutoring shall not be offered solely on an opt-in, on-demand, or outside-school-hours basis. The building principal shall record the sessions scheduled and the sessions delivered for each tutored student. Reporting The Superintendent shall report to the Board by December 15 and by June 15 each year the number and share of eligible students tutored, the average sessions delivered per week, tutor consistency, and the assessment growth of tutored students compared with similar non-tutored students, disaggregated by school, race, ethnicity, income, English learner status, and disability status.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of students below benchmark on the interim assessment who received tutoring at least three sessions a week for at least ten weeks during the school day, by school and student group; sessions delivered versus scheduled; share of sessions with the student's assigned tutor; interim assessment growth of tutored students compared with matched non-tutored students. Target: Within one year, every student identified below benchmark is enrolled and the share receiving at least three sessions a week for at least ten weeks during the school day rises each reporting period, with no student group lagging the district rate; within 1 to 3 years, tutored students show growth on the interim assessment greater than matched non-tutored students in both reading and mathematics. Superintendent reports to the Board by December 15 and June 15 each year, disaggregated by school, race, ethnicity, income, English learner status, and disability status, with any school below the dosage standard named and its corrective schedule attached.

Nickow A, Oreopoulos P, Quan V (2024). The Promise of Tutoring for PreK-12 Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence. American Educational Research Journal 61(1):74-107. doi · Nickow A, Oreopoulos P, Quan V (2020). The Impressive Effects of Tutoring on PreK-12 Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence. NBER Working Paper 27476. doi · Kraft MA, Schueler BE, Falken G (2026). What Impacts Should We Expect From Tutoring at Scale? Exploring Meta-Analytic Generalizability. Review of Educational Research. doi

Motion 6. Tiered positive behavior supports and restorative practices: New policy (discipline and climate)

Current language. None; the manual is silent.

Why. School-wide PBIS has the strongest evidence of any discipline framework: a meta-analysis of 29 group studies including seven RCTs finds small-to-medium reductions in discipline referrals and gains in achievement, and the five-year Maryland RCT found children in PBIS schools 33 percent less likely to receive an office referral with fewer suspensions. Restorative practices are promising but mixed: the Pittsburgh RCT cut days lost to suspension 36 percent against 18 percent in controls and narrowed racial gaps, but did not improve achievement and worsened it in grades 6 to 8, while the Maine middle school RCT found no significant intent-to-treat effects.

No. 2__ PUPILS: POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS AND SUPPORTS The district shall operate Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), a school-wide multi-tiered behavior support system, in every building. Each principal shall maintain a building leadership team that meets at least monthly to review discipline data, shall ensure school-wide behavioral expectations are taught to all students each semester, and shall maintain functioning Tier 2 and Tier 3 teams providing Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions, including function-based behavior intervention plans, for students who do not respond to Tier 1 supports. Restorative practices, including restorative conferences and circles, shall be adopted in every building as a complement to the tiered system, not as a substitute for it. Each school shall complete the Tiered Fidelity Inventory or another Board-approved recognized fidelity instrument by May 1 each year. The Superintendent shall coach any school scoring below 70 percent at Tier 1 and shall budget at least two years of external coaching for any school newly adopting the system. By September 30 each year the Superintendent shall report to the Board and publish on the district website, for the prior school year, by building and by race, disability status and sex, office discipline referrals, out-of-school suspensions and other exclusions per 100 students, fidelity scores, and the use and outcomes of restorative conferences and other restorative practices, and shall present a corrective plan for any building whose referral risk ratio for Black students or students with disabilities exceeds 2.0.

How the Board will know it worked. Office discipline referrals and out-of-school suspensions per 100 students by building and student group; annual Tier 1 fidelity score on the Tiered Fidelity Inventory; share of buildings with functioning Tier 2 and Tier 3 teams; referral risk ratios for Black students and students with disabilities; student and teacher climate survey results. Target: Within 1 year, every building completes a fidelity assessment and has functioning Tier 2 and Tier 3 teams; within 3 years, every building scores 70 percent or higher at Tier 1, office referrals and out-of-school suspensions per 100 students decline from baseline in every building, and no building has a referral risk ratio above 2.0 for Black students or students with disabilities. Superintendent reports to the Board and publishes on the district website by September 30 each year, for the prior school year, by building and by race, disability status and sex, including fidelity scores, restorative practice use and outcomes, and a corrective plan for any building over the 2.0 risk ratio threshold.

Lee A, Gage NA (2020). Updating and expanding systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the effects of school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports. Psychology in the Schools 57(5):783-804. doi · Bradshaw CP, Mitchell MM, Leaf PJ (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 12(3):133-148. doi · Bradshaw CP, Waasdorp TE, Leaf PJ (2012). Effects of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems. Pediatrics 130(5):e1136-e1145. doi

Motion 7. School-based mental health, counseling and suicide prevention: Amend 820 Suicide Awareness, Prevention, & Response

Current language. School safety and security training for employees may include suicide awareness.[9] Additional professional development in suicide risk screening and/or assessment and crisis intervention shall be provided to specialized staff and school behavioral health professionals such as school crisis response/intervention team members, threat assessment team members, designated administrators, school coun

Why. Mental health services delivered in school by school staff reduce student mental health problems (Hedges g = 0.39 across 43 controlled trials with 49,941 elementary students; g = 0.76 for targeted services), and placing licensed clinicians in schools raised treatment use 8 percent and cut self-reported suicide attempts about 15 percent across 263 Minnesota schools. Counselors have causal effects: an additional counselor reduces disciplinary incidents and raises achievement (Carrell and Hoekstra), individual counselors move graduation and college attendance as much as teachers do (Mulhern), and one more high school counselor raises four-year college enrollment by up to 10 points in a regression-discontinuity design. Universal suicide prevention programs that teach help-seeking (YAM in the SEYLE trial, SOS) roughly halve new suicide attempts, but the largest Sources of Strength trial found no overall reduction and harm where fidelity was poor.

820. Suicide Awareness, Prevention, & Response The Superintendent shall staff each school at no more than 250 students per counselor, 500 per school psychologist and 250 per social worker, and for any school above a ratio present to the Board by March 1 annually a funded plan to reach it within three years. Every school shall have a licensed mental health clinician, district-employed or from a contracted community provider, on site at least one day weekly, and offer students referred for a mental health concern an initial appointment within 10 school days. Each secondary school shall offer annual universal screening for depression and suicide risk by validated instrument with parental consent; give elevated-risk students same-day follow-up by a licensed professional; refer students found to need services to school-based or community services within the same week; deliver an evidence-based suicide prevention program listed by a recognized registry; and maintain a written postvention protocol for responding to a suicide death or attempt. The Director of Student Services shall approve each postvention protocol, document program adherence each semester, suspend any component not delivered as designed, and report to the Board by November 1 annually: staffing ratios by building; students served by an on-site licensed clinician, in number and share; the share screened; the share referred who began services; time to first appointment; suspension rates; and fidelity findings.

How the Board will know it worked. Students per school counselor, school psychologist and school social worker by building; share of students screened and share of referred students who begin services within 30 days; time to first appointment; number and share of students served by an on-site licensed clinician; student survey items on depression, suicidal ideation and attempts; suspension rate; suicide prevention fidelity checks. Target: Every building at or below 250 students per counselor, 500 per school psychologist and 250 per school social worker within three years of the first March 1 plan; every school with a licensed clinician on site weekly by the end of year one; every referred student offered an initial appointment within 10 school days; share of referred students beginning services within 30 days rising each year; self-reported suicide attempts and suspension rates declining over 1 to 3 years with every program component passing fidelity checks. Director of Student Services to the Board by November 1 each year, with the funded staffing plan from the Superintendent by March 1 each year; the ratio, clinician access, screening and referral figures are broken out by building and the survey and suspension items are compared with the baseline year.

Sanchez AL, Cornacchio D, Poznanski B, Golik AM, Chou T, Comer JS (2018). The effectiveness of school-based mental health services for elementary-aged children: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 57(3):153-165. doi · Golberstein E, Zainullina I, Sojourner A, Sander MA (2024). Effects of school-based mental health services on youth outcomes. Journal of Human Resources 59(S):S256-S281. doi · Carrell SE, Hoekstra M (2014). Are school counselors an effective education input? Economics Letters 125(1):66-69. doi

Motion 8. High-quality instructional materials and adoption: Amend 108 Adoption of Textbooks

Current language. The adoption of new textbooks and materials, including software, shall be handled in the following manner: The Director of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment shall make available to the subject area teacher sample books and materials, including software, from several publishing companies.

Why. Which textbook a district adopts can move achievement as much as many costlier reforms: in California the best-performing elementary math series outscored its rivals by 0.05 to 0.08 SD at near-zero marginal cost, a randomized IES trial found differences of 4 to 7 percentile points between first and second grade math curricula, and a field experiment giving teachers high-quality off-the-shelf lessons raised math achievement by 0.06 SD at about 6 dollars per student. Effects depend on the specific materials and their use with aligned professional development; districts' formal adoption processes rarely examine evidence of effectiveness.

108. Adoption of Textbooks Delegation of Responsibility The Superintendent shall maintain and post on the district website an inventory of the core instructional materials in use in every subject and grade, showing the adoption year and the independent quality rating of each program. Guidelines Core instructional materials shall be adopted only through a process that includes an independent standards-alignment and quality review, such as EdReports or the state review; a written summary of available effectiveness evidence for each finalist; a pilot of at least one (1) semester in at least two (2) schools with teacher and student feedback; and a curriculum-specific professional development plan providing at least twenty (20) hours of training to every teacher using the materials in the first year. Core instructional materials shall be reviewed at least every six (6) years. Teachers shall use the adopted core program as the primary instructional resource and may supplement it. Supplemental materials used for more than twenty percent (20%) of instructional time in a course shall be reported to the building principal. The Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum shall report to the Board by August 31 of each year on the inventory, the share of classrooms using the adopted core program as the primary resource as determined by the annual teacher survey and walkthroughs, the curriculum professional development hours delivered, and the achievement and growth in each subject for three (3) years following each adoption.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of core programs on the public inventory that have an independent quality rating and were adopted through the published process, share of classrooms using the adopted core program as primary, curriculum-specific professional development hours per teacher in adoption year, and achievement and growth in each subject for three years after each adoption. Target: Within 1 year, the full inventory is posted and every new adoption follows the published process with a semester pilot in at least two schools and at least 20 hours of professional development per teacher in the first year; within 3 years of each adoption, the share of classrooms using the core program as primary rises from baseline and achievement and growth in that subject improve relative to the pre-adoption year. Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum reports to the Board by August 31 each year, with the inventory posted on the district website.

Koedel, C., Li, D., Polikoff, M. S., Hardaway, T., & Wrabel, S. L. (2017). Mathematics Curriculum Effects on Student Achievement in California. AERA Open 3(1). doi · Koedel, C., & Polikoff, M. (2017). Big bang for just a few bucks: The impact of math textbooks in California. Evidence Speaks Reports 2(5). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. link · Jackson, C. K., & Makarin, A. (2018). Can Online Off-the-Shelf Lessons Improve Student Outcomes? Evidence from a Field Experiment. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 10(3):226-254. doi

Motion 9. Multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS / RtI): New policy (academics and access)

Current language. None; the manual is silent.

Why. The components of a tiered system work when they are done well: K-3 supplemental reading interventions average about 0.4 SD across dozens of rigorous studies, early K-2 screeners predict later reading, and a randomized trial shows that starting intervention immediately after screening beats waiting a semester (d = 0.36). The one large evaluation of RtI as schools actually ran it (Balu et al. 2015, 146 schools in 13 states) found that first graders just below the cutoff who were pulled into Tier 2 or 3 scored lower in spring than peers just above it, with no effect in grades 2 and 3.

No. [to be assigned] Section: Programs Title: Multi-Tiered System of Support Fairview School District Every school shall operate a multi-tiered system of support in reading, mathematics and behavior, using [name of screener], with published classification accuracy, as each area's universal screener. The Superintendent shall screen every kindergarten through grade 8 student within the first 30 school days and in winter and spring windows published before each year. An at-risk student shall begin school-logged Tier 2 intervention within 15 school days of screening. Tier 2 shall provide at least three 30-minute small-group sessions weekly and Tier 3 at least five 30-minute sessions weekly in groups of three or fewer, added to core instruction, never replacing it. Tier 2 and 3 students shall be progress-monitored at least every two weeks. At least every six weeks the student support team shall review each student's data and record its decision: at the screener's grade-level benchmark, exit to the lower tier; on track to meet it by the next window, continue; below it, intensify. A student not responding after two cycles shall be referred for special education evaluation; no school shall require tiered intervention before a parent-requested evaluation proceeds. Each December and June the Director of Student Services shall report to the Board screening participation per window, share at risk, share of at-risk students with intervention logged within 15 school days, progress-monitoring frequency per Tier 2 and 3 student, share of Tier 2 students exiting to Tier 1 within a semester, and special education referral and identification rates by school and race.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of at-risk students with Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention logged within 15 school days of screening, share of Tier 2 students exiting to Tier 1 within a semester, screening participation each window, progress-monitoring frequency, and special education referral and identification rates by school and race. Target: By the June report of year one, every school screens all K-8 students within the first 30 school days of each window, every at-risk student has intervention logged within 15 school days, every Tier 2 and Tier 3 student is progress-monitored at least every two weeks, and the share of Tier 2 students exiting to Tier 1 within a semester rises each year over the first 3 years with no school showing referral or identification rates by race that diverge from its share of enrollment without a documented review. Director of Student Services reports to the Board each December and June, by school and race, with the June report comparing spring outcomes of students placed in Tier 2 or Tier 3 against students just above the cutoff to check for the negative grade 1 pattern found in the national evaluation.

Balu R, Zhu P, Doolittle F, Schiller E, Jenkins J, Gersten R (2015). Evaluation of Response to Intervention Practices for Elementary School Reading. NCEE 2016-4000. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. link · Gersten R, Jayanthi M, Dimino J (2017). Too much, too soon? Unanswered questions from national Response to Intervention evaluation. Exceptional Children 83(3):244-254. doi · Fuchs D, Fuchs LS (2017). Critique of the national evaluation of Response to Intervention: A case for simpler frameworks. Exceptional Children 83(3):255-268. doi

Motion 10. Class size in the early grades: Amend 126 Class Size

Current language. Authority The administration is to determine the size of classes in the District which will produce the optimum educational benefit for the students.

Why. The Tennessee STAR experiment shows that classes of 13 to 17 students in K-3 raise test scores by about 4 percentile points in the first year and roughly 1 point a year after, with larger gains for Black students and students on free lunch, and the same students were 2.7 percentage points more likely to attend college. Large-scale rollouts deliver less than the experiment because they dilute teacher quality and cost a great deal per student.

126. CLASS SIZE Kindergarten through grade 3 general education classes shall not exceed twenty (20) students, or twenty-two (22) students when a full-time instructional aide is assigned to the class for the entire school day. Where staffing or space does not permit every school in the District to meet this cap in a given school year, the Superintendent shall meet the cap first in the schools with the highest share of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals. Teachers hired to meet this cap shall hold full state certification for the grade taught. The Superintendent shall report to the Board by October 31 of each year, by school, the average and maximum class size for each grade K-3, the number of sections exceeding the cap and the reason for each, and the share of K-3 teachers without full certification. Any section exceeding the cap after October 31 shall require written Board approval.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of K-3 general education sections above the cap (20 students, or 22 with a full-time aide) each October, by school; share of K-3 teachers without full state certification; K-3 reading and math benchmark growth by school. Target: Within 1 year, zero K-3 sections above the cap in the schools with the highest share of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals; within 3 years, zero sections above the cap district-wide without written Board approval, and the share of new K-3 teachers without full certification at zero. K-3 reading and math benchmark growth in the schools brought under the cap should rise relative to their own baseline over the same 3 years. Superintendent's annual report to the Board by October 31, by school and grade K-3, with average and maximum class size, the number of sections above the cap and the reason for each, the share of K-3 teachers without full certification, and K-3 reading and math benchmark growth; any over-cap section after October 31 recorded in Board minutes with written approval.

Krueger AB (1999). Experimental estimates of education production functions. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(2):497-532. doi · Chetty R, Friedman JN, Hilger N, Saez E, Schanzenbach DW, Yagan D (2011). How does your kindergarten classroom affect your earnings? Evidence from Project STAR. Quarterly Journal of Economics 126(4):1593-1660. doi · Dynarski S, Hyman J, Schanzenbach DW (2013). Experimental evidence on the effect of childhood investments on postsecondary attainment and degree completion. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 32(4):692-717. doi

Motion 11. Career and technical education pathways: Amend 115 Vocational Technical Education

Current language. Purpose The Board shall provide a program of vocational technical education in order to prepare students for gainful employment as skilled workers or technicians in recognized, new and emerging occupations, to prepare students for enrollment in postsecondary education programs, and to assist students in choosing meaningful career pathways.

Why. Structured CTE pathways, meaning multi-year sequences with employer partners, work-based learning, and a credential, raise graduation and earnings in causal studies: the MDRC career academies RCT found earnings 11 percent higher eight years after high school (17 percent for young men), Massachusetts and Connecticut regression-discontinuity studies find 7 to 10 point gains in on-time graduation and, in Connecticut, 32 percent higher quarterly earnings for men, and New York City's lottery-based P-TECH evaluation found associate degree completion up 5 percentage points with dual enrollment more than doubled. Effects come from depth in one field, not scattered introductory courses, and are concentrated among young men.

No. 115 Vocational Technical Education Each high school shall offer no fewer than two career and technical education programs of study. Each program shall consist of a sequence of at least three courses in one field identified as high-wage and in demand in the most recent regional labor market analysis and shall have a named employer or industry partner, an aligned dual-credit agreement with a public college, a paid or credit-bearing work-based learning placement available to every concentrator by grade 12, and preparation for an industry-recognized credential whose exam fee the district shall pay. Seats in an oversubscribed program shall be assigned by lottery or published objective criteria, not by staff recommendation. No student shall be placed in a program of study as a substitute for the college-preparatory course sequence. By December 1 each year, the Director of Career and Technical Education shall report to the Board, using Perkins V accountability data, the number of concentrators and completers by program, credentials earned, work-based learning placements, dual credits earned, the graduation rate of concentrators, and employment or postsecondary enrollment of the prior cohort, disaggregated by school, race, ethnicity, income, English learner status, disability status and sex, and shall recommend closing or redesigning any program whose completers show no employment or enrollment advantage for two consecutive years.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of graduates who completed a CTE program of study (two or more courses in one pathway) and earned an industry-recognized credential or 12 or more aligned college credits; share of concentrators with a paid work-based learning placement; concentrator graduation rate; and employment or postsecondary enrollment of the prior cohort, each by school and student group Target: Within 1 year every high school offers at least two qualifying programs of study and the structural elements (partner, dual-credit agreement, placement, credential preparation, fee payment) are in place; within 3 years the share of graduates who are concentrators with a credential or 12 aligned credits, the share of concentrators with a paid placement, and the concentrator graduation rate rise above baseline in each student group, and completers of every retained program show an employment or enrollment advantage over non-completers in the prior cohort Annual report to the Board by December 1 from the Director of Career and Technical Education, using Perkins V accountability data and state wage and Clearinghouse matches, disaggregated by school, race, ethnicity, income, English learner status, disability status, and sex, with a close-or-redesign recommendation for any program showing no completer advantage for two consecutive years

Kemple JJ, Willner CJ (2008). Career Academies: Long-Term Impacts on Labor Market Outcomes, Educational Attainment, and Transitions to Adulthood. MDRC. link · Dougherty SM (2018). The Effect of Career and Technical Education on Human Capital Accumulation: Causal Evidence from Massachusetts. Education Finance and Policy 13(2):119-148. doi · Brunner EJ, Dougherty SM, Ross SL (2023). The Effects of Career and Technical Education: Evidence from the Connecticut Technical High School System. Review of Economics and Statistics 105(4):867-882. doi

Motion 12. Family engagement and two-way communication: Amend 918 District-Wide Parental Involvement

Current language. Address the importance of communication between teachers and parents on an ongoing basis through at least annual parent-teacher conferences in elementary schools, frequent reports to parents on their children's progress, reasonable access to staff, opportunities to volunteer and participate in the child's class and observation of classroom activities, and ensuring regular two-way, meaningful commu

Why. Randomized trials show that specific, frequent, two-way teacher-to-family communication about a child's own effort, attendance and missed work raises engagement and achievement: daily teacher messages increased homework completion 40 percent, weekly one-sentence notes cut course failure 41 percent, automated missed-assignment alerts cut course failures 27 percent, and parent-school meetings in France reduced truancy and discipline sanctions by about 0.15 SD. Meta-analyses of family-school partnership programs find small to moderate positive associations with achievement (r about 0.12 for involvement overall; about 0.3 SD for structured programs), strongest for communication about schoolwork and parental expectations rather than attendance at events.

918. District-Wide Parental Involvement Each school shall make at least two documented two-way contacts with the family of every enrolled student each school year, the first by October 31 and the second by March 31, about that student's own attendance, progress and missed work. A two-way contact shall be a phone call, in-person or video conference, home visit or text exchange in which the family responds; a newsletter, mass message or automated call shall not count. Each contact shall be made in the family's preferred language and logged in the student information system with the date, mode, language and topic. The district shall enroll every family by default in weekly progress alerts covering absences, missing assignments and grades below the passing threshold, with opt-out available, and shall verify each family's phone number and language preference at enrollment and each August. Each school shall hold at least one scheduled conference per student per year, offered at two or more times including one outside working hours, with interpretation on request. The Superintendent shall report to the Board by each November 30, by school and subgroup, the share of students whose families received two logged two-way contacts in the prior year, conference participation, alert enrollment, and annual family survey results administered in the district's top five home languages, and shall publish it on the district website.

How the Board will know it worked. Percent of enrolled students whose family received at least two logged, individualized two-way contacts in the school year (one by October 31, one by March 31), by school and subgroup; plus share of families enrolled in alerts and reachable by verified phone, conference participation rate, and family survey response rate and agreement with 'the school tells me how my child is doing' Target: Every school reaches a majority of students with two logged two-way contacts in year one and raises that share each year through year three, with the gap between the lowest and highest subgroup narrowing each year; all families enrolled in alerts by default with a verified phone on file by the end of each August; survey response rate and agreement with 'the school tells me how my child is doing' rising each year Superintendent's annual report to the Board by November 30, by school and subgroup, published on the district website, with a mid-year check at the March 31 deadline

Kraft MA, Dougherty SM (2013). The effect of teacher-family communication on student engagement: evidence from a randomized field experiment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 6(3):199-222. doi · Kraft MA, Rogers T (2015). The underutilized potential of teacher-to-parent communication: evidence from a field experiment. Economics of Education Review 47:49-63. doi · Bergman P (2021). Parent-child information frictions and human capital investment: evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Political Economy 129(1):286-322. doi

Motion 13. Classroom temperature, ventilation and indoor air: New policy (health and wellbeing)

Current language. None; the manual is silent.

Why. Heat cuts learning: across 10 million PSAT retakers, each 1 degree F hotter school year reduced that year's learning by about 1 percent in schools without air conditioning, and air conditioning offset nearly all of it; hot school days fall hardest on Black and Hispanic students and explain roughly 5 percent of the racial achievement gap. Poor ventilation costs attendance and scores: in 162 California classrooms each additional 1 L/s per person of outdoor air cut illness absence 1.6 percent, a 140-classroom study found math scores rose 0.5 percent per L/s-person up to the 7.1 L/s-person standard and a further 0.5 percent per degree C cooler within 20 to 25 C, and a double-blind crossover experiment found 3 to 7 percent more correct answers when outdoor air rose from 1.7 to 6.6 L/s-person.

No. ___ SECTION: PROPERTY TITLE: CLASSROOM TEMPERATURE AND AIR QUALITY The Board directs that every occupied classroom shall be maintained at a temperature between 68 and 78 degrees F during instructional time. When a classroom cannot be held at or below 82 degrees F, the building principal shall relocate instruction to a cooled space, and no student shall be taught in a room at or above 88 degrees F. The Director of Facilities shall install a continuous carbon dioxide monitor in every classroom, shall operate ventilation systems to supply at least the outdoor air rate in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1 with filters rated MERV-13 or higher, and shall investigate and correct any classroom whose carbon dioxide level exceeds 1,000 ppm for more than 10 percent of occupied hours in a month. By September 30 of each year, the Director of Facilities shall report to the Board the classrooms without mechanical cooling, the number of instructional hours above 78 degrees F by building during the prior year, the monthly carbon dioxide exceedance rate by building, filter replacement records, and a prioritized capital plan to provide cooling and code-rate ventilation in every classroom. The Superintendent shall include that plan in the annual capital budget request.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of classrooms with mechanical cooling, instructional hours above 78 F by building, share of occupied classroom hours with CO2 above 1,000 ppm, measured outdoor air rate per person at commissioning, illness absence by building, and number of heat-related early dismissals Target: Within 1 year every classroom has a continuous CO2 monitor and no building exceeds 1,000 ppm for more than 10 percent of occupied hours in any month; within 3 years the share of classrooms without mechanical cooling and the instructional hours above 78 F fall each year, no student is taught at or above 88 F, and illness absence by building declines Annual report from the Director of Facilities to the Board by September 30, with monthly CO2 exceedance rates by building available to the Board on request

Park RJ, Goodman J, Hurwitz M, Smith J (2020). Heat and learning. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 12(2):306-339. doi · Park RJ (2022). Hot temperature and high-stakes performance. Journal of Human Resources 57(2):400-434. doi · Park RJ, Behrer AP, Goodman J (2021). Learning is inhibited by heat exposure, both internationally and within the United States. Nature Human Behaviour 5(1):19-27. doi

Motion 14. Instructional coaching and professional development: Amend 333 Professional Development

Current language. Authority Continuing professional study and inservice training for administrative, professional and support employees are prerequisites for professional development, enhanced ability to complete responsibilities and maintaining certification.

Why. A meta-analysis of 60 causal studies finds that one-on-one instructional coaching improves teaching practice by 0.49 SD and student achievement by 0.18 SD, far more than the one-off workshops that make up most district professional development, which show no achievement effect in large randomized trials. Effects shrink as programs scale (programs over 100 teachers: 0.34 SD practice, 0.10 SD achievement) and depend on coaches observing real lessons and giving specific feedback in cycles over a year.

Section 333. Professional Development: Instructional Coaching The Superintendent shall employ instructional coaches at a ratio of no more than one coach to twenty teachers served. Every teacher in the first three years of service and every teacher rated below effective on the most recent evaluation shall receive at least eight coaching cycles per year. Each cycle shall consist of a classroom observation, a written feedback conference within five school days, and a follow-up observation. Coaches shall hold no evaluative role and shall not share observation notes with evaluators. Coaches shall log each cycle in the district professional development system. No more than twenty-five percent of district-provided professional development hours in any year shall be delivered as single-session workshops without classroom follow-up. The Assistant Superintendent for Teaching and Learning shall report to the Board by September 30 of each year the following: coaching cycles completed per teacher by school; coach caseloads; the share of professional development hours delivered as coaching; change in observed instructional practice scores of coached teachers; and student growth of coached teachers compared with uncoached teachers. The Board shall review coaching staffing against that report before adopting the following year's budget.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of eligible teachers (first three years of service or rated below effective) receiving at least eight logged coaching cycles per year, coach caseload per full-time coach, share of PD hours delivered as single-session workshops, change in observed instructional practice scores of coached teachers, and student growth of coached teachers versus comparable uncoached teachers. Target: By the end of year one, every eligible teacher has eight logged cycles, no full-time coach serves more than 20 teachers, and single-session workshops are no more than 25 percent of district PD hours; by the end of year two, observed instructional practice scores of coached teachers rise over their pre-coaching scores and student growth of coached teachers is at or above that of comparable uncoached teachers, with both measures improving year over year. Annual report from the Assistant Superintendent for Teaching and Learning to the Board by September 30, disaggregated by school, reviewed by the Board before adoption of the following year's budget.

Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The Effect of Teacher Coaching on Instruction and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of the Causal Evidence. Review of Educational Research 88(4):547-588. doi · Allen, J. P., Pianta, R. C., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Lun, J. (2011). An Interaction-Based Approach to Enhancing Secondary School Instruction and Student Achievement. Science 333(6045):1034-1037. doi · Kraft, M. A., & Blazar, D. (2017). Individualized Coaching to Improve Teacher Practice Across Grades and Subjects: New Experimental Evidence. Educational Policy 31(7):1033-1068. doi

Motion 15. Secondary school start time: Amend 804 School Day

Current language. The Superintendent shall develop guidelines which allow students to enter and leave schools under exceptional conditions so that variances with the normal school schedule may be accommodated.

Why. Adolescent circadian timing shifts later, and middle and high schools that start at or after 8:30 a.m. get measurably more sleep from students; a Seattle district-wide delay of nearly an hour produced 34 more minutes of sleep per night, a 4.5 percent rise in median grades and better attendance, and a Florida time-zone natural experiment found each hour of later start relative to sunrise raised adolescent math scores by 0.08 SD. Meta-analyses and a Cochrane review agree on the sleep and attendance effects; achievement effects are positive but smaller and less consistent.

804 School Day Guidelines The instructional day for students in grades 6 through 12 shall begin no earlier than 8:30 a.m. in every district school. No district school shall require student attendance at a zero period, assembly or mandatory activity before that time. By March 1 of each year, the Superintendent shall present to the Board a schedule report listing the first-bell time of every building for the coming school year, the number and percentage of secondary students whose instructional day begins before 8:30 a.m., and the transportation plan and cost needed to comply with this policy. The Superintendent shall include in the annual student wellness report the median school-night sleep hours reported by secondary students on the district climate survey, together with chronic absence and first-period tardy rates by building. Any building unable to comply shall be named in the schedule report with a dated plan to comply within one school year.

How the Board will know it worked. Percentage of secondary students (grades 6 through 12) whose instructional day begins at or after 8:30 a.m., plus median school-night sleep hours reported by secondary students on the district climate survey and chronic absence and first-period tardy rates by building Target: 100 percent of secondary students begin instruction at or after 8:30 a.m. by the start of the school year following the first March 1 report, with any named noncompliant building in compliance within one school year; median school-night sleep hours rise and chronic absence and first-period tardy rates fall in every converted building by the second annual wellness report The Superintendent reports to the Board by March 1 each year in the schedule report and annually in the student wellness report, with figures broken out by building

Adolescent Sleep Working Group, Committee on Adolescence, Council on School Health, American Academy of Pediatrics (2014). School start times for adolescents. Pediatrics 134(3):642-649. doi · Dunster GP, de la Iglesia L, Ben-Hamo M, Nave C, Fleischer JG, Panda S, de la Iglesia HO (2018). Sleepmore in Seattle: Later school start times are associated with more sleep and better performance in high school students. Science Advances 4(12):eaau6200. doi · Heissel JA, Norris S (2018). Rise and shine: The effect of school start times on academic performance from childhood through puberty. Journal of Human Resources 53(4):957-992. doi

Motion 16. Summer learning and extended learning time: Amend 124 Summer School

Current language. Purpose It is the policy of the Board that the district may conduct a summer program of remedial and enrichment instruction at the primary level, intermediate level, middle school level, and high school level for resident students of this district.

Why. Voluntary summer programs with at least five weeks and three hours of daily academic instruction produce modest gains for students who attend regularly: a meta-analysis of 37 studies finds +0.10 SD in math, a meta-analysis of 41 summer reading interventions finds significant reading gains concentrated among low-income children, and the RAND five-district randomized study found a near-term math benefit after one summer with persistent math and language arts advantages for high attenders after two. Extending the regular school day for literacy in low-performing Florida schools raised reading 0.05 SD in a regression-discontinuity design.

124 Summer School The district shall offer each summer, at no charge, an academic summer program of at least five (5) weeks, with at least three (3) hours per day of reading and mathematics instruction taught by certified teachers, together with enrichment, meals and transportation. Priority in enrollment shall be given to students scoring below grade level on the spring interim assessment, students eligible for free or reduced-price meals, English learners and students with disabilities. The program shall set an attendance goal of at least twenty (20) days for each enrolled student. Program staff shall contact the family of any student who is absent two (2) consecutive days. The Superintendent shall report to the Board by October 15 of each year the number of students enrolled; the percentage attending twenty (20) or more days, by building and by subgroup; and the spring-to-fall assessment change for students who attended twenty (20) or more days compared with eligible students who did not enroll. Any extended-day or extended-year program adopted by the district shall state its added instructional minutes, the content taught in those minutes and the staff assigned to them, and shall be included in the same report with its fall-to-spring growth comparison.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of enrolled students attending 20 or more days, by building and subgroup, and the spring-to-fall interim assessment change in reading and mathematics for students attending 20 or more days compared with eligible students who did not enroll. Target: Within 1 to 3 years, the share of enrolled students attending 20 or more days rises each year in every building and subgroup, and students attending 20 or more days show a higher spring-to-fall assessment change in reading and mathematics than eligible non-enrollees in each annual October 15 report. Superintendent's annual report to the Board by October 15, covering enrollment, the percentage attending 20 or more days by building and subgroup, the spring-to-fall growth comparison for attenders versus eligible non-enrollees, and for any extended-day or extended-year program its added minutes, content, staff and fall-to-spring growth comparison.

Lynch K, An L, Mancenido Z (2023). The impact of summer programs on student mathematics achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 93(2):275-315. doi · Kim JS, Quinn DM (2013). The effects of summer reading on low-income children's literacy achievement from kindergarten to grade 8: A meta-analysis of classroom and home interventions. Review of Educational Research 83(3):386-431. doi · Augustine CH, McCombs JS, Pane JF, Schwartz HL, Schweig J, McEachin A, Siler-Evans K (2016). Learning from summer: Effects of voluntary summer learning programs on low-income urban youth. RAND Corporation, RR-1557-WF. doi

Motion 17. Community schools and integrated student supports: Amend 146 Student Services

Current language. STUDENT SERVICES Authority Title 22 Sec. 4.13, 12.41 The Board shall approve a written plan for implementing a comprehensive and integrated K-12 program of student services, based on the needs of students.

Why. Quasi-experimental evaluations of the two largest community school systems find consistent gains in attendance and behavior and smaller, slower gains in achievement: New York City's 2014 initiative cut chronic absence by 7 to 8 percentage points, raised graduation 4.9 points over three years and credits earned by 1.3 per year, reduced disciplinary incidents in elementary and middle schools, and raised grade 3-8 math by 0.13 SD only in year three with no ELA effect; California's 2022 grantee cohort cut chronic absence about 30 percent and suspensions about 15 percent relative to matched schools with math +0.06 SD and ELA +0.05 SD in the first year. Longitudinal studies of City Connects, the best-studied integrated-support model, show higher middle-school test scores and roughly half the odds of high school dropout for students served in elementary school.

146. STUDENT SERVICES The Board adopts the four-pillar community school strategy: integrated student supports, expanded learning time, family and community engagement, and collaborative leadership. The Board shall designate community schools where 60 percent or more of students are eligible for free or reduced-price meals, English learners or in foster care, and shall fund at each a full-time coordinator employed by the district or a lead partner and approve a signed lead partner agreement. Each designated school shall assess student, family and neighborhood needs and assets by each October 31 from its first year, shall review every student at least yearly for academic, health, social and material needs, and shall record in the student support system each need and connected service, targeting 90 percent matched to a service within 30 school days. A site leadership team of the principal, coordinator, at least two teachers, at least two parents and a community partner shall meet monthly. By December 31 yearly the Superintendent shall report to the Board, per designated school, full-time coordinator staffing, the signed lead partner agreement, the share of students with identified needs served within 30 school days, and chronic absence, suspension, course-passing and state assessment results against the three district schools most similar in enrollment and poverty, and shall present the strategy's per-pupil cost in the annual budget.

How the Board will know it worked. For each designated school: full-time coordinator in place, signed lead partner agreement, share of identified student needs matched to a service within 30 school days, and chronic absence, suspension and course-passing rates compared with the three most similar district schools. Target: By the first December 31 report, every designated school has a full-time coordinator and a signed lead partner agreement and has matched 90 percent of identified needs to a service within 30 school days; within 1 to 3 years, chronic absence and suspension rates at designated schools fall relative to their comparison schools, with a direction of improvement in course-passing rates. Superintendent's written report to the Board by December 31 each year, one page per designated school showing staffing, agreement status, the 30-school-day match rate, and the three-school comparison on attendance, suspension, course-passing and state assessment results, with the per-pupil cost shown in the annual budget.

Johnston WR, Engberg J, Opper IM, Sontag-Padilla L, Xenakis L (2020). Illustrating the promise of community schools: an assessment of the impact of the New York City Community Schools Initiative. RR-3245-NYCCEO. RAND Corporation. doi · Swain W, Leung-Gagne M, Maier A, Rubinstein CF (2025). Community schools impact on student outcomes: evidence from California. Learning Policy Institute. doi · Heers M, Van Klaveren C, Groot W, Maassen van den Brink H (2016). Community schools: what we know and what we need to know. Review of Educational Research 86(4):1016-1051. doi

Motion 18. Access to extracurricular activities, athletics and the arts: Amend 123 Interscholastic Athletics

Current language. Such standards shall require that each student be covered by the maximum Student Accident Insurance available, or its equivalent, be in good physical condition, be free of injury and shall have fully recovered from illness, as determined by the district's physician, before participating in any interscholastic athletic event.[5] Students residing in the district who are receiving a program of hom

Why. Causal studies find that participation pays: Houston's randomized arts-access initiative (42 schools, more than 10,000 students) reduced disciplinary infractions, raised writing achievement and increased empathy and, for elementary students, school engagement and college aspirations; Title IX's forced expansion of girls' sports raised women's college attendance and employment (Stevenson); German sports-club participation improved grades and health. Longitudinal work (Fredricks and Eccles) links breadth of participation to higher GPA, college enrollment and lower risk behavior. Fees are the main access barrier: average required fees in 2018 to 2019 were $161 for sports, $86 for arts and $46 for clubs, lower-income students are twice as likely not to participate, and only 7% of parents have ever requested a waiver.

123 Interscholastic Athletics Guidelines No student shall be denied participation in any school-sponsored athletic, arts, club or other extracurricular activity because of inability to pay a fee, purchase equipment or uniforms, or pay for travel. Any participation fee shall be waived automatically for every student eligible for free or reduced-price meals, every student in foster care or experiencing homelessness, and any other student whose parent or guardian signs a statement of hardship. No separate application shall be required, and waiver status shall not be visible to other students. Each school shall offer at least one no-fee activity option in each of athletics, arts and academic clubs. Each elementary school shall provide at least 60 minutes per week of visual art instruction and 60 minutes per week of music instruction taught by a certified arts teacher. The Superintendent shall report to the Board by November 1 each year the share of students in each school participating in at least one activity, disaggregated by free and reduced-price lunch status, race and grade; the number and value of waivers granted; the fee schedule for every activity; and any activity discontinued in the prior year with the enrollment it had. The Board shall review the fee schedule annually and shall not raise any fee without a public hearing.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of students in each school participating in at least one school-sponsored activity, disaggregated by free-and-reduced-lunch status, race and grade, drawn from student information system activity rosters; share of waiver-eligible students who actually received a waiver; share of elementary students receiving weekly arts instruction. Target: Within 1 year, 100% of free-and-reduced-lunch, foster and homeless students carry an active waiver flag and 100% of elementary schools provide 60 minutes per week each of visual art and music; within 3 years, the gap in participation rates between free-and-reduced-lunch and non-free-and-reduced-lunch students narrows each year from the baseline, with no subgroup's rate falling. Superintendent reports to the board by November 1 each year, in public session, with the data posted on the district website; the board's annual fee schedule review follows the report.

Bowen DH, Kisida B (2023). Investigating the Causal Effects of Arts Education. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 42(3):624-647. doi · Fredricks JA, Eccles JS (2006). Is extracurricular participation associated with beneficial outcomes? Concurrent and longitudinal relations. Developmental Psychology 42(4):698-713. doi · Stevenson B (2010). Beyond the Classroom: Using Title IX to Measure the Return to High School Sports. Review of Economics and Statistics 92(2):284-301. doi

Motion 19. Gifted and advanced learner identification: Amend 114 Programs for Gifted Students

Current language. The team will review student achievement, assessments, and data which include: parent and teacher input, IQ test, demonstrated achievements of quantitative and qualitative input (may include student interests, portfolios, academic creativity and critical thinking), standardized testing, rate of retention and acquisition, and early skills development.

Why. Replacing teacher or parent referral with universal screening of every student, with no change in the eligibility cutoff, raised gifted identification in Broward County from 3.3 to 5.5 percent of second graders, with the largest gains for low-income, Black, Hispanic and English learner students who had been systematically under-referred. Black students with the same test scores are referred less often than White students, especially by non-Black teachers, which is why referral-based systems miss them.

The district shall administer a validated ability or achievement screener to every student in grade 2 and again in grade 6, and to every student new to the district within one semester of enrollment, at no cost to families and without any requirement of teacher, parent, or self nomination. Eligibility shall be determined from multiple measures and shall use school-level or district-level local norms in addition to national norms, with nonverbal measures and native-language accommodations available for English learners. A student who meets the criteria shall be placed in services within one semester unless a parent or guardian declines in writing. The Director of Advanced Academics shall report to the Board by November 1 each year the percentage of each cohort screened, the number and percentage of students identified and served by school, race, ethnicity, income, English learner status, and disability status, and the representation index for each group, and the Superintendent shall present a corrective plan for any group whose representation index is below 0.8.

How the Board will know it worked. Percentage of each grade 2 and grade 6 cohort screened, and the representation index (share of identified students in a group divided by that group's share of enrollment) for students by race, ethnicity, income, English learner status, and disability status Target: 100 percent of each grade 2 and grade 6 cohort screened in year one, and the representation index for every student group reaches at least 0.8 within 3 years, with the identification rate for low-income, Black, Hispanic, and English learner students rising each year until that threshold is met Annual report by the Director of Advanced Academics to the Board by November 1, disaggregated by school, race, ethnicity, income, English learner status, and disability status, with the same counts filed to the state gifted data collection and the federal Civil Rights Data Collection

Card D, Giuliano L (2016). Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(48):13678-13683. doi · Grissom JA, Redding C (2016). Discretion and Disproportionality: Explaining the Underrepresentation of High-Achieving Students of Color in Gifted Programs. AERA Open 2(1). doi · McBee MT, Peters SJ, Miller EM (2016). The Impact of the Nomination Stage on Gifted Program Identification: A Comprehensive Psychometric Analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly 60(4):258-278. doi

Motion 20. Grade retention and promotion: Amend 215 Promotion and Retention

Current language. [4] Delegation of Responsibility The Superintendent shall develop procedures for promotion and retention of students which assure that every effort will be made to remediate the student's difficulties before s/he is retained.

Why. Regression discontinuity studies of test-based third-grade retention paired with intensive reading intervention (Florida, Indiana, Mississippi) show large short-run reading gains, with Indiana and Mississippi gains persisting into middle school. Long-run evidence is split: Florida retainees reached high school with higher GPAs and less remediation and no graduation penalty, while a 2026 Texas study finds retained third graders were 9 points less likely to graduate and earned 19 percent less at 26, and retention in later grades (Chicago grade 8, Louisiana grade 8) raises dropout and juvenile crime.

No. 215 Promotion and Retention No student shall be retained in grade solely on the basis of a single test score, and no student shall be retained more than once in grades K-3. Before a student in grades K-3 is retained, the principal shall document that the student received at least one semester of evidence-based intervention beyond core instruction, that the parent or guardian was notified in writing of the risk of retention at least 90 school days before the end of the year, and that a good-cause exemption review was completed for students with disabilities, English learners with fewer than two years of instruction, and students already retained. Every retained student shall receive a written individual reading plan, prepared by the principal and the reading specialist before the first day of the repeated year, that assigns a different core program or a highly rated teacher, at least 90 minutes of daily reading instruction, and progress monitoring every two weeks. Students in grades 6 through 8 shall not be retained on the basis of test scores. The Superintendent shall report to the Board each September the number of students retained the prior year by grade, school, race, disability and English learner status, the share with a completed intervention record, and the reading proficiency and attendance of students retained two years earlier.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of retained K-3 students whose retention record shows a completed intervention plan, written parent notice at least 90 school days before year end, a good-cause exemption review where required and an individual reading plan dated before the first day of the repeated year; number of students retained in grades 6 through 8 on the basis of test scores; reading proficiency and attendance of retained students one and three years after retention compared with barely promoted peers; discipline incidents of retained students. Target: By the end of year one, every retained K-3 student has a complete intervention record, parent notice, exemption review and individual reading plan, zero students in grades 6 through 8 are retained on test scores alone, and no student is retained more than once in K-3; within 1 to 3 years, retained students' reading proficiency rises relative to barely promoted peers and their attendance and discipline do not worsen relative to those peers. The Superintendent presents the retention report to the Board each September, with the compliance measures for the prior year's retentions and the reading proficiency and attendance of students retained two years earlier, disaggregated by grade, school, race, disability and EL status, and the Board reviews any school with incomplete records or a subgroup retention share above its enrollment share at that meeting.

Schwerdt G, West MR, Winters MA (2017). The effects of test-based retention on student outcomes over time: Regression discontinuity evidence from Florida. Journal of Public Economics 152:154-169. doi · Hwang NY, Koedel C (2023). Helping or hurting: The effects of retention in the third grade on student outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 47(1):65-88. doi · Slungaard Mumma K, Winters MA (2023). The Effect of Retention Under Mississippi's Test-Based Promotion Policy. Working paper, Wheelock Educational Policy Center, Boston University. link

Motion 21. Lockdown and active shooter drills: New policy (safety)

Current language. None; the manual is silent.

Why. Announced, procedure-only lockdown drills paired with training raise students' and staff's sense of preparedness and correct execution (classroom procedural accuracy up 27 percentage points after training) without raising measured anxiety, and students in one district reported less fear and lower perceived risk after drills. High-intensity simulations with actors, gunfire or deception are a different intervention: a 114-school interrupted time series of 54 million social media posts found anxiety and stress up 42 percent and depression up 39 percent after active shooter drills, and the American Academy of Pediatrics calls for ending children's participation in high-intensity drills and prohibiting deception.

No. ___ SECTION: OPERATIONS TITLE: LOCKDOWN DRILLS Each school in the district shall conduct lockdown drills at the frequency required by state law. Every drill shall be announced to staff, students and families at least one school day in advance and again immediately before it begins, and shall practice the lockdown procedure only. No drill in which students participate shall use simulated gunfire, weapons, actors posing as attackers, theatrical injuries, or any statement that the event is real. Students with disabilities, students with known trauma histories, and students in pre-kindergarten through grade 2 shall receive accommodations set in advance by the school counselor and the building administrator. A parent may excuse a student from any drill. Each drill shall be observed by an administrator using a procedural checklist and shall be followed by a classroom debrief the same day. The Director of Safety shall report to the Board by June 30 of each year the number, type and date of drills held in each school, procedural accuracy results, counseling contacts in the week following each drill, and the drill-related items from the annual climate survey.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of drills that are announced and procedure-only; share of observed classrooms executing the lockdown procedure correctly; drill-related preparedness and anxiety items on the annual climate survey; counseling contacts in the week after each drill; parent notification compliance. Target: Within one year, 100 percent of drills in which students participate are announced, procedure-only and preceded by parent notification, with zero simulation-style drills; from year one to year three, the share of classrooms executing the procedure correctly rises each year while drill-related anxiety items on the climate survey do not rise and post-drill counseling contacts do not increase. Annual report from the Director of Safety to the Board by June 30, with drill counts and types by school, procedural checklist results, post-drill counseling contacts, climate survey drill items and parent notification compliance.

ElSherief M, Saha K, Gupta P, Mishra S, Seybolt J, Xie J, O'Toole M, Burd-Sharps S, De Choudhury M (2021). Impacts of school shooter drills on the psychological well-being of American K-12 school communities: a social media study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 8:315. doi · Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association (2020, updated 2024). The Impact of Active Shooter Drills in Schools. link · Schildkraut J, Nickerson AB (2020). Ready to respond: effects of lockdown drills and training on school emergency preparedness. Victims and Offenders 15(5):619-638. doi

Motion 22. Math acceleration, eighth grade algebra, and tracking: New policy (academics and access)

Current language. None; the manual is silent.

Why. The evidence favors objective, transparent placement into accelerated math with instructional support, and cuts against both extremes. Placing moderately prepared students into Algebra I in eighth grade without extra support lowered their pass rates and later math course completion in North Carolina and reduced tenth grade math scores in California's push for algebra for all; placing students by an objective prior-achievement rule in Wake County removed race and income from placement decisions, and a randomized Dee and Huffaker study found that putting below-grade-level ninth graders into Algebra I with teacher training raised grade 11 math achievement by up to 0.2 SD. Delaying algebra for everyone, as San Francisco did, cut AP math participation 15 percent at first and left ethnoracial gaps unchanged.

No. ___ SECTION: PROGRAMS TITLE: MATHEMATICS PLACEMENT AND ACCELERATION The Superintendent shall publish, by March 1 each year, the objective criteria used to place students in accelerated mathematics in grades 6 through 9. Criteria shall rely on at least two measures of prior achievement, including the most recent state assessment, and shall not rely on teacher recommendation alone. Every student who meets the criteria shall be placed in the accelerated course for the following year unless a parent or guardian opts out in writing after written notice of eligibility. The district shall offer Algebra I in grade 8 at every middle school and shall provide a supported placement, such as a double period, scheduled tutoring, or summer bridge, for students within one standard error of the cutoff and for any student placed in Algebra I below grade level. Students shall be reassessed for placement at least once each school year, and no placement decision made in grade 6 shall limit course access in later grades. The Superintendent shall report to the Board by October 15 each year on placement rates by school and student group, the share of eighth graders completing Algebra I with a passing end-of-course score, Algebra I repeat rates, and the share of graduates completing calculus or statistics, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, income, English learner status, and disability status.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of students meeting the published placement criterion who are placed in the accelerated course, and share of eighth graders completing Algebra I with a passing end-of-course score, each disaggregated by race, ethnicity, income, English learner status, and disability status, plus the Algebra I repeat rate. Target: Within 1 year, every student who meets the published criterion is placed unless a parent opts out in writing, and Algebra I is offered in grade 8 at every middle school; within 3 years, the share of eighth graders completing Algebra I with a passing end-of-course score rises for every student group with no increase in the Algebra I repeat rate for any group, and the gap in criterion-meeting placement rates between student groups closes to zero. The Superintendent reports to the Board by October 15 each year, with every measure disaggregated by race, ethnicity, income, English learner status, and disability status, and with placement appeals and overrides listed by school.

Dougherty SM, Goodman JS, Hill DV, Litke EG, Page LC (2015). Middle School Math Acceleration and Equitable Access to Eighth-Grade Algebra: Evidence From the Wake County Public School System. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 37(1S):80S-101S. doi · Dougherty SM, Goodman JS, Hill DV, Litke EG, Page LC (2017). Objective course placement and college readiness: Evidence from targeted middle school math acceleration. Economics of Education Review 58:141-161. doi · Clotfelter CT, Ladd HF, Vigdor JL (2015). The Aftermath of Accelerating Algebra: Evidence from District Policy Initiatives. Journal of Human Resources 50(1):159-188. doi

Motion 23. One-to-one devices and educational software: Amend 109 Resource/Supplementary Materials

Current language. Ensure that the Board's budgetary allotment for resource materials is efficiently spent and wisely distributed throughout the instructional program.

Why. Giving every student a device does not by itself raise achievement: the large randomized One Laptop per Child trial and the Swedish 1:1 rollout found no effect on test scores, and the Swedish study found losses for children of less-educated parents. Gains appear only where the device carries targeted software (computer-assisted learning, especially in math) and teachers get sustained support; the one positive US district study (Mooresville) found no short-run effect and +0.13 SD in math after several years alongside changed teaching practice.

109 Resource/Supplementary Materials Before the district purchases or renews any student device program or any instructional software license with an annual cost above $25,000, the Director of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment, subject to the approval of the Superintendent, shall present to the Board a written review stating: (a) the instructional purpose and the grades and subjects served; (b) the best available evidence of effect on student outcomes, with citations; (c) the teacher training and technical support to be provided; and (d) the usage and outcome measures that shall decide renewal. The Director of Technology shall report to the Board by February 1 and August 1 each year, for every licensed product, the share of licensed students active in the prior semester, the median minutes of use per active student, and the total cost per active student. The Director of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment shall report to the Board by October 1 each year the achievement of exposed cohorts against the pre-adoption baseline, disaggregated by subgroup. Any product with fewer than fifty percent (50%) of licensed students active in two consecutive semesters shall not be renewed without a vote of the Board. Devices shall be configured so that instructional use, not device possession, is the measured outcome.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of licensed products above the $25,000 threshold that have a written evidence review on file before purchase or renewal, share of licensed students active weekly per product, and achievement of exposed cohorts versus the pre-adoption baseline by subgroup on state assessments. Target: Within year one, 100 percent of purchases and renewals above $25,000 have an evidence review on file before the Board vote; every licensed product reaches at least 50 percent of licensed students active each semester or is brought to a Board vote; by the third October 1 report, no exposed subgroup trends below its pre-adoption baseline and math achievement for exposed cohorts is moving upward. Director of Technology to the Board each February 1 and August 1 on usage and cost per product; Chief Academic Officer to the Board each October 1 on achievement by subgroup against baseline, with both reports posted publicly.

Zheng B, Warschauer M, Lin CH, Chang C (2016). Learning in One-to-One Laptop Environments: A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis. Review of Educational Research 86(4):1052-1084. doi · Hull M, Duch K (2019). One-to-One Technology and Student Outcomes: Evidence From Mooresville's Digital Conversion Initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 41(1):79-97. doi · Escueta M, Nickow AJ, Oreopoulos P, Quan V (2020). Upgrading Education with Technology: Insights from Experimental Research. Journal of Economic Literature 58(4):897-996. doi

Motion 24. Recess: New policy (health and wellbeing)

Current language. None; the manual is silent.

Why. Daily recess is associated with better classroom behavior and attention: in a national sample of 11,000 third graders, children with at least one daily recess of 15 or more minutes had better teacher-rated class behavior, a within-subject experiment found fourth graders more on task and less fidgety on recess days, and a cluster-randomized trial of a structured-recess program (Playworks) in 27 to 29 schools reduced teacher-reported bullying and exclusion and cut transition time back to learning. The AAP and CDC state that recess is a necessary break and should not be withheld as punishment or to complete work.

No. ___ SECTION: 200 PUPILS TITLE: ELEMENTARY RECESS The Board recognizes that daily recess supports the health and learning of elementary students. Every student in kindergarten through grade 5 shall receive at least twenty (20) minutes of supervised, unstructured recess each school day. Recess shall be held outdoors when weather permits and shall be scheduled in addition to physical education and separate from the seated lunch period. Recess shall not be withheld, shortened or assigned as a consequence for behavior, incomplete work, tardiness or missed assignments. No staff member shall require a student to complete academic work during recess. A student may be removed from recess only for an immediate safety risk. Any such removal shall be recorded in the student information system the same day, with the reason for the removal. Each building principal shall certify the building recess schedule to the Superintendent by September 15 of each year. The Superintendent shall report to the Board by November 1 of each year the daily recess minutes for each elementary building, the number of recorded recess removals by building and reason, and the correction plan for any building providing fewer than twenty (20) minutes of daily recess.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of K-5 students scheduled for at least 20 minutes of daily recess per the certified master schedules, and the count of recess removals logged in the student information system by building and reason Target: Within 1 year, 100 percent of K-5 students in every elementary building have at least 20 minutes of scheduled daily recess, and all logged recess removals cite an immediate safety risk, with the count of removals declining year over year in years 1 to 3 Superintendent reports to the Board by November 1 each year with recess minutes by building, recess removals by building and reason, and correction plans for any building below 20 minutes

Council on School Health, American Academy of Pediatrics (2013). The crucial role of recess in school. Pediatrics 131(1):183-188. doi · Barros RM, Silver EJ, Stein REK (2009). School recess and group classroom behavior. Pediatrics 123(2):431-436. doi · Jarrett OS, Maxwell DM, Dickerson C, Hoge P, Davies G, Yetley A (1998). Impact of recess on classroom behavior: Group effects and individual differences. Journal of Educational Research 92(2):121-126. doi

Motion 25. Access to rigorous coursework (automatic enrollment, AP, IB, dual credit): New policy (academics and access)

Current language. None; the manual is silent.

Why. When districts automatically place every student who meets an objective readiness threshold into the next advanced course, with parent opt-out instead of opt-in, advanced course enrollment rises and gaps by race and income narrow without lowering grades or graduation; Washington's Academic Acceleration policies raised the chance of taking any advanced course by about 5 percent district-wide and more among proficient students who had been passed over. Effects on later college enrollment and persistence from the high school version of the policy are null so far.

No. ___ SECTION: PROGRAMS TITLE: AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT IN ADVANCED COURSEWORK Each student who meets or exceeds the state standard on the most recent state assessment in English language arts, mathematics, or science, or who earns a grade of B or higher in the prerequisite course, shall be enrolled in the next most rigorous level of coursework offered by the district in that subject, including honors, Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, and dual-credit courses, for the following term. Enrollment shall not depend on a teacher recommendation, application, or test fee. A student shall be placed in an alternative course only when a parent or guardian submits a written opt-out after receiving written notice of the student's eligibility. Building principals shall provide the notice by June 1 for the following school year. The Superintendent shall report to the Board by October 15 each year the number of eligible students, the number enrolled, the number opted out, and advanced course completion and exam pass rates, each disaggregated by school, race, ethnicity, income, English learner status, and disability status, and shall publish the report on the district website.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of students meeting the readiness threshold who are enrolled in the corresponding advanced course the next term, disaggregated by school, race, ethnicity, income, English learner status, and disability status, plus AP, IB, and dual-credit participation and pass rates by group and opt-out counts by school. Target: By the first October 15 report, every eligible student not covered by a written opt-out is enrolled in the corresponding advanced course, and by the third annual report the enrollment rate among eligible students no longer differs by race, ethnicity, or income, with advanced course completion and exam pass rates by group holding steady or rising rather than falling. The Superintendent's annual report to the Board by October 15, published on the district website, with the eligible, enrolled, and opted-out counts and completion and exam pass rates disaggregated by school, race, ethnicity, income, English learner status, and disability status, cross-checked against the state report card and College Board and IB data.

Austin M, Backes B, Goldhaber D, Li D, Streich F (2025). Leveling Up: An Academic Acceleration Policy to Increase Equity in Advanced High School Course Taking. American Educational Research Journal 62(1):136-179. doi · Austin M, Mbekeani P, Backes B, Chen B, Goldhaber D (2026). High School Academic Acceleration and Early Postsecondary Outcomes: Evidence from Washington State. CALDER Working Paper 341-0826. link · Dougherty SM, Goodman JS, Hill DV, Litke EG, Page LC (2015). Middle School Math Acceleration and Equitable Access to Eighth-Grade Algebra: Evidence From the Wake County Public School System. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 37(1S):80S-101S. doi

Motion 26. Special education placement and inclusion: Amend 113 Special Education

Current language. Guidelines The program to which each student with a disability is assigned shall be one that provides an appropriate education, seeks to assure success in learning, and offers the least restrictive environment, in accordance with federal and state regulations.

Why. Receiving special education services causally raises achievement and attainment for students with disabilities (Texas: removing services lowered high school completion and college enrollment; NYC and Texas: entering special education raised test scores by roughly 0.1 SD), and large correlational and meta-analytic literatures find that students with disabilities who spend most of the day in general education classrooms do better academically with no detectable cost to their peers (d = 0.35 for students with general learning difficulties; peers d = 0.12 to null). Co-teaching shows a medium positive effect in a 2021 meta-analysis. The causal evidence on placement itself, as opposed to services, is thin and contested, so the best-supported policy is a documented, data-driven least restrictive environment decision for each student rather than a placement quota in either direction.

113 Special Education The IEP team shall first consider placement in the general education classroom with supplementary aids, services and specially designed instruction, and shall document in the IEP the specific supports tried or considered and the data showing why the student cannot be educated satisfactorily in that setting before recommending any more restrictive placement. No student shall be placed in a separate class or school on the basis of disability category, availability of staff or administrative convenience. Each co-taught section shall be staffed by a general educator and a certified special educator for the full instructional period, with weekly common planning time scheduled by the building principal. The Director of Special Education shall review each placement in a setting of less than 40 percent general education at least annually against the student's progress data and shall report to the Board by November 1 of each year, by school, disability category, race and English learner status: educational environment percentages, state assessment achievement and growth, graduation and dropout rates, suspension rates, and the number of placement reviews that resulted in a less restrictive placement. The Superintendent shall ensure that every teacher assigned to a co-taught section receives at least 12 hours of training each year in specially designed instruction and co-teaching.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of students with IEPs in general education 80 percent or more of the day, 40 to 79 percent, and under 40 percent, disaggregated by school, disability category, race and English learner status; achievement and growth of students with disabilities on state tests versus peers; graduation, dropout and suspension rates of students with disabilities; share of IEPs documenting consideration of supplementary aids and services before a more restrictive placement; share of co-taught sections staffed by a certified special educator for the full period. Target: Within 1 year, every reviewed IEP recommending a setting below 80 percent general education documents the supplementary aids and services considered and the supporting data, every co-taught section is staffed by a certified special educator for the full period, and every assigned teacher completes 12 hours of training; within 3 years, the share of students with IEPs in general education 80 percent or more of the day rises and the achievement gap, dropout rate and suspension rate for students with disabilities fall from baseline, with no decline in peer achievement. Director of Special Education reports to the Board by November 1 each year, by school, disability category, race and English learner status, with the Board comparing each year's figures to baseline and to the state's Indicator 5 targets.

Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., & Burke, S. (2016). A Summary of the Evidence on Inclusive Education. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, for Instituto Alana. link · Cole, S. M., Murphy, H. R., Frisby, M. B., Grossi, T. A., & Bolte, H. R. (2020). The Relationship of Special Education Placement and Student Academic Outcomes. The Journal of Special Education 54(4):217-227. doi · Gilmour, A. F. (2018). Has Inclusion Gone Too Far? Weighing Its Effects on Students With Disabilities, Their Peers, and Teachers. Education Next 18(4). link

Motion 27. New teacher induction and mentoring: New policy (staffing and instruction)

Current language. None; the manual is silent.

Why. The one large randomized trial (Glazerman et al. 2010, 1,009 teachers in 17 districts) found that two years of comprehensive induction raised student achievement in the teachers' third year (+4 percentile points reading, +8 math; about 0.11 and 0.20 SD) but one year did not, and neither version changed retention. Nationally representative surveys and a field experiment on structured peer pairing find that first-year mentoring, common planning time and collaboration predict lower attrition and that pairing low-performing teachers with high-performing colleagues raised their students' achievement by about 0.12 SD.

No. ___ SECTION: EMPLOYEES TITLE: TEACHER INDUCTION PROGRAM The Superintendent shall operate a two-year induction program for every teacher new to the profession and a one-year induction program for every teacher new to the district. Before the first student day, each inductee shall be assigned a mentor who holds certification in the same subject or grade band, has at least three years of effective ratings, and has completed district mentor training of no fewer than fifteen (15) hours. Mentors shall receive a stipend and at least two release periods per month for observation and feedback. Principals shall schedule common planning time for each inductee and mentor at least weekly in year one and twice monthly in year two. Mentors shall log contact hours monthly in the district system. The Director of Human Resources shall report to the Board by October 31 of each year the one-year, three-year and five-year retention of new hires by school and by induction participation, the mean mentor contact hours per inductee, the share of inductees assigned a same-subject mentor, and the results of the annual inductee survey. The Board shall review program funding against that report at its November meeting.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of first-year and second-year teachers assigned a trained same-subject or same-grade-band mentor before the first student day; mean mentor contact hours per inductee per month; one-year, three-year and five-year retention of new hires by school and by induction participation Target: Within 1 year, every inductee has an assigned trained mentor before the first student day and every year-one mentor pair logs weekly contact; within 3 years, one-year and three-year retention of new hires who completed induction is higher than the pre-policy baseline and no lower than for new hires who did not participate Director of Human Resources to the Board by October 31 each year, with Board review of program funding at the November meeting

Glazerman, S., Isenberg, E., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Grider, M., & Jacobus, M. (2010). Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Final Results from a Randomized Controlled Study. NCEE 2010-4027. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences. link · Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The Impact of Induction and Mentoring Programs for Beginning Teachers: A Critical Review of the Research. Review of Educational Research 81(2):201-233. doi · Ronfeldt, M., & McQueen, K. (2017). Does New Teacher Induction Really Improve Retention? Journal of Teacher Education 68(4):394-410. doi

Motion 28. School nurses and health services: New policy (health and wellbeing)

Current language. None; the manual is silent.

Why. A full-time registered nurse in every school pays for itself: the Massachusetts cost-benefit study found $2.20 in avoided medical costs, teacher time and parent lost wages for every $1 spent. Schools that add a full-time nurse show lower illness absence, with the clearest gains for students with asthma (23 percent fewer days missed with a full-time versus part-time nurse in Toledo; fewer illness absences and emergency visits after San Jose added full-time nurses), but the attendance evidence is quasi-experimental, integrative reviews rate it weak, and no study shows a nurse effect on test scores.

No. ___ SCHOOL NURSE STAFFING Authority The district shall employ at least one full-time registered nurse assigned to each school building for the full instructional day on every day students are present. Delegation of Responsibility The Coordinator of Health Services, who shall be a registered nurse, shall complete a workload and acuity analysis for each school building by June 30 of each year. The analysis shall be based on the student health conditions, medication and treatment orders, individualized healthcare plans and enrollment in that building. The Superintendent shall assign additional licensed nursing staff to any building where the analysis shows that a single nurse cannot provide safe care. Licensed practical nurses and health aides shall practice only under the delegation and supervision of a registered nurse. Reporting The Coordinator of Health Services shall report to the Board by October 15 of each year the nursing staff assigned to each building, the results of the workload and acuity analysis, the number of days each building lacked a registered nurse on site, and illness-related absence rates for students with chronic health conditions.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of school buildings with a registered nurse on site every full school day, and number of days any building lacked an RN, from the district staffing roster; illness-related absence rate for students with asthma, diabetes, seizure disorders and food allergies, from the student information system; count of emergency 911 calls from schools. Target: 100 percent of buildings have a full-time RN on site every day students are present, with zero uncovered days, within 1 year of adoption; illness-related absence for students with chronic health conditions declines from the baseline within 2 years and does not rise thereafter. Coordinator of Health Services reports to the Board by October 15 each year: nursing staff by building, workload and acuity results, days each building lacked an RN on site, illness-related and chronic absence for students with chronic health conditions, 911 calls from schools, and Medicaid reimbursement received.

Wang LY, Vernon-Smiley M, Gapinski MA, Desisto M, Maughan E, Sheetz A (2014). Cost-benefit study of school nursing services. JAMA Pediatrics 168(7):642-648. doi · Telljohann SK, Dake JA, Price JH (2004). Effect of full-time versus part-time school nurses on attendance of elementary students with asthma. Journal of School Nursing 20(6):331-334. doi · Rodriguez E, Rivera DA, Perlroth D, Becker E, Wang NE, Landau M (2013). School nurses' role in asthma management, school absenteeism, and cost savings: A demonstration project. Journal of School Health 83(12):842-850. doi

Motion 29. Physical education minutes and activity policy: Amend 246 Wellness

Current language. Documented medical conditions and disabilities shall be accommodated during class. - Safe and adequate equipment, facilities and resources shall be provided for physical education courses. - Physical education shall be taught by certified health and physical education teachers. - Appropriate professional development shall be provided for physical education staff. - Physical education class

Why. Meta-analyses of experimental studies find that physical activity delivered through physical education improves classroom behavior and academic outcomes, with the gains concentrated in programs that raise the quality and intensity of PE lessons (cognition g 0.38, academic performance g 0.15) rather than in simply adding minutes (academic g 0.09, not significant). Instrumental-variable estimates using state PE mandates show more PE time increases physical activity and lowers obesity among fifth-grade boys without crowding out test scores. SHAPE America's standard is 150 minutes per week in elementary and 225 in secondary school.

No. 246 Wellness, Guidelines: Physical Education The district shall provide every student in kindergarten through grade 5 at least 150 minutes per week of physical education, and every student in grades 6 through 12 at least 225 minutes per week. Physical education shall be taught by a teacher certified in physical education and shall be designed so that at least half of each class period is spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Recess, athletics, marching band, JROTC and online courses shall not substitute for physical education. Physical education shall not be withheld from a student or assigned as a disciplinary consequence. Elementary students shall additionally receive daily recess in accordance with the Board's policy on recess. The Director of Curriculum shall certify each building's physical education minutes by grade and the certification status of each physical education teacher to the Superintendent by September 30 of each year. The Superintendent shall report these figures, the results of at least one observed-activity sample per building, and a dated correction plan for any shortfall to the Board by December 1 of each year.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of grade levels in each building scheduled for at least 150 minutes per week of PE (K-5) or 225 minutes per week (6-12); share of PE sections taught by a certified physical educator; observed share of PE lesson time in moderate-to-vigorous activity; count of waivers, substitutions and disciplinary withholdings. Target: By the September 30 certification in year two, every grade in every building is scheduled for at least 150 minutes (K-5) or 225 minutes (6-12) of PE per week, every PE section is taught by a certified physical educator, waivers, substitutions and disciplinary withholdings are zero, and the observed share of lesson time in moderate-to-vigorous activity is at least half in each building and rising from baseline in each later year. Superintendent's annual PE report to the Board by December 1, built on the Director of Curriculum's September 30 certification, with minutes by grade and building, certification share, observation results, waiver and withholding counts, and a dated correction plan for any shortfall.

Garcia-Hermoso A, Ramirez-Velez R, Lubans DR, Izquierdo M (2021). Effects of physical education interventions on cognition and academic performance outcomes in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine 55(21):1224-1232. doi · Alvarez-Bueno C, Pesce C, Cavero-Redondo I, Sanchez-Lopez M, Garrido-Miguel M, Martinez-Vizcaino V (2017). Academic achievement and physical activity: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics 140(6):e20171498. doi · Singh AS, Saliasi E, van den Berg V, et al. (2019). Effects of physical activity interventions on cognitive and academic performance in children and adolescents: a novel combination of a systematic review and recommendations from an expert panel. British Journal of Sports Medicine 53(10):640-647. doi

Motion 30. Physical restraint and seclusion: New policy (discipline and climate)

Current language. None; the manual is silent.

Why. No outcome study shows that restraint or seclusion improves behavior or learning; the GAO found hundreds of allegations of abuse and death linked to their use in schools between 1990 and 2009, with untrained staff and non-aggressive children with disabilities as the recurring pattern. In 2021-22 about 105,700 students were restrained or secluded, and students served under IDEA were 14 percent of enrollment but 76 percent of those physically restrained and 68 percent of those secluded. A systematic review of 15 studies finds that school-wide prevention approaches reduce the frequency of restraint, but none is an RCT.

No. ___ Restraint and Seclusion Seclusion, meaning involuntarily confining a student alone in a space the student cannot leave, and mechanical, chemical, prone and supine restraint, and any hold restricting breathing or pressing on the neck, chest or back, shall be prohibited. Physical restraint shall be used only when a student's behavior poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to the student or others, only by staff holding current Board-approved crisis intervention certification, and only while the danger persists, never as punishment or consequence, for property damage alone or noncompliance. Restraining staff shall notify the principal before the school day ends; the principal shall notify the parent or guardian verbally that day and in writing within one school day. Within two school days a written incident report covering behavior, hold, duration, staff involved, any injury and parent notification shall be filed in the student's record, and the principal shall debrief those staff. After a second restraint in a school year, the student's IEP, Section 504 or behavior support team shall meet within ten school days to revise the behavior intervention plan. The Superintendent shall report quarterly to the Board and publish on the district website by September 30, for the prior school year, restraints by building, disability status, race and sex, injuries, and the Civil Rights Data Collection submission.

How the Board will know it worked. Incidents of physical restraint, mechanical restraint and seclusion per 100 students, by building and by disability status, race and sex, from the district incident log reconciled to the Civil Rights Data Collection submission; injuries to students and staff; share of incidents with same-day parent notification; share of incidents involving a student with no behavior intervention plan. Target: Zero seclusions, mechanical restraints, chemical restraints and prone or supine restraints from the first quarterly report onward; physical restraints per 100 students declining each year for 3 years against the baseline year; 100 percent of incidents with same-day parent notification and a written report within two school days by the end of year one; the share of restraints involving students with disabilities moving toward their share of enrollment over 3 years. The Superintendent reports to the Board each quarter and publishes on the district website by September 30 for the prior school year the number of restraints by building, disability status, race and sex, the number of injuries, the share with same-day parent notification, and the district's Civil Rights Data Collection submission, with a note explaining any difference between the log and the submission; a zero submission from a district with special education programs is flagged for Board inquiry.

US Government Accountability Office (2009). Seclusions and Restraints: Selected Cases of Death and Abuse at Public and Private Schools and Treatment Centers. GAO-09-719T, May 19, 2009. link · US Government Accountability Office (2019). K-12 Education: Education Should Take Immediate Action to Address Inaccuracies in Federal Restraint and Seclusion Data. GAO-19-551R, June 18, 2019. link · US Government Accountability Office (2020). K-12 Education: Education Needs to Address Significant Quality Issues with its Restraint and Seclusion Data. GAO-20-345, April 21, 2020. link

Motion 31. Lead in school drinking water: New policy (health and wellbeing)

Current language. None; the manual is silent.

Why. Lead harms learning at every measured level: in Rhode Island, each 1 ug/dL lower average preschool blood lead cut the chance of scoring substantially below proficient in third-grade reading by about 1 percentage point on a 12 percent base, Swedish and North Carolina natural experiments find the same for school grades, crime and suspensions, and Flint's water crisis lowered math achievement and raised special education classification district-wide. Lead in school water is common: in seven state testing programs 13 to 81 percent of tested schools had at least one outlet above 5 ppb, and 37 percent of US districts that tested found elevated lead, but no study links school-water lead itself to achievement, so testing policy rests on the blood-lead evidence plus prevalence data.

No. 705.1 PROPERTY: Lead Testing of Drinking and Food Preparation Outlets The Director of Facilities shall test every outlet used for drinking or food preparation in every district building for lead, using the sampling protocol in the EPA 3Ts guidance. The initial test of every outlet shall be completed by June 30, 2027. Each outlet shall be retested at least once every 3 years and within 90 days after any plumbing repair or replacement affecting it. Any outlet with a result at or above 5 parts per billion shall be removed from service within 24 hours of receipt of the result and shall not be returned to service until replacement or filtration and a follow-up sample below 5 parts per billion. The Director of Facilities shall post all results by outlet on the district website and notify families and staff of each building within 30 calendar days of receipt. The Director of Facilities shall install at least one filtered bottle-filling station certified to NSF/ANSI 53 for lead on every floor of every building, replace filters on the manufacturer's schedule, and log each replacement. The Director of Facilities shall report to the Board by September 30 of each year the outlets tested, the results, the outlets removed from service and their status, and the filter replacement log.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of drinking and cooking outlets tested within the last 3 years, share of tested outlets at or above 5 ppb, days between a result at or above 5 ppb and outlet shutoff, number of NSF/ANSI 53 filtered bottle-filling stations per building floor, and share of families notified within 30 days, all drawn from the district's published results and the annual Board report. Target: 100 percent of drinking and cooking outlets tested by June 30, 2027 and retested within every 3 year cycle thereafter; every outlet at or above 5 ppb out of service within 24 hours of the result; 100 percent of results posted and families notified within 30 days; at least one filtered station on every floor of every building by the end of year one; and the share of outlets at or above 5 ppb falling each cycle toward zero. The Director of Facilities reports to the Board by September 30 each year, with results posted by outlet on the district website within 30 days of receipt and the filter replacement log attached.

Aizer A, Currie J, Simon P, Vivier P (2018). Do low levels of blood lead reduce children's future test scores? American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 10(1):307-341. doi · Aizer A, Currie J (2019). Lead and juvenile delinquency: New evidence from linked birth, school, and juvenile detention records. Review of Economics and Statistics 101(4):575-587. doi · Gronqvist H, Nilsson JP, Robling PO (2020). Understanding how low levels of early lead exposure affect children's life trajectories. Journal of Political Economy 128(9):3376-3433. doi

Motion 32. Language access for families: New policy (family and community)

Current language. None; the manual is silent.

Why. Federal civil rights law (Title VI, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act and Lau v. Nichols) requires districts to communicate with limited-English parents in a language they understand, and IDEA requires native-language notices and interpreters for special education. Nationally representative data show that immigrant parents report the most barriers to school involvement and that English ability predicts how involved they are; the largest communication RCT that improved attendance (131,312 students) delivered its notices in five languages, and a vendor-funded matched study of a translated two-way messaging platform reports attendance gains concentrated among English learner and Latino families.

No. ___ Language Access Each family's preferred written and spoken language shall be requested at enrollment, confirmed each August and recorded in the student information system. Limited-English parents shall receive free, timely, competent language assistance to participate meaningfully in their child's education. Vital documents, including enrollment forms, handbooks, conduct codes, discipline, attendance, special education, health and emergency notices, consent forms, report cards, progress reports and parent meeting notices, shall be translated into every language of at least 5 percent of families or 1,000 families, whichever is less, and, on request, any other language. A free qualified interpreter shall be provided for any meeting with a limited-English parent, including conferences, discipline hearings, IEP and Section 504 meetings, within five school days of request or sooner where a legal deadline applies, and remotely for unscheduled contacts. No child, nor staff without demonstrated proficiency, shall interpret except in an emergency to arrange one. Machine translation shall serve routine messages only, and vital documents only after proficient-speaker review. The Superintendent shall designate a language access coordinator, post the plan and translated document list on the district website, and report to the Board by October 31 annually: families by preferred language, delivery rates of required notices by language, interpreter requests and fulfillment times, conference and IEP participation of limited-English versus all families, and complaints.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of families with a recorded home language other than English who received each required notice category (enrollment, discipline, special education, attendance, health, emergency) in their preferred language, share of interpreter requests fulfilled within five school days, and conference and IEP meeting participation rates of limited-English families compared with all families. Target: Within 1 to 3 years, the share of required notices delivered in the family's preferred language rises each year, every interpreter request is fulfilled within five school days or sooner where a legal deadline applies, and the gap in conference and IEP participation between limited-English families and all families narrows year over year. The language access coordinator reports to the Board by October 31 each year in a public written report, broken out by language, with interpreter fulfillment times, participation rate comparisons and complaints received.

Turney K, Kao G (2009). Barriers to school involvement: are immigrant parents disadvantaged? Journal of Educational Research 102(4):257-271. doi · Kim Y (2009). Minority parental involvement and school barriers: moving the focus away from deficiencies of parents. Educational Research Review 4(2):80-102. doi · Cheatham GA (2011). Language interpretation, parent participation, and young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 31(2):78-88. doi

Motion 33. Student searches and due process in discipline: Amend 226 Searches

Current language. [3] The principal shall be responsible for promptly recording in writing each locker inspection: such record shall include the reason(s) for the search, persons present, objects found and their disposition.

Why. This domain is governed by constitutional standards rather than outcome research: Goss v. Lopez requires notice and an opportunity to respond before any suspension of ten days or less, New Jersey v. T.L.O. permits school searches on reasonable suspicion when justified at inception and reasonable in scope, and Safford v. Redding holds that a search of a student's underwear requires suspicion that the item is dangerous or hidden there. The one federal randomized trial of random drug testing found lower self-reported use among tested students (16 versus 22 percent) with no spillover to untested students, while national correlational studies find no association between testing and student drug use.

Before any suspension of ten school days or fewer, the principal or designee shall tell the student the charge, explain the evidence, and give the student an opportunity to present the student's side; where a student's presence poses a continuing danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disrupting instruction, the student may be removed immediately and this conference shall occur within one school day. Written notice of the suspension, its basis and the appeal procedure shall be sent to the parent or guardian the same day. Any proposed exclusion of more than ten school days or expulsion shall require written notice to the parent at least five school days before a hearing before a hearing officer or Board panel not employed at the referring school, at which the student may be represented, present evidence and witnesses, and question the district's evidence, and a written decision with findings shall issue within five school days of the hearing; for a student with a disability, the manifestation determination required by law shall be completed within ten school days of the decision to remove. A search of a student's person, belongings, locker or vehicle shall require individualized reasonable suspicion, recorded in writing by the staff member before or immediately after the search, that the search will turn up evidence of a violation of law or school rules, and shall be no more intrusive than the suspected violation warrants. No student shall be strip searched or required to remove or expose undergarments by any district employee; where there is reasonable suspicion of an imminent danger to life, the principal shall contact law enforcement. Random or suspicionless searches of lockers may be conducted only under a written annual notice to students and families; the district shall not conduct suspicionless drug testing of students. Each principal shall log every search of a student's person or belongings and every suspension conference in the student information system. The Superintendent shall report to the Board by September 30 each year, for the prior school year and by building, race and disability status, the number of searches, the number of suspensions and expulsions, the share of suspensions with a documented pre-removal conference, the number of appeals and their outcomes, and the number of complaints alleging a search or hearing violation.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of suspensions with a documented pre-removal conference (charge, evidence and student response) and same-day parent notice; share of expulsion hearings with timely written notice, an independent hearing officer and a written decision within five school days; number of searches logged with a written basis, by building, race and disability; number of strip searches; manifestation determinations completed within ten school days; complaints and appeals and their outcomes. Target: Zero strip searches in every year; every exclusion over ten days has written notice at least five school days before the hearing and a written decision within five school days after it; every manifestation determination completed within ten school days; the share of suspensions with a documented pre-removal conference and same-day parent notice rises each year, with the gap between buildings and between student groups narrowing, as shown in the September 30 report within 1 to 3 years. Superintendent's annual report to the Board by September 30, disaggregated by building, race and disability status, with the discipline record audit results attached.

Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975). Supreme Court of the United States, decided January 22, 1975. link · New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985). Supreme Court of the United States, decided January 15, 1985. link · Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009). Supreme Court of the United States, decided June 25, 2009. link

Motion 34. Grading practices (zeros, late work, minimum grades, standards-based grading): Amend 213 Assessment of Student Progress

Current language. Definition Grading shall be that system of measuring and recording student progress and achievement which enables the student, parents/guardians and teachers to: learn the student's strengths and weaknesses; plan an educational and vocational future for the student in the areas of the greatest potential for success; and know where remedial work is required.

Why. Grades measure a mix of academic mastery and behavior and vary widely from teacher to teacher. The causal evidence favors two things: higher grading standards raise learning (Algebra I students of tougher graders learn more and keep the gain in later courses), and a standards-based system with formative feedback and reassessment for full credit raised ninth-grade math test scores by 0.33 SD in a cluster RCT. The specific rules districts fight over, no zeros, 50-percent floors and late-work penalties, have almost no outcome research; the one study of a minimum-grade policy is from a single school.

No. 213 Assessment of Student Progress Guidelines Each teacher shall publish to students and parents/guardians, within the first ten school days of each course, the standards the course assesses, the categories and weights used to compute the grade, the reassessment procedure and the late-work procedure. The reported academic grade shall reflect achievement on course standards. Attendance, participation, effort and conduct shall be reported separately and shall not reduce the academic grade. A student who does not meet a standard on a summative assessment shall be permitted at least one reassessment of that standard within the grading period, and the higher score shall count. Late work submitted within the grading period shall be scored on the same standard as on-time work. Any penalty for lateness shall be reported in the separate conduct or work-habits mark. Teachers of the same course in the same school shall use a common grading scale and weights. The Director of Assessment shall report to the Board each August, by school and course, the correlation between final grades and end-of-course or state test scores, the failure rate by teacher for courses with three or more sections, and the number of grading appeals, and shall recommend revisions to this policy where grades and test results diverge.

How the Board will know it worked. Correlation between final course grades and end-of-course or state test scores by school and course; spread of failure rates across teachers of the same course; share of students with a D or F who passed the end-of-course exam and vice versa; count of grading appeals; share of courses with a published grading plan within ten school days. Target: Within 1 year, 100 percent of courses have a published grading plan within the first ten school days and all same-course sections in a school use a common scale and weights; within 1 to 3 years, the grade-to-test correlation rises and the spread of failure rates across teachers of the same course narrows in every school and course relative to the baseline, and the share of students with a D or F who passed the exam, and with an A or B who failed it, falls each year. The Director of Assessment reports to the Board each August, by school and course, with the first report due in the August following adoption and the baseline comparison carried forward in every later report.

Brookhart SM, Guskey TR, Bowers AJ, McMillan JH, Smith JK, Smith LF, Stevens MT, Welsh ME (2016). A century of grading research: Meaning and value in the most common educational measure. Review of Educational Research 86(4):803-848. doi · Kramer SL, Posner B, Browman A, Lawrence N, Cardichon J (2024). The impacts of a standards-based grading system emphasizing formative assessment, feedback, and re-assessment: A mixed methods, cluster randomized control trial in ninth grade mathematics classrooms. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 18(1):56-87. doi · Gershenson S, Holt SB, Tyner A (2024). Making the grade: The effect of teacher grading standards on student outcomes. Contemporary Economic Policy 42(2):305-318. doi

Motion 35. Homework: Amend 130 Homework

Current language. Purpose Homework assignments should complement the school instruction.

Why. Homework has a small to moderate positive association with achievement in secondary grades and little or none in elementary grades; the relation runs through how often and how well homework is assigned, not how many hours students spend on it. Beyond roughly ten minutes per grade level per night the returns flatten, stress rises, and the benefit accrues more to higher-income students.

130 Homework Homework shall be assigned only to practice or extend material already taught in class and shall be designed so that a student can complete it without adult assistance, without internet access beyond district-provided devices, and without purchased materials. No homework shall be required in kindergarten through grade 2 other than nightly reading. Expected homework time in grades 3 through 8 shall not exceed ten minutes per grade level per school night across all subjects. Expected homework time in grades 9 through 12 shall not exceed two hours per school night across all subjects. Department chairs at each secondary school shall coordinate assignment calendars so that the total stays within the limit. No homework shall be assigned over scheduled school breaks. Homework shall count for no more than ten percent of the academic grade in any course, and missing homework shall not be the sole basis for a failing grade. The Superintendent shall survey students and parents each March on reported nightly homework time by grade and shall report the results to the Board by May 31, together with the homework grade weight by course. The Superintendent shall direct principals to correct any school where reported time exceeds the limit.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of students in each grade band whose reported nightly homework time exceeds the policy limit (ten minutes per grade level in grades 3 through 8, two hours in grades 9 through 12), from the annual March student and family survey; share of courses with homework weighted above ten percent of the grade; homework completion rate gap by free-lunch status. Target: By the second May 31 report, no school reports average nightly time above the grade-band limit, no course weights homework above ten percent of the grade, and the share of high school students reporting more than two hours per night falls each year compared with the prior survey; the completion gap by free-lunch status narrows year over year within 1 to 3 years. Superintendent reports to the Board by May 31 each year with survey results by grade band and free-lunch status, homework grade weight by course, the list of schools exceeding the limit, and the correction directed at each.

Cooper H, Robinson JC, Patall EA (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987-2003. Review of Educational Research 76(1):1-62. doi · Fan H, Xu J, Cai Z, He J, Fan X (2017). Homework and students' achievement in math and science: A 30-year meta-analysis, 1986-2015. Educational Research Review 20:35-54. doi · Bas G, Senturk C, Cigerci FM (2017). Homework and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Issues in Educational Research 27(1):31-50. link

Motion 36. Student data privacy and vendor contracts: New policy (technology and data)

Current language. None; the manual is silent.

Why. Audits find that most school-assigned apps send student data to third parties (Internet Safety Labs: 96% of apps used in a sample of 663 US schools; Human Rights Watch: 146 of 164 government-endorsed products worldwide, 89%, engaged in practices that risked children's rights), and breaches are frequent and large (99 K-12 breaches reported to the GAO sample 2016 to 2020; the December 2024 PowerSchool breach reached tens of millions of student records). There is no outcome research showing that any particular policy reduces harm; the standard rests on federal and state law and professional consensus.

No. ___ Operations: Student Data Privacy and Approved Software No employee shall use, or direct students to use, any application, website or service that collects personally identifiable student information unless the Director of Technology has placed it on the approved-software list. A product shall be approved only after the Director of Technology and the Privacy Officer confirm a signed data privacy agreement that: (a) limits collection to data needed for the stated educational purpose; (b) prohibits sale of data, targeted advertising, profiling and use of student data to train or improve vendor products; (c) requires deletion or return of student data within 60 days of a district request or contract end; (d) requires vendor notice to the district within 72 hours of a confirmed breach; and (e) names the subcontractors who will receive data. The Director of Technology shall publish the approved-software list, with the data elements each product collects, on the district website and update it within 30 days of any change. The Privacy Officer shall report to the Board by September 30 each year the number of products reviewed, approved and removed, every breach and the date families were notified, and the status of parent requests to inspect or correct records under FERPA. Teachers shall complete privacy training at least once each year; completion shall be reported with the annual report.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of software products in use that collect student PII with a signed data privacy agreement on file containing all five required terms, plus days from confirmed breach to family notification and share of FERPA parent requests fulfilled within the statutory window Target: 100% of products in use have a compliant signed agreement by the end of year one and at every September 30 report thereafter; every confirmed breach is reported by the vendor within 72 hours; the public list is updated within 30 days of each change; 100% of teachers complete annual training Privacy Officer presents to the Board by September 30 each year, with the public approved-software list and breach log posted on the district website

Federal Trade Commission (2022). Policy Statement of the Federal Trade Commission on Education Technology and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Adopted May 19, 2022. link · Human Rights Watch (2022). How Dare They Peep into My Private Life? Children's Rights Violations by Governments that Endorsed Online Learning during the Covid-19 Pandemic. link · Internet Safety Labs (2022). 2022 K-12 EdTech Safety Benchmark: National Findings, Part 1. December 13, 2022. link

Motion 37. Bullying prevention: Amend 249 Bullying/Cyberbullying

Current language. Cyberbullying means an intentional electronic act or series of acts, through the utilization of computers, the Internet, interactive and digital technologies, or electronic devices that are directed at another student or students, which occurs in a school setting and/or outside a school setting, that is severe, persistent or pervasive and has the effect of doing any of the following: Substantial

Why. Whole-school anti-bullying programs reduce bullying perpetration by about 19 to 20 percent and victimization by about 15 to 16 percent on average across roughly 100 evaluations, with RCT-only estimates smaller (d about 0.15) but still showing mental-health gains. Written policies matter too: students in states whose anti-bullying laws contain the core US Department of Education components had 24 percent lower odds of being bullied and 20 percent lower odds of cyberbullying, and enumerated policies that name sexual orientation and gender identity are associated with lower suicide-attempt risk among LGB youth.

249. Bullying/Cyberbullying The district shall implement the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, an evidence-based whole-school program with published controlled evaluations, in every district school. Implementation shall include this policy, posted classroom rules against bullying, information for parents/guardians, and support for students who are targeted. Bullying, including cyberbullying, on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, or any other characteristic shall be prohibited. Each building principal shall publish the procedure for reporting bullying, including an anonymous option, in the student handbook and on the school website. The principal shall begin an investigation within two (2) school days of receiving a report and shall document the outcome within ten (10) school days. The Superintendent shall administer the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire, which contains a fixed bullying-victimization item, to all students in grades 3 through 12 each spring. The Superintendent shall report to the Board by October 1 of each year the prevalence of bullying by school, grade and demographic group, the number of reports received, the number investigated within the deadlines stated in this policy, the number substantiated, and the three-year trend.

How the Board will know it worked. Annual student-reported bullying victimization prevalence on the fixed Olweus Bullying Questionnaire item, by school, grade and demographic group, plus number of reports received, number investigated within the two-school-day and ten-school-day deadlines, number substantiated, and share of students who say they would report. Target: Within 3 years of the baseline administration, district-wide student-reported victimization prevalence falls by at least 15 percent from baseline, consistent with the 15 to 16 percent victimization reduction in program meta-analyses, and in every year 100 percent of logged reports show an investigation begun within two school days and an outcome documented within ten school days, with the share of students who say they would report rising each year. The Superintendent's annual written report to the Board by October 1, presenting prevalence by school, grade and demographic group, reports received, reports investigated within deadline, reports substantiated, and the three-year trend, with the Board recording whether the target was met in its minutes.

Gaffney H, Ttofi MM, Farrington DP (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of school-bullying prevention programs: An updated meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior 45:111-133. doi · Gaffney H, Farrington DP, Ttofi MM (2019). Examining the effectiveness of school-bullying intervention programs globally: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Bullying Prevention 1(1):14-31. doi · Gaffney H, Ttofi MM, Farrington DP (2021). What works in anti-bullying programs? Analysis of effective intervention components. Journal of School Psychology 85:37-56. doi

Motion 38. Behavioral threat assessment: Amend 236.1 Threat Assessment

Current language. [20] [37] [38] [39] When a reported threat also meets the definition of an incident under the Safe Schools Act, in accordance with reporting requirements, the Superintendent or designee shall immediately report required incidents, if not previously reported by district staff, and may report discretionary incidents committed by students on school property, at any school-sponsored activity or on a

Why. Schools that use the Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines (CSTAG, formerly the Virginia guidelines) resolve student threats with far less exclusion: in a randomized trial, threatened students in CSTAG schools were about one third as likely to receive a long-term suspension (OR 0.35) and four times as likely to receive counseling, and statewide Virginia comparisons show lower odds of suspension (OR 0.59) and law-enforcement action (OR 0.47) than under generic threat procedures, with almost no threats carried out and no racial disparity in outcomes among assessed students.

236.1 Threat Assessment Threat Assessment Team Each school shall maintain a threat assessment team composed at minimum of an administrator, a school counselor or school psychologist, and a school resource officer or other law enforcement liaison. Team members shall be trained in the Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines or another model with published controlled evaluation. The team shall classify each threat as transient or substantive and shall develop a written support and supervision plan for every substantive case. The team shall not impose out-of-school suspension, expulsion or law enforcement referral solely because a threat assessment was opened. Every team member shall complete initial training before serving on the team and refresher training at least every three (3) years. The Director of Student Services shall maintain the training roster. The Superintendent shall report to the Board by September 30 of each year the number of assessments by school, the transient and substantive counts, the disciplinary, law enforcement and counseling outcomes, the referral rate per 1,000 students by race, disability status and gender compared with enrollment, and any threat later carried out.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of assessed students who received out-of-school suspension, expulsion, alternative placement or law-enforcement referral versus the share who received counseling and a support plan, and the referral rate per 1,000 students by race, disability status and gender compared with enrollment. Target: Within 1 to 3 years, the share of assessed students receiving counseling and a support plan rises each year while the share receiving out-of-school suspension, expulsion, alternative placement or law-enforcement referral falls each year; every substantive case has a written plan; team training completion is 100 percent; the referral rate by race, disability status and gender matches enrollment with no group gap; and assessed threats later carried out stay near the published level of about 1 in 100 or below. Superintendent to the Board by September 30 each year, as the clause requires, with a one-page comparison to the prior year and to the published CSTAG figures.

Cornell DG, Allen K, Fan X (2012). A randomized controlled study of the Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines in kindergarten through grade 12. School Psychology Review 41(1):100-115. doi · Maeng JL, Cornell DG, Huang FL (2020). Student threat assessment as an alternative to exclusionary discipline. Journal of School Violence 19(3):377-388. doi · Cornell D, Maeng JL, Burnette AG, Jia Y, Huang F, Konold T, Datta P, Malone M, Meyer P (2018). Student threat assessment as a standard school safety practice: results from a statewide implementation study. School Psychology Quarterly 33(2):213-222. doi

Motion 39. Generative AI use by students and staff: Amend 207 Academic Integrity

Current language. In order to avoid plagiarism, the following actions shall be instituted: Teachers shall review the definition of plagiarism with their students and the expected ethical behavior on an annual basis.

Why. Design determines the effect. In a field RCT with nearly 1,000 high-school math students, unrestricted GPT-4 access raised practice scores (+48%) but cut unaided exam scores by 17% relative to no access; a version with guardrails that withheld answers removed the harm. A college physics RCT found a purpose-built AI tutor produced about double the learning gain of active-learning classes in less time, and an essay-writing RCT found gains persisted a week later only when students used the model as a tutor rather than to write for them. The K-12 evidence base is still one school, one subject and a few weeks.

207 Academic Integrity The Superintendent shall maintain and publish a list of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools approved for student and staff use. No tool shall be listed until the Chief Academic Officer and Director of Technology certify in writing that: (a) the tool serves a named instructional purpose; (b) for student practice and homework, the tool is configured to withhold direct answers and prompt student reasoning; (c) the vendor contract meets the district's student data privacy policy, including no use of student inputs for model training; and (d) no student under the vendor's stated minimum age uses the tool. Each teacher shall state in the syllabus, by the tenth instructional day, when and how students may use AI tools for each category of assignment. No student shall be disciplined for AI use based on detection software alone; a finding shall rest on the teacher's review of drafts, process evidence or an oral check. Staff shall not enter personally identifiable student information into any tool not on the list. The Chief Academic Officer shall report to the Board by October 1 annually the list, usage by tool, unaided assessment results in courses using each tool against matched courses, and the number and outcomes of AI-related integrity cases. The Board shall review this policy annually in light of new evidence.

How the Board will know it worked. Unaided assessment results in courses using each approved AI tool versus matched courses, together with the share of approved tools configured to withhold direct answers, the share of courses with a written AI-use expectation on the syllabus, and the number of AI-related integrity cases overturned. Target: Within 1 year, every tool on the approved list has answer-withholding on for student practice use, every course states an AI-use expectation by the tenth instructional day, and unaided assessment results in courses using approved tools are no lower than in matched courses, with no integrity finding resting on detection software alone; sustained in years 2 and 3. Chief Academic Officer reports to the Board by October 1 each year; the Board records whether the no-deficit condition was met for each tool and whether any tool was removed from the list as a result.

Bastani H, Bastani O, Sungu A, Ge H, Kabakci O, Mariman R (2025). Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122(26):e2422633122. doi · Kestin G, Miller K, Klales A, Milbourne T, Ponti G (2025). AI tutoring outperforms in-class active learning: an RCT introducing a novel research-based design in an authentic educational setting. Scientific Reports 15. doi · Contractor Z, Reyes G (2026). Experimental Evidence on the Learning Impact of Generative AI. arXiv:2607.08849 (also NBER / IZA DP 18792). link

Motion 40. Teacher evaluation and feedback: Amend 313 Evaluation of Employees

Current language. Purpose Evaluation is a continuing process in which the administrative, professional and support employees and the respective supervisors cooperatively identify strengths and weaknesses in an individual's job performance.

Why. Well-run evaluation with trained observers and substantive feedback can improve teaching: Cincinnati teachers' students gained about 0.1 SD in math in the years after a rigorous peer evaluation, and Washington DC's IMPACT raised the performance of low-rated teachers by 0.27 SD and pushed the lowest performers out, with their replacements raising achievement. But the 2010s wave of state evaluation reforms, taken as a whole, produced precisely estimated null effects on achievement and attainment, rated fewer than 1 percent of teachers below proficient, and reduced the supply of new teachers.

No. 313 Evaluation of Employees The Superintendent shall maintain a teacher evaluation system under which every teacher shall be observed at least twice each year, at least once unannounced, by an evaluator who has completed district observer training and passed an annual calibration exercise against master-scored videos. An evaluator who fails calibration shall not conduct observations until recertified. Each observation shall be followed by a written feedback conference within five school days. No single measure, including any test-based growth measure, shall account for more than one third of a summative rating. A teacher rated below effective shall receive a written growth plan within 20 school days and at least eight instructional coaching cycles during the following year from a coach who is not the evaluator. The Director of Human Resources shall report to the Board by August 31 of each year the distribution of summative ratings by school and evaluator, evaluator calibration results, the number of observations per teacher and the share unannounced, median days from observation to feedback, the correlation between ratings and student growth, and retention by rating level. The Board shall review the reliability of the system against that report each year and shall commission an external review every five years.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of teachers who received at least two observations with at least one unannounced, median days from observation to written feedback, share of evaluators passing calibration, share of below-effective teachers with a growth plan within 20 school days, distribution of summative ratings by school and evaluator, and correlation between ratings and student growth Target: Within 1 year every teacher has at least two observations with at least one unannounced, median days to written feedback is five school days or fewer, every evaluator conducting observations has passed the annual calibration exercise, every teacher rated below effective has a written growth plan within 20 school days and eight coaching cycles the following year, and no single measure exceeds one third of any rating; within 3 years ratings show a positive correlation with student growth and the share rated below proficient exceeds the under 1 percent pattern of the statewide reforms Annual report from the Director of Human Resources to the Board by August 31, covering ratings by school and evaluator, calibration results, observations per teacher and share unannounced, median days to feedback, rating to growth correlation, and retention by rating level; Board reliability review each year and an external review every five years

Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2012). The Effect of Evaluation on Teacher Performance. American Economic Review 102(7):3628-3651. doi · Dee, T. S., & Wyckoff, J. (2015). Incentives, Selection, and Teacher Performance: Evidence from IMPACT. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 34(2):267-297. doi · Adnot, M., Dee, T., Katz, V., & Wyckoff, J. (2017). Teacher Turnover, Teacher Quality, and Student Achievement in DCPS. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 39(1):54-76. doi

Motion 41. Dress codes and uniforms: Amend 221 Dress and Grooming

Current language. Purpose The Board recognizes that each student's mode of dress and grooming is a manifestation of personal style and individual preference.

Why. The best causal evidence on uniforms (school fixed effects in a large urban district) finds a modest attendance gain in secondary grades and no effect on achievement or discipline, and national longitudinal data show no behavior or attendance advantage; the evidence that dress rules improve learning is weak. The evidence on enforcement is clearer: GAO's national review found dress codes restrict items typically worn by girls more than boys, strict enforcement in more than four in five predominantly Black schools against about one third of predominantly white schools, informal class removals in 44 percent of codes, and body-measuring rules in 60 percent; Black girls receive disproportionate office referrals for dress code and other subjective infractions.

No. 221 Dress and Grooming The district dress code shall be limited to health and safety requirements and to prohibiting clothing that displays obscenity, threats, hate speech, or the promotion of illegal substances or violence. Students shall be permitted religious and cultural dress and head coverings, protective and natural hairstyles, and clothing consistent with their gender identity. No rule shall apply to one sex only or require a staff member to measure any part of a student's body or clothing. Shoulders, collarbones, midriffs and leggings shall not be grounds for discipline. Violations shall be addressed privately and, where available, with a loaner garment. No student shall be removed from class, sent home, assigned in-school or out-of-school suspension, or excluded from any school activity for a violation, and staff shall not comment on a student's body in enforcement. Each principal shall log every intervention, including informal removals, in the student information system. By September 30 each year the Superintendent shall report to the Board the number of interventions for the prior school year by building, race and sex. The Board shall revise any rule whose enforcement rate for Black or female students exceeds twice the rate for white or male students. Any uniform requirement shall provide free uniforms to students qualifying for free or reduced-price meals and shall not be enforced by exclusion from instruction.

How the Board will know it worked. Dress code interventions, class removals and suspensions per 100 students by building, race and sex, drawn from the student information system log that includes informal removals; instructional minutes lost to dress code enforcement; share of code rules that are gender-specific or require measuring a student's body; parent and student complaints about dress enforcement. Target: Zero class removals, send-homes, suspensions or activity exclusions for dress code violations in every year after adoption; zero gender-specific rules and zero body-measuring rules in the district and building codes within 90 days; and no student group's dress code intervention rate exceeding twice the rate for white or male students in any building by the end of year one, holding in years two and three. Annual report to the Board by September 30 covering the prior school year, presented by the Superintendent, with the count of rules revised or repealed and the number of complaints received, and posted publicly with the Board minutes.

Gentile E, Imberman SA (2012). Dressed for success? The effect of school uniforms on student achievement and behavior. Journal of Urban Economics 71(1):1-17. doi · Brunsma DL, Rockquemore KA (1998). Effects of student uniforms on attendance, behavior problems, substance use, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Research 92(1):53-62. doi · Ansari A, Shepard M, Gottfried MA (2022). School uniforms and student behavior: is there a link? Early Childhood Research Quarterly 58:278-286. doi

Motion 42. School resource officers and school policing: Amend 805.2 School Security Personnel

Current language. The district shall employ or contract for at least one (1) full-time school security personnel who has completed the training required by law and this Board policy to be on duty during the school day.[1] The district shall certify to the state School Safety and Security Committee annually that it has met the requirements for school security personnel or has received a waiver, in accordance with

Why. The strongest causal studies agree that placing police in schools increases suspensions, expulsions, police referrals and arrests, with the largest increases for Black students, male students and students with disabilities; a Texas quasi-experiment ties federal school-police grants to a 6 percent rise in middle school discipline, a 2.5 percent drop in high school graduation and a 4 percent drop in college enrollment. Safety effects are mixed: a national regression discontinuity finds SROs reduce some violence but not gun incidents, while a matched COPS-grant study finds no safety gain and more recorded drug and weapon offenses.

805.2 School Security Personnel Memorandum of Understanding No law enforcement officer shall be assigned to a district school except under a written memorandum of understanding approved by the Board and the law enforcement agency and reviewed annually. The memorandum shall provide that officers shall not participate in enforcing the student code of conduct, shall not be called for behavior that would be handled by school staff in the officer's absence, and shall not question a student about a school matter without an administrator present and notification of the parent/guardian, except in an imminent safety emergency. Each officer shall complete training in adolescent development, de-escalation, disability awareness and implicit bias before assignment and annually thereafter. The School Safety and Security Coordinator shall document completion of this training. The Superintendent shall report to the Board by October 15 of each year, and shall publish on the district website, the number of arrests, citations, law enforcement referrals and uses of force in each school for the prior school year, disaggregated by race, disability status and gender, including the share arising from noncriminal conduct. The Board shall review this report before renewing any officer assignment.

How the Board will know it worked. Annual counts and rates per 1,000 students of school-based arrests, citations, law-enforcement referrals and uses of force, by school and by race, disability status and gender; share of referrals arising from non-criminal code-of-conduct matters; out-of-school suspension rate by school; perceived-safety items on the climate survey; complaints against officers. Target: Within 1 year of adoption, the share of law-enforcement referrals arising from non-criminal code-of-conduct matters falls from baseline and continues to fall each year; within 3 years, arrest and referral rates per 1,000 students decline from baseline overall and for Black students, male students and students with disabilities, with the gap between those groups and the district rate narrowing each year, while perceived-safety items do not decline. The Superintendent reports to the Board by October 15 each year and publishes the report on the district website; the Board reviews it in a public meeting before voting on renewal of any officer assignment or memorandum of understanding.

Sorensen LC, Avila-Acosta M, Engberg JB, Bushway SD (2023). The thin blue line in schools: new evidence on school-based policing across the U.S. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 42(4):941-970. doi · Gottfredson DC, Crosse S, Tang Z, Bauer EL, Harmon MA, Hagen CA, Greene AD (2020). Effects of school resource officers on school crime and responses to school crime. Criminology and Public Policy 19(3):905-940. doi · Weisburst EK (2019). Patrolling public schools: the impact of funding for school police on student discipline and long-term education outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 38(2):338-365. doi

Motion 43. English learner programs and reclassification: Amend 138 Limited English Proficiency Program

Current language. Purpose In accordance with the Board's philosophy to provide a quality educational program to all students and to increase the English language proficiency of students who are English Learners (EL), the district shall provide an appropriate planned instructional program for identified students whose dominant language is not English.

Why. Lottery studies show dual-language immersion raises English reading achievement (Portland: +13 percentile points by grade 5 and +22 by grade 8, with no loss in math or science; Charlotte: +0.04 to 0.05 SD per year in math and reading for English learners and non-learners alike) and raises the share of English learners reclassified by grade 6. Regression-discontinuity studies of reclassification show that the rule matters more than the label: reclassifying students on a single lenient test score harmed later outcomes, while multi-measure criteria that keep supports in place removed the harm, and timely reclassification before the grade 5 and grade 8 transitions improved on-time graduation.

138 Limited English Proficiency Program Guidelines The Superintendent shall ensure that each English Learner receives a Language Instruction Educational Program that meets the standards of Castaneda v. Pickard and that English Learners are enrolled in grade-level core academic courses with integrated language support. Placement in a course below grade level solely on the basis of English Learner status shall be prohibited. Where at least 20 English Learners who share a home language are enrolled at a grade level, the Superintendent shall offer a dual-language or bilingual program at that grade level or report to the Board the reason it cannot. Reclassification shall require the state English language proficiency assessment plus at least two additional measures, including classroom academic performance and teacher recommendation, and shall not rest on a single test score. The Director of Multilingual Programs shall monitor each reclassified student for four academic years and shall re-enter supports when a reclassified student falls below grade level. By October 15 of each year, the Director of Multilingual Programs shall report to the Board, disaggregated by school, program model, home language and years in program: reclassification rates; the number and share of long-term English Learners; achievement and growth of current and former English Learners; and English Learner enrollment in advanced and core courses. Program models, exit criteria and this report shall be posted on the district website.

How the Board will know it worked. Annual reclassification rate by years in program and program model; number and share of long-term English learners (6 or more years); ELA and math achievement of former English learners tracked for four years after reclassification; share of English learners enrolled in grade-level core courses and advanced courses; dual-language seats offered versus applicants. Target: Within 180 days, zero English learners placed in a course below grade level solely on the basis of English learner status and zero reclassifications resting on a single test score; within 1 to 3 years, the share of long-term English learners (6 or more years) declines each year from baseline, the reclassification rate rises from baseline, former English learners show no decline in ELA and math achievement across the four monitored years, and every grade level with 20 or more English learners sharing a home language has a dual-language or bilingual program or a Board-reviewed reason it does not. The Director of Multilingual Programs reports to the Board by October 15 each year, disaggregated by school, program model, home language and years in program, and posts the report with program models and exit criteria on the district website; the Board compares each measure against the baseline year and the prior year.

Steele, J. L., Slater, R. O., Zamarro, G., Miller, T., Li, J., Burkhauser, S., & Bacon, M. (2017). Effects of Dual-Language Immersion Programs on Student Achievement: Evidence From Lottery Data. American Educational Research Journal 54(1_suppl):282S-306S. doi · Bibler, A. (2021). Dual Language Education and Student Achievement. Education Finance and Policy 16(4):634-658. doi · Umansky, I. M., & Reardon, S. F. (2014). Reclassification Patterns Among Latino English Learner Students in Bilingual, Dual Immersion, and English Immersion Classrooms. American Educational Research Journal 51(5):879-912. doi

Motion 44. Hazing and athletics safety: Amend 247 Hazing

Current language. Students, administrators, teachers, coaches, sponsors, volunteers, and District employees shall be alert to incidents of hazing and shall report such conduct to the building principal.

Why. Hazing is common in high school (48 percent of students in groups report hazing activities, 17 percent of grade 6 to 12 athletes in one survey, and only 14 percent of hazed students call it hazing), but no controlled study shows that any hazing policy or program reduces hazing; the evidence supports clear definitions, mandatory reporting and consent-does-not-matter language as a standard. For concussion, state remove-from-play and return-to-play laws produced a rise in reported concussions (better identification) followed by falling recurrent-concussion rates about 2.6 years after passage, and mandated preseason heat-acclimatization rules cut exertional heat illness in football by roughly half.

247. HAZING Prohibited Conduct and Athletic Safety Hazing shall mean any act required as a condition of joining or remaining in any team, club or group that endangers the physical or mental health or safety of a student or subjects a student to humiliation. Such acts shall include physical abuse, forced consumption of any substance, excessive exercise, sleep deprivation, confinement, forced nudity or sexual acts, ridicule or degrading tasks, and coercion to break the law or Board policy. Hazing shall be prohibited regardless of consent. Every coach, activity sponsor and student participant shall complete hazing-prevention training each year before the season. Every coach and sponsor shall report suspected hazing to the building principal within 24 hours, and the principal shall report each case to the Superintendent within three school days. Every student athlete and parent or guardian shall sign a hazing and concussion acknowledgment each year. A student suspected of a concussion shall be removed from practice or play immediately and shall not return until a licensed health care provider trained in concussion management provides written clearance, with a graduated return-to-learn plan coordinated by the school nurse. Preseason practices shall follow the National Athletic Trainers' Association heat-acclimatization schedule. Each athletic venue shall have a written venue-specific emergency action plan rehearsed with local EMS each August, and an automated external defibrillator shall be reachable within three minutes of every practice and competition site. The Athletic Director shall report to the Board by July 31 each year the number of hazing reports and substantiated cases by activity, concussions and other serious injuries by sport, compliance with return-to-play clearance, and emergency action plan rehearsal dates by venue.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of coaches, sponsors and student participants with current hazing training; hazing reports and substantiated cases per season by team or group; climate-survey item on initiation experiences; concussions per 1,000 athlete-exposures and share with documented written clearance before return; exertional heat illness and cardiac events per season; share of venues with a rehearsed emergency action plan and an AED within three minutes. Target: Within 1 year, 100 percent of coaches and sponsors trained before the season, 100 percent of venues with a rehearsed emergency action plan and an AED within three minutes, and 100 percent of concussion returns with documented written clearance. Reported concussions and hazing reports are expected to rise in the first 1 to 2 years as identification improves; within 3 years, the recurrent-concussion rate and exertional heat illness count per season should decline from the year-one baseline, consistent with the 2.6-year post-law decline and the roughly 0.45 incidence rate ratio seen for heat rules. Athletic Director to the Board by July 31 each year, with the Superintendent presenting the climate-survey initiation item and any substantiated hazing cases in the same report.

Hoover NC, Pollard NJ (2000). Initiation Rites in American High Schools: A National Survey. Alfred University. link · Allan EJ, Madden M (2008). Hazing in View: College Students at Risk. University of Maine. link · Allan EJ, Madden M (2012). The nature and extent of college student hazing. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 24(1):83-90. doi

Motion 45. Corporal punishment: Amend 218 Student Discipline

Current language. Definition Corporal punishment - a form of physical discipline intended to cause pain and fear, in which a student is spanked, paddled or hit on any part of the body with a hand or instrument.

Why. The meta-analysis specific to school corporal punishment (Visser et al. 2022) finds it associated with more externalizing behavior (r = 0.27, 21 studies, 67,400 children), more internalizing problems (r = 0.16) and lower school performance (r = -0.11, 977,367 children); a propensity-matched sample of young adults from the 19 states where it was legal shows lower high school GPA and more depressive symptoms; the 75-study meta-analysis of physical punishment finds 13 of 17 outcomes significantly worse and none better. No study has found that corporal punishment improves behavior or learning, and no study has found that ending it increases misbehavior.

218 Student Discipline Prohibition of Corporal Punishment No employee, volunteer or contractor of the district shall administer corporal punishment to any student. Corporal punishment means the deliberate infliction of physical pain as a disciplinary measure, including striking with a hand or object, slapping, pinching, shaking, forced exercise and the withholding of food, water or restroom access. This prohibition shall apply in every district school, program, vehicle and sponsored activity and shall not be waived by parental consent. Physical force shall be used only as permitted by the district's restraint and seclusion policy to prevent imminent physical harm. Delegation of Responsibility The Superintendent shall publish this prohibition in the student handbook and the staff handbook each August and shall report to the Board by September 30 of each year the number of substantiated allegations of corporal punishment in the prior school year, the action taken on each, and the figure submitted to the Civil Rights Data Collection. Any employee who administers corporal punishment shall be subject to discipline up to and including termination, and the Superintendent shall report the incident to the state child protection agency where state law requires.

How the Board will know it worked. Number of instances of corporal punishment in the district, counted as substantiated allegations in the Superintendent's annual report and as the figure submitted to the Civil Rights Data Collection, reconciled to building discipline logs; plus presence of the written prohibition in both handbooks. Target: Zero instances of corporal punishment reported in the first full school year after adoption and every year after, with the reconciled count and the CRDC submission both at zero, and the prohibition published in both handbooks each August. The Superintendent's written report to the Board by September 30 each year, stating substantiated allegations, action taken on each, the CRDC figure and the reconciliation to building logs, with the handbook publication dates attached.

Visser LN, van der Put CE, Assink M (2022). The association between school corporal punishment and child developmental outcomes: a meta-analytic review. Children 9(3):383. doi · Gershoff ET, Grogan-Kaylor A (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology 30(4):453-469. doi · Gershoff ET, Sattler KMP, Holden GW (2019). School corporal punishment and its associations with achievement and adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 63:1-8. doi

Motion 46. Personal phones during the school day: Amend 237 Electronic Devices

Current language. Guidelines Video Games/Music Devices/Headphones/Airpods The Board prohibits the use of portable video games, walkman radio/tape players, iPods, MP3, MP4 or other electronic music players, during the instructional day in district buildings.

Why. Banning phone possession during the school day raises test scores modestly, with the gain concentrated among lower-achieving students (England: +0.07 SD overall, about +0.14 SD for the lowest quintile). Norway's middle-school bans cut bullying for both sexes and improved girls' grades, academic-track placement and mental-health care use, with no average effect on boys; the pooled effect across five European studies is small (d = 0.16) and larger for social wellbeing than for achievement.

No. 237 Electronic Devices Personal electronic devices, including phones, smartwatches and earbuds, shall be powered off and stored in a location designated by the building principal, away from the student, from the start of the first scheduled period through the end of the last scheduled period, including passing time and lunch. Exceptions shall be granted only where required by a student's IEP, Section 504 plan or a written medical order on file with the school nurse, or for a specific lesson at the written direction of the teacher. Each school shall provide a telephone through which a parent or guardian can reach a student during the school day. The Superintendent shall report to the Board by October 1 each year the number of device violations by school and grade, the number of exemptions on file, and the results of a fall classroom walkthrough sample. Violations shall be addressed under the district's progressive discipline matrix and shall not result in exclusion from instruction for a first or second offense.

How the Board will know it worked. Share of classrooms observed with phones stored in the semester walkthrough sample; device-violation referrals per 100 students by school and grade; student survey item on in-class distraction; and the state assessment trend for the lowest-achieving quartile compared with the district average. Target: Within 1 year, the share of classrooms with phones stored rises and device-violation referrals per 100 students fall from the first semester to the second; within 1 to 3 years, the student distraction item improves and the lowest-achieving quartile's state assessment trend closes toward the district average rather than widening, with no first or second offense resulting in exclusion from instruction in any year. The Superintendent presents the annual report to the Board by October 1 each year, disaggregated by school and grade, and the Board reviews the lowest-quartile achievement trend at the same meeting once state assessment results are available.

Beland LP, Murphy R (2016). Ill Communication: Technology, distraction and student performance. Labour Economics 41:61-76. doi · Abrahamsson S (2026). Smartphone Bans, Student Outcomes and Mental Health. Journal of Human Resources, 0224-13403R2 (online first). doi · Kessel D, Hardardottir HL, Tyrefors B (2020). The impact of banning mobile phones in Swedish secondary schools. Economics of Education Review 77:102009. doi

Motion 47. Seated lunch time: New policy (health and wellbeing)

Current language. None; the manual is silent.

Why. Children with fewer than 20 minutes seated to eat consume less of their lunch, especially fruit and vegetables: in a randomized crossover trial, 10 minutes of seated time versus 20 cut fruit consumption by 11 percentage points and vegetables by 14 points, and observational cafeteria studies in Massachusetts and California show the same pattern at scale. CDC guidance is at least 20 minutes seated after being served.

No. ___ SECTION: PUPILS TITLE: SEATED TIME FOR SCHOOL MEALS Each building schedule shall provide every student at least twenty (20) minutes of seated time to eat lunch after receiving the meal, and at least ten (10) minutes of seated time for breakfast served at school. Lunch periods shall be scheduled so that no student receives a meal fewer than twenty (20) minutes before the period ends. Elementary buildings shall schedule recess before lunch where the facility permits. The Director of Food Services, with each building principal, shall observe serving-line times in every cafeteria at least once each semester and shall report seated lunch minutes by building and lunch period to the Superintendent. The Superintendent shall include in the annual wellness report presented to the Board, no later than the Board's first regular meeting in October, the seated lunch minutes by building, the number of buildings not meeting twenty (20) minutes, and a dated correction plan for each such building. The district shall measure and report seated time, not the length of the scheduled meal period.

How the Board will know it worked. Seated lunch minutes per lunch period by building, measured from the time the last student in line is served to the end of the period, from the master schedule plus a cafeteria line-time observation each semester; the share of buildings meeting 20 seated minutes; fruit and vegetable plate-waste or production-record data from food service. Target: Every building and every lunch period provides at least 20 seated minutes for lunch and 10 for breakfast by the start of the next school year, with the count of buildings below 20 minutes at zero in each annual report thereafter and fruit and vegetable plate waste moving down from baseline over 1 to 3 years. Annual wellness report presented to the Board no later than its first regular meeting in October, showing seated lunch minutes by building and lunch period, the number of buildings not meeting 20 minutes, a dated correction plan for each, and fruit and vegetable plate-waste or production-record data.

Burg X, Metcalfe JJ, Ellison B, Prescott MP (2021). Effects of longer seated lunch time on food consumption and waste in elementary and middle school-age children: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open 4(6):e2114148. doi · Cohen JFW, Jahn JL, Richardson S, Cluggish SA, Parker E, Rimm EB (2016). Amount of time to eat lunch is associated with children's selection and consumption of school meal entree, fruits, vegetables, and milk. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 116(1):123-128. doi · Gosliner W (2014). School-level factors associated with increased fruit and vegetable consumption among students in California middle and high schools. Journal of School Health 84(9):559-568. doi

One page for the public

Score34
Sections read246
Domains57
Conflict5
Silent24

Policies that conflict with the evidence: 204 Attendance (chronic absence response); 233 Suspension and Expulsion (suspension and expulsion); 918 District-Wide Parental Involvement (family engagement and two-way communication); 124 Summer School (summer learning and extended learning time); 226 Searches (student searches and due process in discipline). Nothing in the manual on: early literacy instruction and k-3 reading screening, dual enrollment and early college, high-dosage tutoring, tiered positive behavior supports and restorative practices, multi-tiered systems of support (mtss / rti), classroom temperature, ventilation and indoor air, lockdown and active shooter drills, math acceleration, eighth grade algebra, and tracking, recess, access to rigorous coursework (automatic enrollment, ap, ib, dual credit), new teacher induction and mentoring, physical restraint and seclusion, lead in school drinking water, language access for families.

Alignment Audit by EarthPilot. Every citation is checked against Crossref and OpenAlex before it is shown; evidence tiers and counter-evidence are printed, not hidden. Scores are a judgment with a published formula, not a measurement.