At our June school board meeting, I asked several questions about proposed changes to Policy 467. The proposed revisions are highlighted in red in the meeting materials, and my questions begin at approximately 34:30 in the meeting video.

After the meeting, I sent the Policy Committee an email outlining several recommended additions. Committee members indicated that they need more time to review the proposed language with legal counsel and discuss it within the committee before bringing the policy back to the full board.

If you would like to send additional feedback about this policy to the policy committee email:

Kari Pratt: kpratt1@isd77.org

Erin Roberts: erober1@isd77.org

I am not on the policy committee, but would love to hear your feedback regarding my policy suggestions: Elizabeth Hanke: ehanke1@isd77.org

The proposed Policy 467 already states that principals and directors should be evaluated on instructional leadership, organizational management, culturally responsive leadership, multiple measures, student growth, staff feedback, and professional goals. Minnesota law gives school districts some flexibility in designing principal evaluations, while requiring that the process address instructional leadership, supervision, teacher development, school performance, student achievement, staff feedback or surveys, and professional development.

A principal cannot be an effective instructional leader if teachers cannot teach and students cannot learn because disruptive behavior is not addressed.

Suggested policy changes

1. Add “safe, orderly, and instruction-focused learning environments” to the purpose

I would add this to Section I or II:

The evaluation process is also intended to ensure that building leaders maintain safe, orderly, and instruction-focused learning environments where teachers are supported in teaching and students are supported in learning.

2. Add teacher support and classroom disruption to the evaluation system

Under III. A. The evaluation system shall, add a new item after instructional leadership:

Support and improve a principal’s or director’s ability to maintain a safe, respectful, and productive learning environment, including timely and consistent administrative support for teachers when student behavior substantially disrupts instruction, interferes with a teacher’s ability to teach, or interferes with other students’ ability to learn.

This language is important because Minnesota’s discipline statute specifically recognizes removal from class for willful conduct that significantly disrupts others’ right to an education, including conduct that interferes with a teacher’s ability to teach or students’ ability to learn. (MN Revisor)

3. Make teacher feedback required, not optional

The draft says staff/community feedback may include surveys “when appropriate.” We need to tighten that. Otherwise, the most important people affected by principal discipline decisions, teachers and staff, may not have a meaningful voice.

Suggested replacement:

Staff feedback shall include, at minimum, regular and confidential feedback from licensed teachers and school staff regarding administrative responsiveness, consistency of student-discipline procedures, support following classroom disruptions, communication after student removal from class, and follow-through on reentry or behavior-support plans.

Add a new evaluation component under B. Evaluation Components called:

School Climate, Student Conduct, and Teacher Support

It could include evidence such as:

• teacher feedback on whether administrators respond promptly when students are removed or need to be removed from class;
• consistency in applying the district discipline policy;
• follow-through after classroom removals, including parent contact and reentry expectations;
• data on repeat removals, violent behavior, assaults, office referrals, and unresolved behavior patterns;
• support for students with disabilities consistent with IEP/504 and special education requirements;
• evidence that principals are protecting instructional time for all students.

Minnesota law already requires district discipline policy to include grounds and procedures for removing students from class, the authority of classroom teachers to remove students, procedures for custody/responsibility after removal, procedures for return to class, parent notification, early parent involvement, special education review when needed, and immediate removal for assault or violent behavior. (MN Revisor)

Add cross references

Right now the policy says Cross References: None. I will suggest adding:

Cross References:
Policy 506 — Student Discipline
Policy 514 — Bullying Prohibition
Policy 413 — Harassment and Violence
Minn. Stat. §121A.61 — Discipline and Removal of Students from Class
Minn. Stat. §121A.582 — Student Discipline; Reasonable Force

The reasonable-force statute matters because Minnesota law recognizes that teachers and principals may use reasonable force when necessary to prevent bodily harm or death, subject to legal limits. (MN Revisor)