The elementary-aged student wanted a break — and she was going to take it.
But instead of demanding obedience or threatening punishment, a group of four adults including Fredericksburg City Schools Director of School Quality Felicia Burkhalter and two Lafayette Elementary School administrators engaged the student and asked her to provide a plan for returning to the classroom.
“She was like, ‘I just needed a break. I’m ready to go back, and I’ll tell the teacher I’m ready to go back,’” Burkhalter recalled during Monday’s school board meeting. “It can be that simple: it depends on the student and the adult.”
That role-play scenario was an example of the training that Fredericksburg City Schools faculty received last year as the district prepared to implement Responsibility-Centered Discipline (RCD) for the first time in classrooms this fall.
According to Burkhalter’s presentation, RCD is “a discipline framework designed to help students take responsibility for their actions while fostering a positive school climate.” Under the framework, behaviors are classified into three levels based on severity.
Examples of Level 1 behaviors at the elementary level include classroom disruption, refusal to participate and inappropriate language; Level 2 behaviors include minor physical contact, minor misuse of property and defiance; Level 3 behaviors include leaving class without permission, fighting and excessive technology violation.
At the secondary level, excessive bathroom breaks are classified as a Level 1 behavior, cheating is classified as a Level 2 behavior and bullying is classified as Level 3.
RCD’s multi-tiered support systems (RTSS) also vary depending on the behavior they’re addressing, Burkhalter said. Tier 1 interventions consist of universal supports for all students, such as clear expectations; Tier 2 supports include more targeted interventions such as parent meetings or small-group sessions; Tier 3 supports consist of individualized interventions and are meant to address ongoing behaviors.
School board member Matt Rowe (Ward 1) asked who determines the severity of an infraction and associated tier level of support.
“I won’t say there aren’t times when an administrator doesn’t make an executive decision,” replied Burkhalter, “but administrators always communicate to the teacher what that consequence or re-entry plan is.”
Burkhalter added that the schools’ in-school suspension rooms have been renamed “in-school solution rooms,” where students can develop plans — independently or with help from an administrator — for their return to the classroom.
During the public comment period, city resident Leah Courtnage told the board that, judging from her conversations with teachers at the elementary and middle school levels, many are struggling to implement RCD in their classrooms.
“They’re not sure if the new behavior policy is working best for them,” she said. “They are trying to go through the procedure as they should, but a lot of them aren’t going through with submitting a referral, because it’s so much work and cumbersome. So the data may be skewed in that aspect.”
In response to a similar question from school member Kathleen Pomeroy (Ward 2), Burkhalter countered that, “The referral they have to fill out now is less time [consuming] than they had. We were very intentional about that.”
In terms of training, Burkhalter said that principals monitor their teachers’ progress and submit monthly spreadsheets. They also devote 15 minutes of each faculty meeting to RCD.
Burkhalter noted that “if nothing else” the division has a uniform, digital system for submitting referrals and compiling data — something it lacked going back 15 years. She compared RCD to a school subject like math or reading, with mastery taking different individuals different amounts of time.
“Yes, it’s easy to say that RCD is not working or it’s challenging,” Burkhalter said. “But it’s all about the implementation and fidelity. We’re just starting it.”
