Discipline Task Force All Minutes

October 10; October 24; November 14; November 28; December 12; January 9; January 23; February 13; February 27; March 12; March 26; April 9; May 14; June 12

May 14, 2024

Meeting Minutes

Attendees: Elie Zwiebel, Vice Chair; Laura McAurthur, Dawn Fritz, Michelle Murphy, Sara Pielsticker, Floyd Cobb, Mike Claudio, Lisa Humberd, Sierra Agens, Nicole Alvarado

Public Attendees/Staff: Johann Liljengren, Jewel Sale, Tricia Walz, Amber Minogue, Andrea Wilkins, Michelle Berge

Opening & Welcome: Meeting facilitator, Amber Minogue, provided welcome and opening comments that included review of the voting process and next steps. Last meeting in which members vote on recommendations. Additional votes needed will be conducted via email. Allied Agenda will begin drafting final report. Task Force will review the draft report during the June 12th meeting.

Meeting Called to Order:

Vice Chair Zwiebel called the meeting to order; confirmed the presence of a quorum
Vice Chair Zwiebel calls for a motion to approve the April 23rd meeting minutes. Motion was moved by Lisa Humberd and 2nd by Mike Claudio. Minutes were approved.
Vice Chair Zwiebel calls for a motion to approve the May 14 meeting agenda. Motion was moved by Sara Pielsticker, 2nd by Dawn Fritz. Agenda was approved.

Public Comment: None.

CDE Update

Johann Liljengren

Substance Use Task Force report includes two key areas of overlap with the work of this Task Force: (1) secondary school substance use committee to develop a practice, or identify or modify an existing practice, for secondary schools to implement that identifies students who need substance use treatment, offers a brief intervention, and refers students to substance use treatment resources; (2) create an equitable policy for all which includes creating and following a substance use intervention/discipline matrix to ensure consistency.

Substance Use and Disproportionate Discipline Task Force matrices will be reviewed and coordinated by CDE staff.

Task force will need to determine if they want to include an explicit endorsement of the Substance Use Task Force recommendation in their recommendations.

Present Edited Recommendations

Dawn Fritz, Elie Zwiebel

Dawn Fritz offered a new, student-centered value statement that includes: We believe that students have the right to an education that is free from disproportionate discipline and its adverse effects.

Elie Zwiebel provided an overview of the changes made to the legislative recommendations by the Task Force subcommittee; explained that the problem statements included in the legislative recommendations are intended to highlight the the issues to be addressed by the recommendations.

Mike Claudio raised a concern shared with him by an administrator in his district (Harrison District 2) about CO Springs Police Department executing arrest warrants on school grounds. District officials will be meeting with CSPD to discuss this issue and whether a less disruptive practice is possible. Mike will share information on the outcome of this discussion and the Task Force will consider whether they want to make a related recommendation. Mike Claudio, Sara Pielsticker, Michelle Murphy, and Elie Zwiebel will meet as a subcommittee to coordinate on this. Any recommendations developed will be shared with the Task Force via email.

Voting

Task Force reviewed recommendations and related amendments. Voting was completed on all recommendations needing Task Force approval. A minimum of 6 votes was needed for approval.

Value Statements:

Statement v - 6 votes to approve in current form, 3 abstentions
Statement ix - 8 votes to approve in current form

Administrative Recommendations:

Recommendation 1 - 8 votes to approve in current form, 1 abstention

Legislative Recommendations:

Problem statement 4 - 7 votes to approve in current form, 2 abstentions
Value statement - 8 votes to approve in current form
Recommendation 1 - 9 votes to approve in current form
Recommendation 2 - 9 votes to approve in current form
Recommendation 3 - 9 votes to approve in current form
Recommendation 4 - 9 votes to approve in current form
Recommendation 5 - 9 votes to approve in current form
Recommendation 6 - 9 votes to approve in current form
Recommendation 7 - 8 votes to approve in current form, 1 abstention
Recommendation 8 - struck
Recommendation 9 - 9 votes to approve in current form

Full list of approved recommendations, as amended.

April 23, 2024

Meeting Minutes

Attendees: Zoe O’Donnell, Chair; Elie Zwiebel, Vice Chair; Anne Keke, Lisa Schlueter, Laura McAurthur, Dawn Fritz, Michelle Murphy, Sara Pielsticker, Floyd Cobb, Mike Claudio, Lisa Humberd, Bridget Anshus, Sierra Agens

Public Attendees/Staff: Danielle Ongart, Jewel Sale, Jennifer Gallegos, Tricia Walz, Johann Liljengren, Amber Minogue, Andrea Wilkins , Michelle Berge

Opening & Welcome: Meeting facilitator, Amber Minogue, provided welcome and opening comments that included review of the voting process, next steps and scheduling of future Task Force meetings and activities.

Meeting Called to Order:

Vice Chair Zwiebel called the meeting to order; confirmed the presence of a quorum
Vice Chair Zwiebel calls for a motion to approve the April 9th meeting minutes. Motion was moved by Sara Pielsticker and 2nd by Mike Claudio. Minutes were approved.
Vice Chair Zwiebel calls for a motion to approve the April 23 meeting agenda. Motion was moved by Dawn Fritz and 2nd by Bridget Anshus. Agenda was approved.

Public Comment: None.

Present Edited Recommendations

Floyd Cobb, Sara Pielsticker, Michelle Murphy (Recommendation Draft Document)

Pg 3, Administrative Recommendations – see draft document

Number 1: CDE to create a webpage that brings together discipline information on their website and best practices. CDE has signaled a commitment and capacity to accomplish this webpage with current resources. But if funding or directive is needed, legislation may be pursued.
Number 2 – issues to be further defined or otherwise addressed in the legislative recommendations.
Number 3 – Remove recommendation – recommendations was inadvertently preserved when it was removed during the March 26th meeting.

Recommendation Discussion and Review

(Recommendation Draft Document)

Elimination of redundancy in some of the recommendations is needed. Legislative recommendation Number 1 and Administrative recommendation Number 1 in the draft document needs the language to be combined and modified to streamline and reduce redundancy.

Value Statements:

Add a statement that funding needs to be adequate, equitable and stable. (*Statement was added prior to voting later in the meeting)
Add a statement that all students are entitled to a school environment that is free from disproportionate discipline.

Recommendations – Redundancy and Areas for Streamlining

Administrative Recommendations:

Legislative recommendations numbers 1 and 2 should be combined with Administrative recommendations. *Include statement that they could become legislative recommendations if CDE is unable to implement them without a legislative directive or funding from the General Assembly.

Training and guidance from CDE would likely require legislative action to enable hiring of additional FTE since there is not currently a unit within the department dedicated to discipline. Would it be helpful to CDE to make a legislative recommendation that provides for such additional staff?
Conversely, does it make sense to make a legislative recommendation to give CDE more staff to provide training and guidance when we know that rural districts are struggling with capacity to implement any of this? It may be better to focus legislative requests for more staff on areas where it is most needed (i.e. rural education systems).
Meaningful resources have to be provided if implementation is to be successful.
Things that are in administrative recommendations are things that Floyd said CDE can do now. Anything beyond this would require additional resources and by extension, legislation.
Keep Administrative recommendation number 1 and add two sub-points from overlapping Legislative recommendation number 1 to read:

CDE will develop a web page related to discipline that includes:

(I) Best practices and examples of discipline matrices, alternative approaches to disciplinary actions, and discipline matrices that include alternative approaches to discipline and consideration for rural school districts;

(II) Events when suspension and expulsion are not appropriate in light of underlying conduct;

(III) Interplay of discipline protections for students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504);

(IV) Contributing factors that support students staying in school and how parents and guardians shall receive this information

(V) Overlap of other CDE taskforce recommendations (i.e. substance abuse task force, school finance task force, early discipline Pre-K-2 taskforce, etc.)

(VI) Examples of discipline matrices that include alternative approaches to discipline and are inclusive of special populations (e.g., limited English proficiency, special education, early childhood, etc) Should the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) not act per administrative recommendations, direct CDE to issue resources and/or or guidance to support districts’ development of discipline matrices—including examples and ensuring resources and guidance are suitable for use by districts with “special circumstances”

(VII) Special circumstances for districts or Administrative Units can include but are not limited to: being a rural district, having a student body composed of a minority majority, limited availability of local resources, etc., and

(VIII) Compilation of existing parent engagement resources.

*Note that these should become a legislative recommendation if the above administrative recommendation cannot be implemented without a directive or funding from the General Assembly.

Legislative Recommendations:

Recommendation number 2 -important to consider that rural districts do not have resources to develop alternatives to discipline so they will need support from CDE.
Recommendation number 3 – Make addition to subpoint 3 that reads:
This would also include ensuring that discipline data respondents, assistant principals, principals, 504/IEP coordinators, other data reporters are included in the alignment process, and everyone responsible for entering discipline data for reporting to CDE. (Goal is to ensure consistency in data entry)
Recommendation number 4 – Add subpoints to read:
Direct CDE to create and/or coordinate a statewide training database with online modules that any school or district staff, parents or guardians, and students can access on at least the following topics:
- Data collection guidance for data respondents
- Coding discipline incident for administrators
- Preventative systems for reducing discipline
- De-escalation strategies for school staff
- Restorative approaches to discipline and other alternative to suspensions
- Implicit bias training
- Trauma informed care
- Statutes on grounds for suspension/expulsion, statutes on the processes of suspension/expulsion, and definitions of key terms—“bullying,” “harassment,” etc.
- Family rights and engagement; how to meaningfully partner with families in a culturally responsive and trauma informed manner
- Overlay of protections of students with disabilities
- Education about Claire Davis Act, what it covers and how it is operationalized for school and district decision makers

*(CDE trainings would be accessible to families and communities.) (Funding is required for CDE to create these trainings which is why it is necessary that this recommendation is legislative in nature.)

Reorder recommendations 5 & 6
Recommendation number 6 – note that Task Force has an issue with the term “other” because of its vagueness and overuse. Goal is to more clearly define other definitions so there is no need for the “other” category.
Terms that need clarification within this recommendation include “detrimental”, “ bullying”, “willful disobedience”, and “habitually disruptive.”
Need to clarify what behavior is and is not subject to suspension and expulsion.
What about instances in which an injured partiy’s safety requires suspension/expulsion of their offender (e.g. sexual assault victims)? Need to acknowledge the tension that exists between the injured party's potential for feeling unsafe due to the presence of the offendor and the desire for alternative approaches to discipline and options that don’t involve exclusion. There is a spectrum of things that can be done in response to addressing safety threats or trauma resulting from offenders’ ongoing presence in the school (i.e. move them to another school – assuming there is another one in the district).
- Subcommittee to have more discussion on who is writing definitions – OLLS? TF may make recommendations but OLLS would still have to draft the language for the bill.
Review order of recommendation number 5 and number 6 and reorder if needed.
Recommendation number 7 – in development of central webpage resources, it is likely that there are existing resources that can be used here. No need for CDE to start from scratch. Recommendation can become a directive for CDE to compile existing applicable resources into one collection on a central webpage.

Outstanding Issues and Questions:

No outstanding concerns or questions on data suppression.
Re: April 9 Public comment provided by Rachel Arnold: Should there be a recommendation for universal language screening in early years of K-12 education?
- Provision of resources around reading supports could be an additional administrative recommendation. (TF not in favor of recommending universal screening due to a lack of available resources. Additionally, current mandates and systems ensure that most districts already do universally screen for this.) This recommendation is in acknowledgement that inability to read is the first check-out point for a lot of students, in turn leading to lack of engagement and discipline problems. Screening for dyslexia is not currently mandated and any time CDE pushes for a mandate they get extreme push back from districts. If we were to require this through a recommendation, it would require funding not only for the screening, but the staff training for what to do to address the student needs and issues uncovered by the screening.
More funding is needed across the board to ensure that student issues and needs are identified and that there is capacity to secure appropriate interventions and supports. (Funding is addressed in our values statements)
There is already a subpoint in administrative recs that captures TF support of other CDE TF recommendations. (School Finance and Substance Use Task Forces have released recommendations; Accountability TF is still working on theirs.)
Should we make a recommendation that the General Assembly should concurrently look at of all the Task Force’s recommendations to align implementation of interventions?
If our TF wants to endorse other TF recommendations, members would like to re-review and endorse in relation to specific recommendations of other TFs.
Align language used throughout our recommendations and report with Substance Use report, exchange Substance abuse for substance use.
Claire Davis Act (CDA) – clarification on what Act requires and its parameters should come into play in the training that is offered. (Training on disproportionate discipline should indicate that CDA does not require suspension or expulsion, and that compliance with the Act can coincide with efforts to increase reliance on alternatives to discipline and addressing disproportionality.)
- Draft and add a value statement that the TF recognizes importance of safe schools and prioritizes safety of students, but exclusionary discipline does not equate to safety. Misunderstanding of CDA is an issue that requires education through training. (Reality is that educators are so concerned about the potential safety threat of a student that they are likely to err on the side of exclusion because they don’t want to misjudge the risk.) TF does not want a recommendation on CDA. Only reference in value statement.

**All legislative recommendations will be amended in accordance with discussion today and then put up for a vote at the next TF meeting.

Task Force Member Voting:

Overview of voting process:

Types of votes –

Advance in current form
Refine in current form
Reject recommendation in total
Abstain

2/3 majority needed to advance or reject a recommendation in total.
Split vote between advance and reject will be voted on to determine if TF would like to advance recommendation as a minority recommendation.

Definition – Vote

Advance – 10; Refine – 3; Definition passes.

Consideration of minority report: Mike would like to see “should” be stricken and “shall” used instead. Multi-language learners and students with disabilities are the only categories in the personal characteristics section of definition for which data is currently collected by CDE in relation to disproportionate discipline. No data would be needed from districts, but CDE would have to look into how to connect up the existing sources of data that are not currently connected to discipline data. Can CDE combine data sources to use the other categories for use in determining disproportionality in discipline? May want add language to state “as permitted or consistent with available data.” (TF wants to make clear that there are no additional data collection requirements on districts.) (Districts are likely to have this information – more so than CDE). Those TF members that want to change language will work together to refine/clarify.

Motion by Mike Claudio to clarify language in personal characteristics. 2nd by Michelle Murphy. 6 votes (9 needed). Motion fails.

Value Statements – Votes:

Value Statement I – advance – 11; Statement I passes.

Value Statement II – motion to amend language from “should” to “need to” by Mike Claudio, 2nd by Lisa Schleuter. 11 votes to amend language. Advance recommendation in amended form – 10 votes. Statement II passes.

Value Statement III – Advance – 10 yes. Statement III passes.

Value Statement IV – Motion to change first “should” to “needs to” by Mike Claudio. 2nd by Lisa Schleuter. 9 yes – motion passes. Motion to strike “as appropriate and available.” Motion by Michelle Murphy, 2nd by Sara Pielsticker. 8 yes. Motion fails. Motion to approve value statement IV in amended form. 9 yes. Statement IV passes as amended.

Value Statement V – Motion to table Statement V until next meeting – Mike Claudio, 2nd Anne Keke, 11 yes. Motion passes.

Statement VI – Motion by Dawn Fritz/Elie Zwiebel to amend language to “we believe that every district needs to have a discipline matrix for the purpose of eliminating bias and ensuring consistency.” Motion by Ann Keke to table vote until next meeting, 2nd by Mike Claudio. 8 yes. Motion fails. Motion to approve amended language offered by Elie Zwiebel, 2nd by Dawn Fritz. 9 yes. Motion passes. Motion to advance value statement VI in amended form – 9 yes. Statement VI passes as amended.

Statement VII – Amend language to say “we believe the implementation of the TF recommendations needs to align with the TF guiding principles including: centering equity, preserving the civil rights of students and families, being developmentally appropriate, and reflecting the rights and considerations governed under the Federal IDEA/504 regulations and guidelines.” Motion to amend language offered by Bridget Anshus, 2nd Elie Zwiebel. 9 yes. Amended language approved. Motion to advance value statement VII as amended – 10 yes. Statement VII passes.

Next meeting - add an additional value statement based on Dawn’s proposed language for student’s being free of disproportionate discipline.

**Important to note that the TF report is a communication tool – it is not binding. Further action is needed by either the department, legislature or the districts for any of this to be implemented. As a result, language such as should vs shall is probably not a big concern.

Next steps:

Next meeting will take place on May 14 (2 hours). Will provide amended legislative recommendations in advance. Task Force to vote on administrative and legislative recommendations as amended based on today’s conversation.
Remainder of May – Allied Agenda will work with CDE to draft report. Task Force to meet on June 12th (2 hours) to review draft report.

Public Comment: None

Adjourn.

April 9, 2024

Meeting Minutes

Attendees: Zoe O’Donnell, Chair; Elie Zwiebel, Vice Chair; Anne Keke, Dawn Fritz, Mike Claudio, Lisa Humberd, Sierra Agens, Nicole Alvarado, Sara Pielsticker, Michelle Murphy, Lisa Schlueter

Staff & Public Attendees: Johann Liljengren, Jen Gallegos, and Tricia Walz, CDE; Amber Minogue and Andrea Wilkins, Allied Agenda, Michelle Berge, CO Office of the Attorney General, Rachel Arnold.

Opening & Welcome: Meeting facilitator, Amber Minogue, provided welcome, and overview of meeting objectives.

Meeting Called to Order:

Vice Chair Zwiebel called the meeting to order; confirmed the presence of a quorum
Vice Chair Zwiebel calls for a motion to approve the March 26th meeting minutes. Motion was moved by Nicole Alvarado and 2nd by Mike Claudio. Minutes were approved.
Vice Chair Zwiebel calls for a motion to approve the April 9th meeting agenda. Motion was moved by Nicole Alvarado and 2nd by Dawn Fritz. Agenda was approved.

Public comment:

Rachel Arnold, Literacy Coordinator in South-Central BOCES located in rural CO provided comment on the connection between a lack of access to literacy and its correlation with disproportionate discipline (see slides). Need to look at interconnected factors that lead to disproportionate discipline, implement restorative practices and take a holistic approach to meeting the needs of the whole child. Early dyslexia screening and early language screening should be mandated as a preventative discipline strategy and a pathway to ameliorate literacy issues and potentially negative behaviors that can be a factor associated with the school to prison pipeline. Investments in education lead to cost savings in helping individuals avoid involvement with the criminal justice system and possibilities exist with universal dyslexia screening, potentially through the READ Act. Universal early screening looking at early language has other benefits beyond reading, including helping to identify other language related disabilities.

Data Suppression Proposed Rules & CDE Updates

Johann Liljengren, CDE (presentation slides)

Data profile reports:

Discipline suppression rules (HB 22-1376)

The bill involves the collection of discipline data and the creation of reports based on information received from school districts and charter schools.

Updating CDE’s data collection process for discipline

Move to student level reporting for student discipline

2. Production of District Profile Reports

Produced based on new 2023-24 data collection

3. Updated rules for seclusion and restraint of students

Delineates reporting requirements (i.e. chronic absenteeism, number of expulsions, etc)
Goal for CDE in applying suppression rules is to ensure student privacy is protected within the context of other requirements and uses of data.
National suppression guidelines FERPA standard for de-identification – assesses whether a reasonable person in the school community who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances could identify the individual student based on reasonably available info.

CDE’s Overall approach to suppression:

Small districts – no reporting on discipline data for districts that have less than 16 students. (3 districts in 2023-24)
Also suppress subgroups of less than 16 (ex. Multilingual learners in district total 12 so this data is suppressed.)
Individual student counts – suppress counts of less than 4

Profile report updates:

Highlighting indicates changes from 2022-23. Most everything has changed because it has moved to student level collection (change in format)

Detrimental behavior (and other categories)
- Under Safe School Reporting Requirements, all specify on school grounds (C.R.S. 33-32-109.1(2)(b))

Discussion: School Safety, Discipline & Other Statutory Considerations

Michelle Berge, Assistant Attorney General, K-12 Education Unit (presentation slides)

Discipline laws come from 2 places – safe school act (CRS 22-32-109.1) and school attendance laws (CRS 22-33-106), which explains some of the disconnect or lack of alignment in discipline laws overall.
Grounds for suspension and expulsion in school attendance laws don’t clearly line up with safe school reporting requirements under safe school act. Also inconsistencies in references to on school and off school grounds behavior incidents results in confusion about how to report off campus behavior incidents. This results in a lack of consistency in how schools enforce discipline. No differentiation between what justifies suspension and expulsion.
Laws governing discipline are a hodgepodge of laws that go back decades. The laws lack consistency due in part to many “bandaid” amendments. Current laws don’t capture the challenging system-wide work that goes into creating a positive school environment.
Factors that go into creating a positive school environment and an effective school discipline system include many factors that are outside the law including factors recommended by the National Association of School Psychologists. (See Framework for Effective School Discipline for more information) These include:
- Clearly defined behavioral expectations that are taught and consistently reinforced.
- Clearly understood and equitably enforced consequences that are instructional instead of punitive.
- A tiered system of behavioral supports to meet the needs of each student including prevention, skills building, early identification, and intervention service.
- Data-based decision making within a multidisciplinary problem solving team.
- Positive adult role modeling of expected behavior.
- Culturally responsive, positive discipline techniques that help to mitigate bias.
- Ongoing, job-embedded professional development to increase school staff capacity to implement effective, positive, and equitable discipline for school staff that reinforces culturally-responsive positive discipline techniques and helps to mitigate bias.

School Safety

How do we think about school safety in the school discipline context?

There is some misunderstanding of the requirements of the Claire Davis Act (CDA), key among them - CDA has explicitly said that allegations of failure to act reasonably cannot be based solely on a failure to expel or suspend a student. Schools have discretion here.

Threat assessment process and safety planning

If a student’s behavior on or off campus presents what you believe is a risk to safety at school, schools should conduct a threat assessment. Depending on the risk identified, consider whether expulsion is necessary to address that risk. (Threat assessment is not currently required as part of a school safety plan.)
Safety plans are not required but are widely practiced
Schools should, with the creation of safety plans and/or the conducting of threat assessments, use research-based protocols by multi-disciplinary teams to assess students
Removing students from school does not remove safety risk. Other remedies need to be put in place to effectively remove risk.

Area of possible conflict

Grounds for suspension/expulsion includes behavior detrimental to safety of others; reporting requirements pertain to behavior detrimental to others on school grounds. Off campus behavior would be reported under “other” category. Task Force does not believe this is clear to districts. Overuse of “other” conduct category may also be capturing things that do not result in loss of classroom time.

Task Force Discussion:

What should be included in the “other” conduct category?

Need to define what is included in “other.”
Does “other” capture behavior that does not rise to the level of suspension or expulsion? Or does it include behavior that qualifies, but is not included in another category?
Should look at harm
If we are collecting data on off campus behavior, what is our reason for doing so? Is it limited to behavior that has a nexus to school safety/behavior? There needs to be a purpose
If restorative justice or other alternative practice is used in school, do we need to report the incident? We want to make restorative practices easier to use, not harder. Does required reporting make it harder to implement?

Any guidance on creation of safety plans?

AG currently thinking about how they get more information to schools about threat assessments and safety plans, and they will be writing an amicus brief. Currently, they refer to CO School Resource Safety Center (not currently any statutes on this issue).
Threat assessments and safety planning are really developed outside of the law – it is more of a resource-based approach. (This is difficult for small districts that have limited resources available locally.)

Any data collection about when threat assessments are used and for which students?

No, not clear how many students are subject to safety plans or threat assessments. CDE is not currently tracking this so nothing is available that tracks this at the state level.
Research demonstrates that exclusionary discipline does not increase safety. Positive school environments require most effort to take place on the prevention/intervention side. However, there are times when student behavior does warrant removing them from campus so as to address the harmful behavior.

Understanding Claire Davis Act (CDA)

There needs to be greater education about the limits and applicability of CDA so schools understand how to comply with it without over-reliance on exclusionary discipline. (possible recommendation; resources would be required)
Currently no consequence for disproportionate disciplinary action. Not enough administrators understand Claire Davis Act and fear impact decision making related to discipline, leading to actions resulting in disproportionate discipline scenarios.

✓ Include reference in values statement that alternatives to exclusionary discipline can be made without contradicting requirements of CDA.

Possible continued consultation with Michelle Berge as recommendations pertaining to statutory changes are considered by the Task Force.

Next Steps: Next meeting on April 23rd 9:00 – 1:00. Begin voting on some of the recommendations, continue working on those that are in the amendment stage.

March 26, 2024

Meeting Minutes

Attendees: Zoe O’Donnell, Chair; Elie Zwiebel, Vice Chair; Anne Keke, Lisa Schlueter, Angelina Sandoval, Laura McAurthur, Dawn Fritz, Michelle Murphy, Sara Pielsticker, Nicole Alvarado, Floyd Cobb, Mike Claudio

Public Attendees/Staff: Danielle Ongart, Jewel Sale, Jennifer Gallegos, Tricia Walz, Amber Minogue, Andrea Wilkins, Denver Post photographer

Public Comment: None.

Opening & Welcome: Meeting facilitator, Amber Minogue, provided welcome, overview of meeting objectives, timeline, and process for reviewing and voting on recommendations.

Meeting Called to Order:

Vice Chair Zwiebel called the meeting to order; confirmed the presence of a quorum
Vice Chair Zwiebel calls for a motion to approve the March 12th meeting minutes. Motion was moved by Sara Pielsticker and 2nd by Dawn Fritz. Minutes were approved.
Vice Chair Zwiebel calls for a motion to approve the March 26th meeting agenda. Motion was moved by Sara Pielsticker and 2nd by Laura McArthur. Agenda was approved.

Discipline Interchange File

Jewel Sale, CDE (presentation slides )

Records behavior incidents and discipline actions.
Each record represents a single disciplinary incident resulting in an action taken.
Data goes to SpED Discipline and Student Discipline Snapshot
A variety of information is collected and added into the data fields, including district, discipline type, school, special ed information, student information, weapons (if applicable), behavior type, and seclusion and restraint.
Each behavior required to be reported includes the code violation name, the CDE code and the definition. (no changes that TF is contemplating have been incorporated here)
Changes to student level collection include addition of nonbinary category, information on discipline action length (i.e. number of school days missed due to disciplinary action), more specific student level data in terms of behavior category by student group (Ex: How many Asian students received a drug violation?)

Review Recommendations List

Overview of Revised Recommendations by TF Subcommittee Members

Definition – word “minority” was removed because it was excluding some groups such as boys, who are not a minority in the larger population and they are also one of the groups that are disciplined at a disproportionate rate.

Value Statement - Laura McArthur, Lisa Schlueter

Every district is committed to inclusion of positive education outcomes for all students. Requires all staff to examine and address their own biases. Engage in ongoing PD and address systemic inequities.

Administrative – Sara Pielsticker, Lisa Humberd

Some legislative recommendations could be administrative actions if CDE is willing to implement. Otherwise legislation will be needed. Combined revised recommendation that incorporates the draft recommendations for this section.

Legislative – Elie Zweibel, Michelle Murphy

Agrees that if CDE will implement recommendations, legislation may not be needed.
Small language changes to draft recommendations.
Added language about special circumstances – rural districts, having a study body comprised of minority-majority student population, etc.
Need to expand workforce resources to ensure that there is staff available to support implementation of TF recommendations.

Task Force Recommendation Review - Discussion

Recommendations List with CDE advisement

*Action steps from meeting are noted below by asterisk and italicized, underlined language

From the notes of the revised recommendation—add to the value statements the following language:

“We believe that every district is committed to positive educational outcomes and safe learning environments for all students, families, and staff. We also acknowledge that to ensure these intended outcomes, each district and their staff must examine their own personal biases, engage in ongoing, targeted professional development, and address the root of systemic inequities that cause harm and undermine this core commitment through the use of disproportionate disciplinary action.”

Value statement around keeping school environment safe and not excluding students for for “unsafe behaviors” that are actually developmentally appropriate or are trauma responses.
Conflating discipline and safety leads to some concerning trends, including disproportionate discipline. How does Task Force want to frame value statement around safe schools while also acknowledging that prioritization of safety can lead to disproportionate discipline? Discipline does not always lead to safety. Need to strike the right balance here.
*Define safety in recommendations.
Districts should look to alternatives to discipline “when possible”. Instead, we need to make sure districts have the opportunity to use expulsion when necessary for safety. *Remove “when possible” and specify incidents in which suspension or expulsion is needed (i.e. safety). Instead use “as appropriate and available.” (comment consistent with need to balance safety with need to address disproportionate outcomes.)
Inclusion of workforce development – districts are woefully understaffed.
Quality rooted in equity
Value statement – if education system is to be equitable, we need more funding universally and investments in workforce development. State needs to make more serious investments here.
Value statement – *Do not name a specific district (strike reference to DPS)
CDE staff is keeping an eye on all TF recommendations to identify areas of commonality or overlap. It is also possible to have a presentation by the other TF chairs/CDE task force staff to provide an overview of their work and recommendations.
*Revise BESS value statement to emphasize goal is to identify an intervention point based on tracking teacher conduct of disproportionately disciplining students based on their own implicit biases (BESS system is secondary and really just an example of a system that could help do this – but it costs money and maybe real goal is to have CDE develop a tool available to all districts that is capable of tracking this sort of information.) Goal is identify implicit biases in teachers and intervene/provide training. For more information on BESS, see the following resources:

From Pearson (tool-maker);

Article about its use in DPS;

DPS SEL & MH resource page;

DPS Screening program (using BESS);

DPS Screening program FAQ.

Safety is prioritized because there are laws that provide for strict accountability. There are no laws in place that provide accountability for disproportionate discipline. Define what is “harm” for purposes of the Claire Davis Act? Calling out tension caused by Claire Davis Act could be useful (and also controversial). What does it mean to create a safe environment for kids? What is the outcome we want from discipline matrix? Consistency? It is hard to say if they “work” because some districts have matrixes that are more punitive than others. What should the model matrix look like (Include best practices for discipline)? Need to also provide tools or alternatives to exclusionary discipline. People need tools/resources if they are going to change their behavior.
Administrative – what is rationale behind differentiating between a teacher discipline referral and referral from an administrator. Does it matter who makes the referral? Original inclusion of recommendation is to provide more data to better identify intervention points, intending to understand where more training or support may be needed if there is a trend of disproportionate referrals from a staff member (i.e. new teachers may make more discipline referrals than veteran teachers or than administrators and need more training).
Administrative – *Michelle, Sara, and Floyd to regroup to determine which aspects of revised rec #1 can be pulled out and put into legislative category. Lisa H can be If district is flagged for disproportionate discipline, the legislature could require reporting to CDE and district compliance with an improvement plan. (similar to schools that are low in academic performance and required to development an improvement plan – UIP)
Legislative – concern about recommendation that district codes should align with CDE reporting categories since many districts are currently in the process of re-categorizing their codes. We need to figure out what districts are doing in terms of their codes and alignment. We don’t want to recommend legislation that is premature. (*see revised legislative rec #3)
We don’t track conduct that does not occur on school grounds but results in suspension or expulsion. We need improved data here to understand how much this is happening. (is intent to align with OCR?)
CDE’s role isn’t centered on policy development – more focused on implementation. Legislature would have to grant authority to the entity the Task Force recommends to work on developing and clarifying definitions (state board of education, etc).
Important to note that CDE does not have an office dedicated to discipline. Need to factor in CDE’s capacity to implement as Task Force shapes recommendations, especially administrative in nature.

Next steps:

Timeline review: 2 hour meeting on April 9th; convene in person on April 23rd – subcommittee members will refine definitions on things we discussed and we will begin voting on ones that are in final form. April 23rd meeting 9:00-1:00 with working lunch.

March 12, 2024

Meeting Minutes

Attendees: Zoe O’Donnell, Chair; Elie Zweibel, Co-Chair; Lisa Schlueter, Sara Peilsticker Mike Claudio, Floyd Cobb, Dawn Fritz, Angelina Sandoval, Michelle Murphy, Lisa Humberd, Sierra Agens, Laura McArthur

Public Attendees/Staff: Anna Gerstle, Danielle Ongart, Johann Lilengren, Jennifer Gallegos, Jewel Sale, Tricia Walz, Amber Minogue, Andrea Wilkins

Public Comment: None.

Opening & Welcome - Meeting facilitator, Amber Minogue, provided welcome and overview of meeting objectives, reviewed taskforce timeline and recommendation process.

Meeting Called to Order:

Chair Zoe O’Donnell called the meeting to order; confirmed the presence of a quorum
Chair O’Donnell calls for a motion to approve the February 27 meeting minutes. Motion was moved by Elie Zweibel and 2nd by Angelina Sandoval. Minutes were approved.
Chair O’Donnell calls for a motion to approve the March 12th meeting agenda. Motion was moved by Elie Zweibel and 2nd by Sara Pielsticker. Agenda was approved.

Legislative Fiscal Note Creation & School Finance Task Force Updates

Anna Gerstel, Legislative Council (presentation slides)

Fiscal Note Creation

Fiscal notes are a nonpartisan analysis of a bill’s fiscal impact.
Costs are determined by looking at a variety of sources, including legislative council staff modeling, discussion with budget committee staff, obtaining information from state agencies and departments regarding costs of implementation, and looking to examples from other states.
Fiscal notes include standard cost for salaries, operating expenses, mileage, legal hours, etc.
Key questions that must be addressed are whether additional staff need to be hired to facilitate implementation, whether there are IT costs, and whether technical assistance is needed.
Consideration is also given to whose responsibility it is to fund the program (school districts or state). If it is the state’s responsibility, it is important to identify where the funding is coming from.

Updates on School Finance Task Force

New formula recommended by Task Force. Legislature must choose to take action to implement.
Major changes include:
- Increase at-risk and ELL funding weight (at-risk includes those eligible for free or reduced lunch)
- New special education funding weight
- Change in the cost of living factor (new factor will make adjustments for remote location of districts)

Full report can be accessed here.

CDE Fiscal Note Creation

Danielle Ongart, Executive Director of Student Pathways Unit, CDE (presentation slides)

By law, the Legislative Council Services must consult with the state agencies in the creation of fiscal notes.
Key questions that must be addressed in the fiscal notes are
- Can the state budget absorb the cost in a given fiscal year?
- Is it a priority for legislative leadership and other legislators, in light of existing budget constraints?
Fiscal notes identify new resources that are needed to support implementation (of policy or program) and fiscal impacts are estimated for 2 fiscal years.

Breakout Group Discussion

Cost Analysis of Preliminary Recommendations (see Draft Recommendations Spreadsheet)

Next Steps:

Worksheet link shared with Task Force members to allow for additional input and comments
Task Force subcommittee will meet before the next Task Force meeting on March 26 to refine and finalize recommendations, prepare updated drafts to present to full group for review and voting.

Next Meeting:

March 26, 2024, 9:00 - 12:00 pm

Douglas County Libraries

9292 Ridgeline Blvd

Highlands Ranch, CO 80129

February 27, 2024

Meeting Minutes

Attendees: Zoe O’Donnell, Chair; Elie Zweibel, Co-Chair; Angelina Sandoval, Sara Pielsticker, Anne Keke, Lisa Humberd, Sierra Agens, Michelle Murphy, Floyd Cobb, Nicole Alvarado, Laura McArthur

Public Attendees/Staff: Johann Liljengren, Jewel Sale, Jennifer Gallegos, Tricia Walz, CDE; Andrea Wilkins & Amber Minogue, Allied Agenda

Opening & Welcome - Meeting facilitator, Amber Minogue, provided welcome and overview of meeting objectives. Review of Task Force duties we have completed except for analyzing costs and timeframes for implementation. Propose for consideration of the task force to shorten March 26 meeting and conduct via Zoom with the focus on voting on Task Force recommendations. We must have a quorum for this meeting so we will send out a meeting poll to ensure attendance for voting. AA will then spend April drafting final report. Task Force will have opportunities to come together in May to review draft and suggest changes.

Call for Public Comment: None.

CDE Follow Up

Johann Liljengren (presentation slides)

Current state statute on reasons for suspension and expulsion
District Profile reports - update on feedback
Substance Abuse Task Force Updates
2022 CO School Safety: A Legal Manual (included in slides from Nov meeting)
CRS 22-33-106(1.2) - same categories can be used for suspension or expulsion. Districts must consider various factors prior to suspension or expulsion (see slides), which include:
- age of student
- discipline history of student
- whether student has a disability
- seriousness of violation
- whether violation threatened safety of staff or students
- whether lesser intervention appropriately address violation
Currently, only mandatory grounds for expulsion is having brought a firearm to school (expulsion for not less than 1 year though the superintendent can modify this requirement on a case-by-case basis). CRS 22-33-106(1.5)
Secondary School Student Substance Use Committee (HB23-1009) - Final report issued in January 2024 (see slides). Policy/Structures:
- utilize consistent district policy and practices for responding to youth substance use and ensure equitable discipline for all
- create and follow a substance use intervention/discipline matrix
- substance use infraction links to an intervention
- recommended removal of language around expulsion for tobacco/nicotine use

*CRS and relevant presentations are all linked in the Task Force Tool Box Worksheet

District Profile Reports & Recommendation Considerations:

Jewel Sale

Overview of contents of profiles (see slides)
District profile reports must be created for each school district, including the the charter school institute, regarding discipline data
Disaggregated by gender, grade level, ethnicity, disability, ELL, free and reduced-price lunch status, homeless status
Dashboard will be updated annually
In the 2023-2024 school year it will be collected at the student level

CDE Feedback sessions takeaways:

around 150 school district employees have provided input, including school districts, CO special education advisory committee, state advisory council for parent involvement in education, CDE disproportionate discipline task force.
areas for improvement include suggestions on visual representation of data, concerns that public reporting or profile reports creates disincentive to accurately report
ensure accurate suppression for smaller districts (must protect identities of students)
Next draft of profile reports - clarify purpose, ensured updated suppression rules for 2023-24 collection, update visuals included within the report. Updates to suppression rules are expected to be complete in the next month. Lead by data privacy teams - not included within the formal CDE rulemaking process. Concerns about consistency in implementation of discipline. (this is more about discipline implementation than profile reports though this information will be illustrated in profile reports)
Better alignment of the behavior categories that districts use with statutory behavior codes - clarify behavior codes and add new categories. Requests for training in two specific areas: technical support for those inputting data and connecting district info to state codes and training for those implementing discipline. (districts develop a wide range of codes to help guide their actions but ultimately the discipline actions have to align with the 13 state (statutory) codes.
Ensure accurate reporting - how do we avoid disincentivizing accurate reporting due to the public nature of the reports and districts not wanting to highlight discipline data?
Task Force member shared that there is legislation under consideration that would ask the state to delay publication of district profile reports to ensure full understanding and compliance with suppression rules. Effective suppression is a concern for small districts/small charters regarding reporting of individual student discipline data (HB 1376). Reporting on discipline issues and longevity of reporting information necessitates thorough considerations of when suspension or expulsion are appropriate. (Ex: sometimes reports are done through criminal code but if charges are dropped, reporting of discipline issue still remains)
Task force to consider recommendation around suppression?

Disproportionate Discipline and Its Impacts on Students and Families

Sarah Collins, Kari Litz, Christie Nichol; Sara Pielsticker, Facilitator

Tell us about your experience with discipline practices and its impact on your family:

Long-term use of seclusion rooms starting in 2nd grade, resulting in PTSD.
Student isolation, separate school setting (placement based on behavioral issues, not intended to address student’s disability).
Classroom removal (prevented any relationship building with teachers/students; lack of stability and support).
Never in the same school for more than a few months, eventually dropped out and ended up in the criminal justice system.
Racism, seclusion, concerning discipline practices, law enforcement intervention.
BOCES and Disability Law CO have provided structure, support (Cortez school district).
More accountability is needed. Districts need education on students with special needs.

What are challenges of policies/practices that you have experienced that need reform?

District/school accountability is needed.
Seclusion is being used much too frequently for discipline issues that don’t generally rise to the level of warranting seclusion.
More education for staff to learn about invisible disabilities
IEPs need to be shared with all school staff that interact with child. They cannot implement it or abide by it if they don’t know about it.
More education for school staff on special needs, mental health supports.
Need for tribal liaison to the school district to represent the needs of tribal children.
Easier access to advocates for parents as they work with school on IEP; more knowledge of resources available to parents. Many parents are afraid or intimidated by the school and are hesitant to engage with school officials. Often they are made to feel at fault or risk getting reports to CPS.
Incidents of harsh discipline, seclusion and lack of behavioral/mental health support are not isolated incidents. Problem is widespread.

Anything working with teachers or administrators that has been helpful? If not, what would have been helpful?

Limitations put on staff by administration and budgetary constraints are problems. Staffing shortages (esp. paraprofessionals).
De-escalation training, training on working with students with disabilities or special needs
Advocates/Disability Law CO to help parents navigate IEP process and ensure student’s needs are met.
Listen to kids when creating IEPs/504 plans
Pay paraeducators and educators more

One wish for this task force to accomplish?

More education on working with special needs students and realization of scope of disproportionate discipline problem. More education about disabilities and the associated behaviors.
Mandatory reporting and better documentation of discipline incidents/school-parent communications
Providing students with supports and tools to get better as opposed to discipline as a means of retribution.

Quorum Established & Meeting Called to Order:

Co-Chair Elie Zweibel called the meeting to order; confirmed the presence of a quorum
Co-Chair Zweibel calls for a motion to approve the February 13th meeting minutes. Motion was moved by Sara Pielsticker and 2nd by Nicole Alvarado. Minutes were approved.

Breakout Group Activity

Focus Areas: Definition of Disproportionate Discipline; Alternatives to Discipline (Suspension & Expulsion); Data Consistency; Training

Activity Direction for Task Force Members:

Members will review notes for each focus area, considering previous suggestions, possible recommendations and task force comments. Members are asked to provide further comment and preliminary recommendations that address each focus area.

Recommendations can take the form of policy, administrative direction to CDE, guidance to districts/CDE technical assistance, value statement from Task Force. (See Substance Use TF report for examples of guiding principles and values statements.)

Members to rank their top recommendations for each category and identify those they would like to advance but need further development.

Feedback and Preliminary Recommendations by Focus Area

Definition of Disproportionate Discipline:

Draft Task Force definition: Disproportionate discipline is when a minority group of students (based on any personal characteristic) is represented at a significantly higher or lower rate within discipline actions than their representation in the student population.

Personal Characteristics: These personal characteristics should include racial and ethnic categories, gender, grade level, individual program service type (homeless, foster care, multilingual learners, student with disabilities, migrant populations) even if they are not specifically connected.

Specifically define discipline? Use dictionary definition of discipline?
- Pros of defining: consistency; don’t want to leave this task to legislature, definition needs to be developed by those on the ground.
- Cons of defining: having to agree on a definition.
Ok to not include restorative justice in the definition of discipline because it is not discipline. It is an alternative to discipline.
What are the existing data collection requirements, if any, related to the personal characteristics defined above?
At the onset of the report we need to define the goal of TF to provide context. This may include defining our mission, value statements, and overarching goal of improving outcomes for kids.
In the report, the Task Force may want to specify that the recommendations were made in reference to the Task Force definition of disproportionate discipline. For example: For purposes of the recommendations that are coming to the General Assembly, the definition we worked from provides: insert definition.
How do we update the definition of discipline to make it more student focused?
Direct the state board/BOCES to define disproportionate discipline through rule/guidance, based on the value statements set forth by the Task Force?
The definition guidance must address small student populations within classifications and how that impacts disproportionality analysis.

Alternatives to Discipline:

Potential double punishment for off school property behavior that threatens those on school property (criminal punishment plus school punishment).
Behavior on or off school property is lumped together in coding so there is no way to know how often this double punishment is occuring. Need to be able to disaggregate this (safety is the biggest concern regarding how we handle off school property behavior).
Parse behavior on/off school grounds. Segregating data may be helpful. May be less important to define nexus if our default is to find that there is carryover with off school behavior that poses a threat to those on campus.
We need to clarify what nexus is and how much weight we should give to off campus behavior. Conversely, it is not realistic to think that off school behavior won’t be broadly interpreted to be a threat on campus.
Consider addressing expulsion based on detrimental behavior occurring outside of school.
Need to be able to articulate direct and imminent threat to those on campus. (can look to other states for examples of nexus between imminent threat and off campus behavior - CA specifically) Administrators tend to easily find nexus between threat and off campus behavior due to potential safety concerns.
Need to define detrimental behavior.
One of the recommendations we are making is to clarify terms included in suspension/expulsion statutes. (Do we have time to fully assess what changes need to be made?) Need to identify a list of terms that need defining (this will be the work of a smaller work group in between meetings.)
New categories of information that are not currently collected require more time to implement.
Value Statement should include the following concept: embrace students that are struggling with mental health issues or substance use issues and prioritize connecting them to resources. (Prioritization of connecting students to resources is a major shift from previous years focus on zero tolerance.)
Specify minimum age for which suspension is an option and address issues of schools circumventing the minimum age for certain circumstances.
Focus on linking students with care other than discipline.
Provide guidance to parents/families on navigating discipline process and how to access additional supports.

Data Consistency:

Collect data around teachers’ discipline referrals - info would help identify an intervention point (small work group to further address).
Need to consider balance between statewide requirements for discipline reporting and local control. Consider overlap with mandatory reporting on other data sets such as IDEA.
Marry CRS 22-33-106 and data reporting categories.
Require districts to come to consensus on definitions for each behavior category.
Incorporate student voice in defining discipline categories.
Provide guidance on behavior descriptions and discipline actions in one place. Define key terms and provide instruction on consistent use of “other” category.

Training:

Training requirements need to honor teacher time - needs to include it in their contract or they need to be compensated for this.
As training requirements are developed, we need to also identify who is the target of training.
Value statement on the need for more training - include types of training that Task Force thinks is needed (RJ, de-escalation, trauma informed, working with those with disabilities, etc).
Training recommendations should include acknowledgement of schools that are doing things that work - and replicate or build off of this.
Hesitancy to require more training could be addressed by CDE providing a menu of options/best practices relating to discipline.
Paraprofessionals need more training and supports - they are often tasked with the most challenging students. Training should be provided without cost.
Train all teachers and school staff in working with special education populations.
Expulsion officer training.

Task Force Discussion and Recommendation Distillation:

Members reviewed feedback and offered possible recommendations from the day’s discussion, and in some cases, direction on how to proceed with recommendation formation:

Direct CDE to ensure effective suppression of discipline data within district profile reports. (This is especially important in regard to change to student-level data collection and to smaller districts.)
Definition of disproportionate discipline should specify that “significant” is to be defined in a way that is consistent with other IDEA data.
CDE to host a list of trainers or consultants to provide districts with support in regard to training.
CDE to create training/menu of options that schools and districts can access (optional) that addresses prevention, behavior, de-escalation, restorative practices, alternatives to suspension/expulsion.
Ensure training/menu of options include metrics for measuring success that are evidence-based/proven to be effective in achieving positive outcomes.
Ensure guidance includes information on rights governed under IDEA/504 regulations for students with disabilities.
Clarify broad or vague language in suspension and expulsion statutes (CRS 22-33-106), including clear definition of detrimental behavior. Differentiate what warrants expulsion from suspension. (Task Force work group to identify list of terms that need defining.)

Next Steps:

Doodle poll to finalize date for March 26 meeting. Will need to vote on draft recommendations at this meeting so quorum will be necessary. Will assess whether additional TF meetings are needed after this or if we shift focus to developing the draft report.

Work Group

Lisa Humberd, Elie Zweibel, Sara Pielsticker, Michelle Murphy, Laura McArthur, Lisa Schlueter volunteered to participate in the recommendation work group. AA to follow up on a meeting schedule.

February 13, 2024

Meeting Minutes

Attendees: Elie Zweibel, Co-Chair, Lisa Schlueter, Nicole Alvarado, Bridget Anshus, Sara Pielsticker, Angelina Sandoval, Mike Claudio, Lisa Humberd, Sierra Agens, Michelle Murphy, Laura McArthur

Public Attendees & Staff: Rachel Garlick, Johann Lilengren, Jewel Sale, Jennifer Gallegos, Amber Minogue & Andrea Wilkins

Opening & Welcome - Meeting facilitator, Amber Minogue, provided welcome and overview of meeting objectives

Call for Public Comment: None

Breakout Group Discussion: Review of January 23 Panels

What is working in districts? Are there opportunities for replication on a statewide scale? Where are there areas for improvement? Are there opportunities for clarification, further definition, or reform? See jamboards for reference:

Need to incorporate student voice (HSD2 provides an example)
Need clarity in policy and statute to remove subjective bias
Explicit definition for discipline and related codes; training for inputting referrals into data system
Data gives opportunities to ask questions but does not tell the whole story
State accountability framework gives opportunity for appeal, something similar should exist for districts related to discipline
Training is needed for all parties responsible for entering data into the system
Develop menu of options illustrating best practices to allow districts to pick what works best in their environment
Clarify what rises to the level of expulsion and what warrants lesser discipline/intervention

Meeting Called to Order:

Co-Chair Elie Zweibel called the meeting to order; confirmed the presence of a quorum
Co-Chair Zweibel calls for a motion to approve the January 23rd meeting minutes. Motion was moved by Mike Claudio and 2nd by Lisa Humberd. Minutes were approved.
Co-Chair Zweibel calls for a motion to approve the Feb. 9th meeting agenda. Motion was moved by Sara Pielsticker and 2nd by Angelina Sandoval. Agenda was approved.

Breakout Group Discussion: Review & Craft Preliminary Recommendations

Group 1 - Consistency of Data Collection & Discipline Coding (jamboard)

Guidance around behavior descriptions and discipline actions in one place to be able to access and understand process.
- Define key terms, including recognition and of inconsistencies that exist with the ‘Other’ category for discipline.
- Could there be an alternative discipline category for restorative practices?
- Districts use discipline practices that are too harsh for behavior
- Inconsistency in reporting because of unclear definitions
- Clarification on behavior definitions to better understand what behaviors should go in each category (i.e. classifying a behavior as an assault incorrectly)
Recommendation for larger school districts to come to consensus on the way they are defining each behavior category
Develop a progression of consequences on how to respond for behaviors
Look at the balance between local control and requirements regarding discipline
Involve student voice in defining discipline areas

Group 2 - Alternative Approaches to Discipline/Addressing Suspension & Expulsion Policies (jamboard)

Differentiate what rises to expulsion versus suspension or lesser intervention
- Identify and establish a baseline of behavior(s) that do not lead to suspension
- Address expulsion based on detrimental behavior occurring outside of school grounds
Develop guidance menu by CDE, of alternatives to exclusionary discipline
- Ensure guidance includes rights governed under IDEA/504 regulations for students with disabilities
- Ensure training and exposure to exclusionary discipline alternatives for teachers/staff
- Overuse of harsh discipline in instances when a lesser intervention would be more appropriate
- Ensure that menu offerings include metrics for measuring success and that they are proven to be effective in achieving positive outcomes
Clarify broad and/or vague language in statute and/or in policies that govern suspension and expulsion (e.g. detrimental behavior); generally providing definitions in statute; integrate a civil rights lens
Focus on linking students with care rather than discipline
Shortening the length of expulsion (not all expulsion needs to be for a whole year)
Incorporate youth voice in building discipline policy and practice (value statement and recommendation)
Reframing how teachers are trained to identify and manage kiddos with mental health and substance use needs
- Teachers may not feel comfortable or well trained with identifying and addressing behavior that may be related to mental health and/ or substance use needs–either how it relates to the student or their family.

Group 3 - Training & Professional Development/Staff & Leadership Accountability

Training on preventative strategies/de-escalation and training on restorative practices
Training could include coding and/or actual best practice for disciplining of students
- Training for administrators and teachers on discipline codes and data entry
CDE must take the lead in getting training to districts (webinars, asynchronous training opportunities, development of resource bank of training/professional development). Needs to be consistency in approach. State must provide resources here. State must also assess the feasibility of requiring more training where there are already so many training requirements. Where can training requirements be lifted?
Explore ways to incorporate training on disproportionate discipline into other mandatory training that teachers are already required to complete. Include in standardized teacher onboarding program? As part of training required for licensure? (Teacher Licensure requirements)
Administrators need training on discipline codes to promote consistency in reporting.
Implicit bias training needs to be an ongoing effort. Most districts have not committed to continuous training here.
Need to differentiate in statute discipline for behavior that occurs on and off school grounds; differentiate suspension vs expulsion. Clarity will promote more consistency and work to eliminate bias.
Any new requirements for training must take into account existing training requirements teachers must complete so as to not overburden them. Need to ensure teachers are provided with time and compensation to complete new training requirements.

Call for Public Comment: None

Adjourn

Next Meeting: February 27, 2024 9:00 - 2:30 pm, City Year, 789 Sherman Street, Ste 400, Denver, CO 80203

January 23, 2024

Meeting Minutes

Attendees: Zoe O’Donell, Chair, Elie Zweibel, Co-Chair, Sara Pielsticker, Angelina Sandoval, Mike Claudio, Lisa Humberd, Sierra Agens, Anne Keke, Dawn Fritz, Michelle Murphy, Floyd Cobb, Laura McArthur

Public Attendees & Staff: Johann Liljengren, Jewel Sale, Tricia Walz, Joanna Rosa-Saenz Jennifer Gallegos, Amber Minogue, Andrea Wilkins, Omar Reyes, Kathryn Wiley, Bill de la Cruz, Gretchen Carter

Opening & Welcome - Meeting facilitator, Amber Minogue, provided overview of meeting objectives, introduction of breakout group discussion and questions for consideration.

Breakout Group Discussion:

Referencing Jamboard discussion from January 9th meeting, please consider the following:

What are the themes or throughlines you are seeing in the responses and ideas provided in the jamboards during the last meeting?
How do these themes relate to task force duties?
Do they form the basis of any corresponding recommendations?

Breakout Discussion Report-Out:

Define what is suspendable vs expellable behavior
Statutory language is very old – needs review and updates. Includes very few definitions – may want to consider whether various terms in statute need definition.
Expulsion does not have to be 365 days – could be shorter (but what distinguishes it from suspension?)
Behavior agreements as an alternative to suspension? If so, they cannot conflict with IEPs and it must be something that the student can actually comply with – otherwise they will be alienated and act out again. Good agreements should involve parents but in practice, it is rare that they do. (Often parents don’t have the ability to weigh in on this in an informed way or to support their student in complying – this is when other resources need to come into play.)
Recommend this group continues to meet for another year?

Meeting Called to Order:

Chair O’Donnell calls meeting to order, verifies presence of quorum
Chair O’Donnell calls for a motion to approve the January 9th meeting minutes. Motion was moved by Elie Zweibel and 2nd by Dawn Fritz. Minutes were approved.
Chair O’Donnell calls for a motion to approve the January 23rd meeting agenda. Motion was moved by Angelina Sandoval and 2nd by Sara Pielsticker. Agenda was approved.

Call for Public Comment: None

Panel: What Works in Districts

Johann Liljengren & Jennifer Gallegos, CDE; Panelists Kirk Henwood, South Routt School District; Lori Bailey, Adams 12 School District; Gretchen Carter, Jefferson County Public Schools (presentation slides)

CDE Dropout Prevention Framework:

CDE beginning to compile information on discipline best practices. Recommendations of this group will help shape this information.
Working on expulsion hearing officer training coming out later this year.
Discipline practices: create positive climate and focus on prevention, develop clear, appropriate and consistent expectations and consequences to address disruptive student behaviors, ensure fairness, equity, and continuous improvement. Works most effectively when guided by trauma-informed and social-emotional approaches; implement restorative practices.
When behavior expectations are not met – reflective, restorative, instructional
Reduce classroom disruptions by engaging students, set up procedures and structures, and building community.

Panelist Discussion:

Kirk Henwood, Superintendent, South Routt School Districts

More than 100 small rural districts in CO, we need to think about how we provide resources here. In these districts, staff wear many hats. In small, rural districts, disproportionality means something different here (i.e. South Routt has no Black students). Disproportionality here (South Routt) is white male students.
District approach is focused on educating the whole child, including social-emotional needs. This is a baseline for their behavior management. Developing a handbook for student behavior available to staff, students and parents. Implementation of restorative practices, consistent systems throughout districts.
Accurate reporting of discipline incidents is important so that issues can be addressed and progress can be measured.
Identify what behavior codes need to be aligned with the state system–assistant principals throughout the state can provide input here because they deal with behavior incidents most consistently.
The district discipline matrix also includes guidance on age/developmentally appropriate resolutions to consider.
The best opportunity to teach and promote better behavior is when kids remain in school, but schools also have a duty to keep all students safe. It is problematic if a student is let back in and harm occurs to others as a result. Behavior plan - Need to make sure kids have an “out” to keep things from escalating. In extreme situations, short term suspensions come into play, and then when a student returns, restorative practices are used. The goal is to ensure that the student can successfully return to their classroom.
To what extent is suspension/expulsion helpful as a deterrent or helpful in promoting a positive school environment? This varies by student. Some of them want to be out of the school environment so suspension would not be a deterrent. However, it’s not realistic to take suspension or expulsion off the table completely. It is sometimes necessary for safety, and it gives administrators space to develop a plan for moving forward.

Gretchen Carter, Principal, Director of Student Discipline, Jefferson County Public Schools

District focuses on creating a welcoming culture and environment.
Goal is data-driven decisions. Data is lacking in some areas, so this is problematic. Working on moving toward consistency in data collection from year to year and from school to school.
Shared leadership team within every building. Tasked with looking at data to refine their policies and procedures and better identify disproportionality.
Free and Reduced Lunch student data is helpful. This helps in creation of “at risk” student profiles and leads to tool development that helps with intervention work.
Identifying levels of behavior, those that are dealt with in the classroom, and those that administrators deal with. These standardizations help when there are discipline incidents, so there are less opportunities for bias to come in.
Prevention and intervention needs to be the foundation from which systems and procedures are developed.
Alternatives to discipline: the default is to look for alternatives to exclusionary practices. Community service, reverse suspension, mentoring in younger student classrooms, meaningful leadership role related to issue, etc. The district encourages creative thinking on restorative practices that fits within the school building and promotes repair of harmful action.

Lori Bailey – Director of Student Engagement Initiatives, Adams 12 School District

Working to implement a data dashboard.
Brought in a team to do equity review on policies and discipline procedures. Developed an equity framework.
Review of disproportionality data illustrates overrepresentation of male students of color with IEP within district as a whole, but there are variations at school level.
Clarifying language in terms of discipline has been helpful; related professional development and training. Trying to make this consistent from school to school.
Discipline codes and descriptions used to classify discipline incidents are not always understood by educators. Training here is helpful to ensure data collection is clear. (Noted a possible overuse of “other” category for discipline description) Number of behavioral codes used vary by districts, which map to CDE state reportable categories. (16 state codes) Identify common codes that everyone is using? Define classroom disruption vs an administrator-referred incident statewide? More instruction on what codes align with CDE categories to promote consistency from district to district?
Use of matrix that aligns incident with district behavior code and code for possible resolution. Working on supplemental document to provide guidance with suggestions to educators about additional actions that may be taken in light of other factors associated with student (homelessness, IEP, disability, etc.)
Working to figure out how to document alternatives to exclusionary discipline. Helpful to think about how we track alternatives in schools throughout state.

Panel Discussion: Focusing on Implementation District-Wide

Mike Claudio, Assistant Superintendent (Facilitator); Erika Tunson, Principal, Monterey Elementary School; Mindy Simmons, Assistant Principal, Harrison High School; Yazari Patrick, Student, Harrison High School; Chris Padilla, Student, Harrison High School

Harrison District is only minority-majority district in Colorado Springs
Black, brown student graduation rates are higher than state average
All new staff participate in the new staff institute, which includes implicit bias training.
District has equity theory, getting ready to publish equity policy.
Approach is about building relationships, between leadership and staff, between students and other students, and between staff and students.
District does not make determinations on whether a crime has been committed, instead the district waits for determination of law enforcement/DA. Students charged with a crime are not excluded from participating in the Restorative Justice process regardless of whether they are involved in the court system.

Ericka Tunson, Principal, Monterey Elementary

Exclusionary practices are not workable for educators, the class time results in lost learning and makes classroom instruction more difficult.
- Decision made to instead, rely on alternative practices that include teaching opportunities. Goal is to create a positive environment while also being very clear with staff about discipline procedures and implementation policies.
- Educators are very clear tiers of discipline and about when they need to make principal referral for behavior incidents. Very strong PDIS system.
- Collaboration with teachers revealed that most teachers feel they can handle most incidents in the classroom.
- Discipline means ‘to teach’. Behavior is communication, so what can teachers learn.
- No taking of recess for punishment.
- Typically the most extreme punishment (or biggest suspension) is use of lunch detention, which is intentionally made to be meaningful (i.e. vaping students spent two weeks on classroom presentation on why they shouldn’t be vaping; similar approach was used with students who were bullying; food fights resulted in lunch detention helping custodian). This approach results in fewer repeat incidents.
Relationships are key to retaining staff and promoting good student behavior. Staff consistency promotes strong relationships and trust with students. As a result they invest a lot in school culture. School has low suspension and referral rates and high teacher retention rates (higher than district)
Implicit bias training for staff helped promote shift from punitive focus to staff being willing to embrace restorative practices.
Parents are not typically involved in lunch detentions and related projects unless it is a health and safety issue or something involving illegal activity (i.e. did not notify parents of food fight, but did notify of vaping). Second offenses do involve parents.

Mindy Simmons, Assistant Principal, Harrison High School

Ambassador program combined with restorative justice practices. Program focuses on older students working with younger students; houses connection circles, use of peer mediators, honor council. Student success center for students in crisis using an SEL focus and goal setting for metrics.
- RJ - two parties come together who are in conflict (student, staff, etc) with goal to discuss how to move on from conflict
- RJ effort helps to equalize power between parties in conflict (i.e. student/staff)
What resources are needed to create and sustain this program? District has been a resource, providing lesson series and staff that pairs with teachers that do RJ program and leads students who operate program. Having good models is key to designing and implementing in school – Reinventing the Secondary School was a very useful conference.
Program has been in operation for about 5 years.
70% of students complete their intended goals/outcomes.
Families/parents are not involved with this ambassador program – it gives students a chance to talk and develop strategies to repair damage without influence of parents. Parents do participate in RJ program.

Yazari Patrick & Chris Padilla, Student Ambassadors, Harrison High School

RJ program – the focus is on learning and how to help impacted students move on. Need to equalize power to avoid re-traumatizing anyone. To work, the student [all participating parties] must be willing to participate in the RJ process–it can’t be forced on anyone. RJ used for more serious issues and also for student-staff conflicts.
Peer mediation – used for more minor issues. Utilizes pre-conferences, individual meetings with each impacted student. Use of student peer mentors is disarming. Provides opportunity for the students to feel heard and share their larger experiences that may be impacting their behavior.

Understanding Barriers to Systemic Change and Potential Alternatives to Discipline Practice

Omar Reyes, Project DIVERT│DIVERT Coalition; Dr. Kathryn Wiley, Howard University;

Bill de la Cruz, De La Cruz Solutions

Omar Reyes, Project DIVERT Coalition

Community input is essential to reforming schools in a way that works for everyone. Students need to help define what success means.
Project DIVERT receives CDPHE grant funding, initially to work in DPS schools.
DPS has resolved to be a trauma-informed, equity-focused district.
- Resolution is useful in the sense that it directs priorities and resource investments.
- Putting policies in place to make these things happen. Yet even after years of doing so we are still seeing unacceptable racial disparities. Somewhere between the superintendent and school board, and what happens at the school level, there is a disconnect. (disconnect in leadership goals, to training, to practices at school level).
- Policy and practices (implementation) should follow science, best practices and evidence-based solutions. This can help overcome educator/administrator bias and lack of consistency in practice from school to school and district to district.
Lack of political will is a huge barrier. If it doesn’t exist, it doesn’t matter how many resources you have access to. In times of crisis, priorities change and DPS has rolled back its school discipline reform measures in response to recent crises (i.e. return of SROs). Motivations or root causes for student behavior don’t change one way or another however. Political will to use evidence-based resources for improving student behavior and curbing violence by students needs to be in place for improvements to occur.
We need to consider educator intervention opportunities more. Focus should be on allowing professional growth. DPS uses BESS (BASC-3 & BESS Behavioral and Emotional Screening System) – the system attempts to reveal behavioral and emotional signifiers for students, and can disaggregate by teacher, principal, and school level. This allows assessment of which teachers have problematic/racist interactions with students.
We need to figure out how to talk about racism effectively.
Lack of buy-in at school and district level
Lack of accountability for school leaders and staff; nobody is held more accountable than students

Kathryn Wiley, Howard University

Dr. Wiley prepared presentation slides about potential policy levers to consider & possible recommendations informed by current research.

Discipline disparities can be traced back to school integration where bias was very obvious.
We now have enough information on how to reduce bias and reduce disparities. School leader is the fulcrum to implementing this information because they set the tone, make training decisions, and make discipline decisions in their schools.
Lack of accountability for educators and administrators in terms of implementation is a problem.
- Data collection needs to focus on closing opportunity gaps by race, how do we measure?
- We need to operationalize how we report data and focus on the adults in the school buildings. Link student level discipline data to their academic coursework data, to teacher data.
- We know that most behavior referrals come from new teachers in the first three years so this provides insight into an intervention point.
- Instructional superintendents need to hold principals accountable to civil rights
Need to promote efforts at the state level to diversify the educator workforce because it is a protective factor for black and brown students and provides benefits for all students.
State/CDE needs to think about how to responsibly use discipline data, what schools choose to report, and how the lack of consistency in data reporting can skew what is really going on. Schools that are higher income and have more stable families/communities, have lower discipline issues, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that educators or administrators are doing something wrong in districts with more challenging student populations.

Bill de la Cruz, De La Cruz Solutions

Programmatic changes are not sufficient – need systemic change to promote equity

We don’t adequately prepare educators and administrators to be trauma informed and to positively impact disparities. We need relational leadership; more professional development here for school leaders and teachers/staff to realize better relationships.
Lack of relationships and time for educator collaboration leads to a poorer school environment, which impacts students as well as adults. We need to shift the professional development model to make it more relational. Current professional development system is driven by assessments, standards and curriculum, maybe only 10% on relational. It leaves no time for other training, or to build relationships between educators. Without relationships none of this is possible.
- There is a difference between school centered and community centered schools.
Consistency in behavioral expectations and discipline practices is key, there is much improvement needed here. Need collaboration that creates consistency but still leaves room for autonomy.

Need to shift from school-centric schools to community-centric schools. Schools cannot operate in an insular fashion. Need to understand the community in order to effectively meet needs of students.

Public Comment:

Joanna Rosa-Saenz delivered comments on behalf of an Adams 12 parent who felt she and her son were targeted by their school administration. Untrue allegations resulted in son’s arrest. The incident and school response has been traumatic for the whole family. Son is more aggressive now than in past. Feels he will be unfairly targeted again in the future. Joanna worked in school’s refocus room. Would be helpful to implement in other schools. Shared that the lack of accountability of educators is a problem.

Possible Recommendations from day’s discussion:

Identify what behavior codes need to be aligned with the state system (assistant principals throughout state can provide input here because they deal with behavior incidents most consistently).
Identify common discipline codes that everyone is using? Define classroom disruption vs an administrator-referred incident statewide? More instruction on what codes align with CDE categories to promote consistency from district to district?
Policy and practices (implementation) should follow science, best practices and evidence-based solutions. This can help overcome educator/administrator bias and lack of consistency in practice from school to school and district to district.
Link student level discipline data to their academic coursework data, to teacher data. We know that most behavior referrals come from new teachers in the first three years so this provides insight into an intervention point.
Require statewide use of BESS (BASC-3 & BESS Behavioral and Emotional Screening System as used in DPS) or other evidence-based tool to link teacher and leader data to academic and disciplinary outcomes, by race?
We don’t adequately prepare educators and administrators to be trauma informed and to positively impact disparities. Need relational leadership.
Define what is suspendable vs expellable behavior
Statutory language is very old – needs review and updates. Includes very few definitions – may want to consider whether various terms in statute need definition.
Behavior agreements as an alternative to suspension? If so, they cannot conflict with IEPs and it must be something that the student can actually comply with – otherwise they will be alienated and act out again. Good agreements should involve parents but in practice, it is rare that they do. (Often parents don’t have the ability to weigh in on this in an informed way or to support their student in complying – this is when other resources need to come into play.)
Recommend Task Force continues to meet for another year?

January 9, 2024

Meeting Minutes

Attendees: Elie Zweibel, Co-Chair; Lisa Schlueter, Nicole Alvarado, Sara Pielsticker, Mike Claudio, Lisa Humberd, Sierra Agens, Dawn Fitz, Angelina Sandoval, Bridget Anshus, Anne Keke, Michelle Murphy, Lisa McArthur

Public Attendees & Staff: Johann Liljengren, Jewel Sale, Tricia Walz, Lili Adeli (Boulder Prep), Regina Morris (Boulder Prep), Christian Caldwell, Jason Gold, Amber Minogue, Andrea Wilkins

Meeting Called to Order:

Co-Chair Elie Zweibel called the meeting to order and the meeting facilitator verified the presence of a quorum.
Co-Chair Zweibel called for a motion to approve the December 12 meeting minutes. Motion was moved by Nicole Alvarado and 2nd by Dawn Fritz. Minutes were approved.
Co-Chair Zweibel called for a motion to approve the January 9, 2024 agenda. Motion was made by Nicole Alvarado and 2nd by Sara Pielsticker. Agenda was approved.

Call for public comment: No comments received.

Agenda Overview: Meeting facilitator Amber Minogue provided a review of the agenda and meeting objectives; provided explanation of group activities.

Understand, Review, & Provide Feedback on CDE District Profile Reports

Jewel Sale, CDE

Reports are compiled pursuant to HB22-1376 - Supported Learning Environment for K-12 Students. CDE is to create district profile reports and consult with stakeholders on their development.
Reports include information on attendance, behavior, discipline and other factors related to supportive learning environments
Task Force members are required to review the CDE plan for creating profile reports and were asked to provide input and comments through the use of a jamboard. (See jamboard)
Reports can be accessed on the CDE website on the dropout prevention page.
For more detailed information see meeting slides.

Dropout Prevention and Student Re-Engagement

Johann Liljengren, CDE

Review of relevant Task Force duties:
- Review best practices identified by the Department concerning drop out prevention and re-engagement
- Identify alternative approaches to discipline and address concerns around workforce and other resources shortages in school districts in relation to school discipline practices and reporting
CDE grants to support school climate, behavior and discipline practices in the following focus areas:
- bullying prevention
- expelled and at risk student services
- Project Aware (works to build a comprehensive, coordinated and integrated school behavioral health services systems that supports every student)
- school climate transformation
- STOP grant (school violence prevention)
- Stronger Connections grant (safer communities and healthier outcomes for students)

For more information see meeting slides.

CDE Panel: Dropout Prevention & Student Re-engagement

Lili Adeli and Regina Morris, Boulder Prep High School

Boulder Prep HS is an alternative HS serving approximately 100 students and a current recipient of the CDE Expelled and At-Risk Student Services Grant
CDE funds have supported school-wide efforts to address learning environment and student behavior issues.
Trauma and ACES are a key factor in behavior issues.
Overall approach at school is centered around establishing trust and building relationships with students with an intention to engage in restorative practice. Approach all restorative practice/discipline incidents with disproportionality in mind. “Do no harm” training and culture.
Teacher-student relationships must not be perceived as authoritarian. School staff do not use offices and instead have mobile desks. They are constantly moving among the student body, which allows them to observe behavior and detect issues. This approach makes the staff very accessible to students.
School compensates staff for extra time, including training time, etc.
Boulder Prep provides an orientation to all students and their families at enrollment to help build relationships. Classrooms are small. (School population overall is small with approximately 100 students.)
Staff seize opportunities for teaching moments; focus is on student accountability, not punitive discipline.
All staff are trained in restorative practices and trauma-informed care with a focus on creating a culture of “Do no harm” throughout the school building. The commitment to training results in a very capable staff who helps share the workload of cultivating a supportive and preventative environment.
One suggestion for applying Boulder Prep’s approach in larger school environments - systemize responses and approaches to discipline incidents (i.e. develop clear discipline incident flowchart for every incident type) to help guide staff and standardize expectations and discipline.
Important to get to the root of student behavioral issues - staff training can help here. This focus needs to guide discipline and staff must be encouraged to move away from shame/blame-based language or a punitive approach.
Training accessed by Boulder Prep was provided by Restorative Solutions
Positive return on investment, with an increase in graduation rate and a higher than average, as compared to other districts, score on their school climate survey.
CDE is working to expand the dropout prevention framework to extend to school discipline. More discussion on this at future Task Force meetings.

Member Discussion: Best Practice Identification & Task Force Recommendation Wish List

Small group discussion and member input provided through jamboards. (see jamboards for detailed notes)
Questions considered by Task Force members:
- What is your “why” for being on the Task Force?
- What is the unique perspective or experience that you bring to the discussion?
- How can you use your unique perspective and expertise to inform the Task Force recommendations?
- What does the Task Force need to know about the group/issue you represent in relation to school discipline?
- If you could accomplish one thing on this Task Force, what would it be?
- What, if anything, do you need to hear about to confidently make that recommendation?

Themes from the jamboards included (slides 2-4):

Identification of individual member expertise and perspective including public school employees, mental health, substance use disorder, school boards, child development, resources, etc
Emphasizing voices traditionally marginalized or excluded from participating.
Beginning to identify wish list for focus and recommendations of task force

Call for public comment: No comments received.

Next Steps:

Next meeting is Tuesday, January 23rd at the Douglas County Library in Highlands Ranch.

Light breakfast will begin at 8:30, meeting starts at 9:00.

December 12, 2023

Attendees: Zoe O’Donnell, Chair; Elie Zweibel, Co-Chair; Lisa Schlueter, Nicole Alvarado, Sara Pielsticker, Mike Claudio, Lisa Humberd, Sierra Agens, Dawn Fitz, Angelina Sandoval, Bridget Anshus, Anne Keke, Floyd Cobb,

Public Attendees & Staff: Johann Liljengren, Jewel Sale, Tricia Walz, Jen Gallegos, Danielle Ongart, Dr. Jose Silva, Wendy Loloff Cooper, Jack Johnson, Amber Minogue, Andrea Wilkins

Announcements: Johann Liljengren notified the group that CDE will permit payment of honorariums to youth speakers or panelists who the Task Force invites to share information and lived experience.

Meeting Called to Order:

Chair Zoe O’Donnell called the meeting to order and the meeting facilitator verified the presence of a quorum.
Chair O’Donnell called for a motion to approve the November 28th meeting minutes. Motion was moved by Elie Zweibel and 2nd by Dawn Fritz. Minutes were approved.
Chair O’Donnell called for a motion to approve the December 12, 2023 agenda. Motion was made by Sara Pielsticker and 2nd by Dawn Fritz. Agenda was approved.

Call for public comment: No comments received.

Legislative Overview:

Jack Johnson, Disability Law Colorado

Disability Law will be running 2 bills during the 2024 Legislative session
- Representative English and Senator Buckner will co-sponsor a bill to ban use of seclusion rooms throughout K-12 schools
- Representative Young will introduce a bill to improve governance around what is appropriate when abbreviating the school day for students with disabilities including requiring better data collection.
Disability Law will be able to share bill language with partners and stakeholders in December, reach out to Jack Johnson for more information.

Bridget Anshus, Mental Health Colorado:

Bridget shared Mental Health Colorado’s legislative initiatives for 2024. Their focus will include expansion of SB23-184 which extends access to behavioral health for children covered under Medicaid. This year’s effort will expand to include children covered by commercial insurers. The legislation will also bring in parity language to align with Federal guidance issued in the summer of 2023. For more information about this bill and the rest of their legislative agenda, or to be included in the stakeholder process, reach out to Bridget Anshus.

Dr. Jose Silva & Wendy Loloff Cooper, Generation Schools Network:

Dr. Silva and Wendy provided context about the Justice Engaged Youth Bill of Rights legislation they will be running this year. Their bill will seek to codify improvements to the different systems that justice engaged youth interact with, including related to substance use, education, juvenile justice. The bill intends to reduce barriers for justice engaged youth to reintroduce, integrate, support and complete their education. Legislation is sponsored by Representative Jennifer Bacon. To participate in the stakeholder engagement, reach out to Wendy Loloff Cooper. Presentation slides forthcoming.

Disproportionate Discipline - Definition Discussion:

Group review and discussion on the draft definition developed during 11.28.23 meeting and the personal characteristics identified by the Task Force relating to groups for which data collection recommendations may be needed to assess disproportionality. Factors to be decided by task force:

Which elements of definition are important to codify?
Which elements should take the form of a Task Force recommendation?
Which elements should be addressed through the administrative/rule making process?

Draft definition: Disproportionate discipline is when a minority group of students (based on any personal characteristic) is represented at a significantly higher or lower rate within discipline actions than their representation in the student population.

Personal Characteristics: These personal characteristics should include racial/ethnic categories, gender, grade level, individual program service types (homeless, foster care, multilingual learners, students with disabilities, migrant) even if they are not currently specifically connected.

Task Force Discussion Points:

There are varying perspectives as to whether to include the list of personal characteristics within the definition itself or to define these characteristics through administrative rule or include within a values statement in the final Task Force report. Further discussion needed.
Data collection recommendation(s) may be needed to assess disproportionality within the groups included in the “personal characteristics” categories.
Overarching definition of discipline is not currently defined in state statute. (Expulsion and suspension are defined however.) Does the Task Force want to explicitly define ‘discipline’ or ‘discipline action’? What is the response to discipline and are there data collections that track those responses? Are there changes to how schools should be allowed to use discipline based on those definitions and responses? The Task Force will consider whether they want to develop a definition.
Does the Task Force want to define “significant” as it pertains to the definition? The Task Force will consider whether it is sufficient to rely on the definition of significant as it is commonly understood in a statistical context (no further definition provided in disproportionate discipline definition) or if we want to define the risk ratio more specifically within the overarching disproportionate definition. (Refer to other state examples in resource provided by Education Commission of the States)
Some Task Force members would like to change the term “minority” in the definition to “marginalized.” *CDE staff note: white males are disciplined at the highest rate among any group and they are neither a minority or marginalized population. Inclusion of “marginalized” in the definition could have unintended consequences that the Task Force should consider.
Task Force members agree that the draft definition and personal characteristics are a good starting point. Group will continue to refine as more information and discussion take place in January.
Task Force would like to hear more perspectives from school administrators, school counselors, SpED coordinators and other staff, about the impact of specific state and federal laws on discipline implementation in schools. (i.e. ERPO expansion, Claire Davis Act)
Task Force would like to learn more about promising practices to changing school environment and keep students engaged in school. (Possible CDE presentation on best practices?)

Possible Recommendations:

Task Force recommends that within any recommendation, we ensure that actions taken are developmentally appropriate.
- Relevant Task Force Duty: Determine whether CDE’s plan and progress in standardizing discipline data should include reports of alternative disciplinary measures taken prior to a student’s suspension or expulsion.
Task Force recommends required training for educators and administrators about the impacts of discipline.
- Relevant Task Force Duty: Review best practices identified by the Department concerning dropout prevention and student re-engagement.

Draft Recommendations to Date

Next Steps:

Task Force members are encouraged to suggest speakers (including themselves!) who can speak to what is working in Colorado schools in terms of student engagement and alternative discipline practices, as well as community members (school administrators, parents, students, etc.) who can share perspectives on systemic disproportionality.

Next meeting to take place Jan. 9, 2024 @ 3:00 pm via Zoom.

Call for public comment: No comments received.

Meeting Adjourned

November 28, 2023

Meeting Minutes

Task Force Attendees: Zoe O’Donnell, Chair; Elie Zweibel, Co-Chair; Representative Stephanie Vigil, Sara Pielsticker, Anne Keke, Angelina Sandoval, Floyd Cobb,Mike Claudio, Dawn Fritz, Laura McArthur, Sierra Agens, Lisa Schlueter, Michelle Murphy, Bridgette Anshus, Lisa Humberd

Public Attendees & Staff: Johann Liljengren, CDE, Jewel Sale, CDE, Jen Gallegos, CDE, Tricia Walz, CDE; Amber Minogue & Andrea Wilkins, Allied Agenda

Meeting Minutes:

Chair Zoe O’Donnell called the meeting to order and the meeting facilitator verified the presence of a quorum.
Chair O’Donnell called for a motion to approve the November 14th meeting minutes. Motion was moved by Sara Pielsticker and 2nd by Elie Zwiebel. Minutes were approved.
Chair O’Donnell called for a motion to approve the November 28, 2023 agenda. Motion was made by Angelina Sandoval and 2nd by Lisa Humberd. Agenda was approved.

Call for public comment: No comments received.

Remarks by Johann Liljengren, CDE, to address questions arising from the presentation during the Nov. 14 meeting.

Intersectionality can be reported as an aspect of reports developed by CDE; however the more indicators that represent intersections are drawn when looking at data, the more different suppression rules will overlap and need to be applied.
- Smaller districts and/or smaller groups of students may not allow for reporting when overlapping suppression rules are applied.
Risk ratio has evolved over time, starting with a stakeholder engagement process in 2017 that helped define disproportionate discipline for LEAs. This process was in response to 2016 Federal IDEA regulations requiring all states to use a standard methodology to analyze significant disproportionality in their LEA to develop a definition of significant disproportionality with stakeholders’ input. See this brief for detailed description of CDE process and implementation progress.
The redefining of significant disproportionality came with a reduction of risk ratio thresholds and increase in the amount of risk ratio reduction necessary to qualify for “reasonable progress.”
There are many CDE data collections that collect a lot of repetitive data from districts, but those collections don't necessarily share between each other. The taskforce should be mindful that if we recommend changes, we should consider changes to current data collections so as not to create a whole new collection which would put additional work on staff and district reporting.

Review of Task Force Statutory Responsibilities

Task force reviewed statutory duties
Identified legal standards as a place for review. Currently the categories are “catch all” and too vague.
Task force should better understand how the discipline system aligns or correlates with the accountability system. (Discrepancy exists between 22-33-106 and 22-33-107 - can we recommend alignment?)*
There is a discipline continuum, from prevention to intervention. How does student re-engagement and other drop-out prevention strategies decrease the need for discipline? How do we evaluate what is used as prevention and intervention and understand their efficacy? Do we know when we are successful, what is our measurement?
- Who is doing it right? Are there alternatives to discipline practices that are successful (e.g. restorative justice practices)
  - We must remain mindful of the push and pull of local control vs. the state role in defining practice.
  - We should provide a menu of options for strategies that districts can choose from.*
  - How does state support continuation and replication of promising practices already in use within some districts?
- As we make recommendations about changes, we also need to consider what works (e.g. Colorado Springs discipline matrix)
  - Classroom culture – what works in the classroom and how do you promote that school- and district-wide
  - Can every district develop a plan or discipline matrix that defines staff conduct for discipline?*
  - Our recommendations can include legislative and administrative changes.
  - What is the rural story in these contexts, how does it differ from what we see in urban and suburban districts? Are the recommendations we think about applicable for all environments?
Task force must engage with legislators (i.e. Senator Buckner & Rep. Maclauchlan) to educate about and become champions for Task Force recommendations (Angelina, Rep. Vigil, Dawn are all good connections to the legislature)
Identifying and understanding different systems (e.g. juvenile justice, human service, etc) and how they intersect with the education system, and with the laws that govern each system. Can we clarify and align languages across some of these intersecting systems?*
As we define disproportionate discipline, our focus must include a definition of discipline, not just disproportionate.

Disproportionate Discipline definitions and state trends

Education Commission of the States (ECS) provided a brief overview of what other states are doing to define disproportionate discipline.
Three main approaches for defining:
- Compare percentage disciplined to percentage enrolled of different groups
- Compare gaps between groups (ie 15 percentage point gap between highest and lowest)
- Adopt federal significant disproportionality
For example: In Illinois, they determine the top 20% of school districts annually using the following metrics:
- Total number of out-of-school suspensions divided by the total district enrollment by the last school day in September
- Total number of out-of-school expulsions divided by the total district enrollment by the last school day in September
- Racial disproportionality, defined as the overrepresentation of students of color or white students in comparison to the total number of students of color or white students on October 1st of the school year in which data are collected, with respect to the use of out-of-school suspensions and expulsions
Conversely, Oregon defines it more narrowly as follows:
- “Disproportionate Discipline” means disproportionate rates of suspensions and expulsions for American Indian/ Alaska Native students compared to their white classmates who commit similar infractions and who have similar discipline histories.

What factors are necessary for consideration in developing a definition:

In defining discipline, we are focused on formal exclusion - as opposed to informal exclusion or “being pushed out”.

Categories to be considered when developing definition:

race
gender
ability
English language learners
ethnicity
age/grade
gifted and talented
at-risk status
foster care involvement
incident type and duration

(Offered by Elie Zweibel): When a student who is a minority in terms of demographic identification is disciplined in a manner outsized in comparison to that demographic minority’s representation in the student population.

(Offered by Angelina Sandoval): A particular group of students (based on any personal characteristic) is represented in a given category at a significantly higher or lower rate than other groups.

Other factors for consideration:

Categories of formal exclusion currently reported are suspension, expulsion, and restraint.
Capturing some disproportionality for some groups will have positive downstream effects for other groups and the student population as a whole.
Should categories considered in definition be limited to those that are a protected class?
Can we require training about impacts of informal discipline/exclusion? One recommendation may be that a future task force be charged with examining informal push out.*
Do we consider restorative practices part of the discipline model?
Discipline is commonly associated with punishment/viewed as punitive.
If we recommend additional data collection, what will CDE do with new data? How do we use data to effect the change we want to see? We need to ensure that recommendations are tied to a rationale that moves us closer to our desired outcomes.
Recommend future task force to oversee implementation?*

Call for public comment: No comments received.

Adjourn at 2:30

*Indicates possible Task Force recommendation.

November 14, 2023

Meeting Minutes

Task Force Attendees: Zoe O’Donnell, Chair; Elie Zweibel, Co-Chair; Representative Stephanie Vigil, Sara Pielsticker, Anne Keke, Angelina Sandoval, Floyd Cobb, Nicole Alvarado, Mike Claudio, Dawn Fritz, Laura McArthur, Sierra Agens, Lisa Schlueter, Michelle Murphy, Bridgette Anshus, Lisa Humberd

Public Attendees & Staff: Johann Liljengren, CDE, Jewel Sale, CDE, Amber Minogue & Andrea Wilkins, Allied Agenda

Meeting Minutes:

Chair Zoe O’Donnell called the meeting to order and meeting facilitator verified the presence of a quorum.
Chair O’Donnell called for a motion to approve the October 24th meeting minutes. Motion was moved by Ann Keke and 2nd by Angelina Sandoval. Minutes were approved.
Chair O’Donnell called for a motion to approve the November 14, 2023 agenda. Motion was made by Ann Keke and 2nd by Sara Pielsticker. Agenda was approved.

Call for public comment: No comments received.

Remarks by Johann Liljengren, CDE, to address questions arising from the presentation during the Oct. 24 meeting providing an overview of current discipline collection results.

Differences between current and 2024 collections? Discipline data collection and special education discipline collection will join together as data collection moves to student level; civil rights data collection has a few more categories – CDE offers to pre-populate items that it has for the Office of Civil Rights collections. Otherwise, districts report directly to the US Department of Education.
Discipline data collection will move to student level and will include same categories as the special education discipline data collection. Includes additional information about disability for students.
Civil rights data collection includes more categories that are not in CDE data collection including information on shootings, incidents of rape, attempted rape, sexual assault by student or staff member and resulting action, harassment or bullying subcategories, violent act vs non-violent act.
Definitions - disparities, disproportionate discipline, significant disproportionality
- concept - focused on the desired practice or practices that shouldn’t occur
- technical - provide a formula for what is considered disproportionate discipline or indicates disparities and would indicate if a school, district, or state has disproportionate discipline or disparities in outcomes.

Presentation by Floyd Cobb, CDE, on CDE’s special education definition of significant disproportionality and the national trends on disparities in discipline. (see slides)

IDEA requires each state to annually examine whether significant disproportionality based on race and ethnicity is occurring in the state and the LEAs of the state.
Having significant disproportionality means that students of a particular race/ethnicity are significantly more likely than their other-race peers to be identified as children with disabilities, identified with a particular disability category placed in a particular educational setting (separate classroom), or suspected/expelled as a disciplinary measure.
Under IDEA states have to use risk ratio calculations to identify school districts as significantly disproportionate.
- Example: In Colorado, Black/African AMerican students are 2.18 times as likely to be identified with intellectual disability compared to their non-Black peers in SY2016-17.
If an administrative unit is identified as significantly disproportionate, the following actions are required: in-depth review of policies, procedures and practices, a root cause analysis, set aside 15% of its IDEA funds to address the issues identified through the root cause analysis.
Significant disparity reports - CDE submits an annual report to the US Department of Education.

Presentation by Michelle Berge, Assistant Attorney General, on the legal framework for discipline in the K-12 education system. Slides coming soon.

Many federal and state statutes relevant to school discipline. CO School Safety Legal Manual is a good resource.
Safe school plan - each school district must create a safe school plan that includes conduct and discipline code and safe school reporting requirements. (22-32-109.1(2))
Laws related to suspension/expulsion - under current statute (22-33-106), the same categories can be used to justify suspension or expulsion. Statutory language is broad and lacking clarity in some instances. Task Force might suggest a review and revision of existing language to provide more guidance.*
Each district shall consider the following before suspending or expelling student: age of student, disciplinary history or student, whether student has a disability, the seriousness of the violation, whether the violation threatened the safety of any student or staff member, whether a lesser intervention would properly address the violation.
See “Discipline Grounds vs Data Reporting Comparisons” google doc in slides (coming soon).
CO law specifies maximum number of suspension days per behavior incident, though local/district policies may differ. Maximum number of suspension days not specified for habitually disruptive student, facsimile firearm, false accusation of criminal activity. There are requirements in statute that schools must continue to provide educational support to suspended or expelled students.
Off-campus conduct - speech (verbal bullying, social media posts) and actions (arrest, conviction, sexual/physical assault, possession of weapon).
- Speech - school may restrict conduct if it would substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge on the rights of other students, or if it involves serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular people.
- Conduct - courts/prosecutors must notify school district when a student is charged with a crime. Best practice: Is there a safety risk to the school environment? Conduct a threat assessment to determine level of risk.
Student cannot be expelled for more than a year. During expulsion, district must offer educational alternatives designed to enable the student to return to the school in which they were enrolled.
Students with disabilities cannot be expelled or suspended for more than 10 days without convening the IEP team and parent to review whether conduct was related to disability or was a result of failure to implement the student’s IEP.
Search and Restraint Laws: Student can be searched when school officials have reasonable suspicion of a policy or law violation or if student consents. Can also search pursuant to a threat assessment safety plan. Student can be restrained or physical intervention is permitted to calm/comfort student, assist student in completing task, escort student from one area to another, quell disturbance threatening physical injury, protect persons against physical injury, self-defense. New regulation on seclusion - physical restraint is limited to one minute or more must be reported to building administration.

Call for public comment: No comments received.

Next Steps: Next meeting of the Task Force to take place November 28 from 9:00 - 2:30 at the Castle Pines Library. This will be an in-person meeting with a remote participation option. Please email Tricia if you plan to attend remotely. Only one meeting in December to take place on the 12th. If you would like to present on any 2024 legislative initiatives that you would like to discuss at the December meeting, please email Amber.

*Indicates potential Task Force recommendation.

October 24, 2023

Meeting Minutes

Attendees:

Task Force Members: Zoe O’Donnell, Chair; Elie Zwiebel, Co-Chair; Lisa Schlueter, Floyd Cobb, Mike Claudio, Anne Keke, Michelle Murphy, Angelina Sandoval, Nicole Alvarado, Lisa Humberd, Sara Pielsticker, Bridget Anshus, Dawn Fritz, Sierra Agens

Public/Other Attendees: Alyssa Person, CDE; Johann Liljengren, CDE; Jewell Sale, CDE; Trisha Waltz, CDE; Amber Minogue & Andrea Wilkins, Allied Agenda; Christian Caldwell

Meeting Minutes:

Task Force facilitators introduced Zoe O’Donnell and Elie Zwiebel as the Task Force Chair and Co-Chair elected by a prior vote of the Task Force members.
Chair Zoe O’Donnell called for a motion for a vote of the Task Force to approve the Oct 10, 2023 minutes. Motion was moved by Michelle Murphy and seconded by Elie Zwiebel. Vote approved unanimously.
Chair Zoe O’Donnell called for a motion for a vote of the Task Force to approve the Oct. 24, 2023 agenda. Motion was moved seconded by Michelle Murphy and seconded by Angelina Sandoval. Minutes and agenda were approved. Vote approved unanimously.

Agenda Items & Discussion:

Task Force Structure & Recommendation Vetting Process

Public comment period will be offered at the beginning and end of each meeting. Comments will be limited to three minutes. Staff will read any written comments submitted by the public. All comments should be respectful and align with standards of decorum appropriate for a public meeting. The Task Force will make a form available for people to submit written comment, not to exceed 3 minutes, which can also be shared out during public comment periods at each meeting. Task Force members can disseminate form to constituents to encourage participation and inclusion of a diversity of voice.

Task Force members approved a process for creating and vetting Task Force recommendations by which Task Force facilitators will capture preliminary recommendations and related ideas and discussion in the meeting minutes for Task Force members to review and approve at the start of the next Task Force meeting. This will create an ongoing record of draft recommendations raised during the Task Force meetings leading up to development of the draft Task Force report. Task Force members will discuss and refine preliminary recommendations by April 15, 2024 to identify possible gaps in coverage and the need for more information. Additional outside experts and speakers will be identified and secured to address gaps in information following the April 15 review. A set of comprehensive recommendations will be included in the draft Task Force report which will be made available for Task Force member review by the targeted date of May 15, 2024.

Identification of Member Priorities

See below for a detailed discussion table of member priorities and related timeline with details on Task Force deliverables.

Background Information: Overview of HB 22-1376

CDE staff Johann Liljengren and Annette Severson provided presentations on HB22-1376, Supportive Learning Environments for K-12 Students, and information on the current CDE discipline data collection process and upcoming changes for 2023-24. For more information please see the presentation slides or the meeting recording.

Bill involves the collection of discipline data and the creation of reports based on information received from school districts and charter schools.
- It updates data collection process for discipline moving to student level reporting for student discipline.
- Requires new district profile reports based on 2023-24 data collection
- Updates rules for seclusion and restraint of students.
Stakeholder process conducted with 27 stakeholders over 3 meetings to develop standardization process. Summary of stakeholder engagement process.
CDE codes were crosswalked with CASB model policies
CDE drafted a guidance document for districts and charter schools about reporting that provides clarification in 4 areas:
- Disobedient
- Detrimental
- Other Code of Conduct
- Bullying
Current discipline data collection intended to capture students who are excluded from school settings due to a discipline incident.
Schools track all discipline incidents and then share with LEA/district. LEA/district then aggregate to report to CDE using a data portal (Data Pipeline).
Historically, data collected could not link incidents reported with students disciplined.
Going forward (23-24 school year and beyond) student level data will be collected.
The Task Force will help provide feedback and review about reports as part of task force responsibilities.

Background Information: Overview of Discipline Collection results in 2022-23

CDE staff Jewel Sale and Johann Liljengren also provide overview information on discipline collection results for 2022-23. For more information please see the presentation slides or the meeting recording..

Clarification on rules for suppressing data
Multiple collections are reported now but there will be a singular collection starting in 2023-24 and moving forward.
Current collection includes approximately 900,000 students.
Looking to have data illustrate multiple incidents associated with one student.
Note that categorization of some incidents (2nd, 3rd degree assault for example) are determined by the district reporting, not the school.
Number of students disciplined across state – 96,218 (unique individuals)
It is possible to cross data to identify students that cross into more than one category (race and disability status, etc) but it cannot be tied by the incident. This will change in the coming year.
Reported data is public but we may need to explore how to make it more publicly accessible.
Public would like to see if data can be crosswalked with over-representation of certain populations in the juvenile justice system.

Identification of Member Priorities

Task Force members engaged in small group discussions and an exercise to identify and prioritize focus areas and key responsibilities of the Task Force to inform the overall work plan and development of the Task Force report and recommendations. Priorities identified by the two breakout groups are summarized below.

Group 1 Priorities (facilitated by Amber Minogue):

Defining multiple aspects of disproportionate discipline (e.g. class, race, gender, ability, etc.) - 7 dots
Identification of what we are doing right. - 7 dots
What are different districts doing that is working? How do they know it is working? - 5 dots
Family engagement; how do we support and empower districts? - 2 dots
Stakeholders should include families, teachers, administrators, special education, social work and mental health practitioners. - 2 dots
Differences between urban, rural, suburban, and charter schools
Truancy - how to connect - 1 dot
Pre-K and the high number of suspensions - 1 dot
Need to bring as many voices to the table as possible, esp BIPOC
Written comment; accessibility to meetings
Funding - what is current context and what are realistic changes?
What resources can the state provide to all districts? (i.e. training on implicit bias, trauma informed care, etc)

Group 2 Priorities (facilitated by Andrea Wilkins):

Review suspension and expulsion statutes, determine what is included here or missing that contributes to disproportionate discipline. - 11 dots
Must consider prevention-focused engagement with students. – 9 dots
Consideration of impact of stigma to students flagged as a safety risk or a mental health/behavioral diagnosis. (consequences of discipline) – 9 dots
Additional input should come from external stakeholders who can support this work, including mental health professionals, school finance experts/legislative staff, and members of the community. – 4 dots
Local considerations should delve
into school-level discipline practices, acknowledging variation in practices within districts. – 3 dots
Consider systemic racism or discrimination in our larger systems that reinforce disproportionate discipline in schools. - 2 dots
Consider impact of existing law (Claire Davis Act, ERPO expansion to include educators, etc) on school discipline. – 2 dots
Local considerations (school and district level) become relevant if TF definition of discipline includes things short of suspension and expulsion. Need to consider micro-events that lead to behavior that results in suspension or expulsion. – 2 dots
Increased accountability of schools and districts can lead to disproportionate discipline and other impacts. – 1 dot
Consideration of safety planning and threat assessments. - 1 dot
Must consider whether a problem actually exists in regard to disproportionate discipline. Necessary for TF to be able to construct appropriate remedies.
Identify processes and resources to support public engagement in discussions on discipline data.
TF members to identify and nominate speakers to help inform TF work; TF members votes on who we invite to contribute.

October 10, 2023

Meeting Minutes

Attendees

Task Force Members: Rep. Stephanie Vigil, CO General Assembly; Lisa Schlueter, CDEC; Floyd Cobb, CDE; Mike Claudio, CO Association of School Executives; Anne Keke, CO Association of School Boards; Michelle Murphy, CO Rural School Alliance; Angelina Sandoval, CO League of Charter Schools; Nicole Alvarado, CO Education Association; Sara Pielsticker, Disability Law CO; Bridget Anshus, Mental Health CO; Elie Zwiebel, CO Juvenile Defender Center; Dawn Fritz, CO PTA; Sierra Agens, CO Coalition Against Sexual Assault; Zoe O’Donnell, Student Representative

Public Attendees: Danielle Ongart, CDE; Mia Gorman, Parent, Cherry Creek School District; Cassidy Fowler; Shelbie Konkel; Christian Caldwell, My Brother’s Keeper

Agenda Items & Member Discussion

Introduction of Amber Minogue & Andrea Wilkins, Allied Agenda, as coalition facilitators; defining their role and providing context for the support they will provide to Task Force including meeting facilitation, meeting agenda development, coordination with Task Force chair/co-chair, meeting minutes preparation, speaker and stakeholder outreach, and addressing Task Force member questions, concerns, and priorities.

Overview of Task Force goals and purpose – requirements of enabling legislation, and the requirements of CO Open Meetings Laws were presented by Johann Lijengren & Jewel Sale (CDE).

Task Force Administration and Meeting Structure:

Task Force will conduct a minimum of 8 meetings alternating between virtual meetings via Zoom and in-person meetings with a Zoom option for those outside the Denver metro area. In-person attendance is a priority whenever possible.

Task Force members can request travel reimbursement from CDE to defray cost associated with in-person attendance. Reach out to Johann Liljengren

Meetings will take place between Oct. 15, 2023 and June 30, 2024. A draft report is due on May 15, 2024; final report on Task Force findings and recommendations is due on June 30, 2024. Targeting April 15th to complete a working first draft for review by Task Force.
Task Force members opted to create a co-chair position to support management of the Task Force. Members will self-nominate for chair and co-chair positions and conduct a vote via email. Election outcome will be announced to the Task Force members via email prior to the Oct. 24 meeting.
Task Force members determined that a quorum needed to conduct official Task Force business is ⅔ of the membership. Lack of a quorum will not prohibit a meeting from taking place but no official votes or decisions can be taken without a quorum.
Once a quorum is established, a vote to affirm an action or decision of the task force requires approval by a majority of the task force members present at the meeting in which the action or decision is considered. Similarly, an email vote of the Task Force requires approval by a majority of the voting members, once a quorum is established. Quorum is established once ⅔ of Task Force membership has participated in the email vote.
Allied Agenda will coordinate with Task Force chairs, co-chairs and members, along with CDE, to identify stakeholders and content experts that are needed to provide input into the Task Force’s work and discussions.
Allied Agenda will identify and capture in the meeting notes, recommendations resulting from Task Force meetings. Members will have an opportunity to review and approve meeting minutes at every meeting. Draft recommendations captured following Task Force meetings will be consolidated and included in the Task Force reports.
Process for identifying and addressing priorities will be discussed during the Oct. 24 Task Force meeting.

For more information, see Presentation Slides.

For information on all Task Force business, please refer to this CDE website.