9-5410-002 Independent Monitor - Student Discipline Reform with AOD (2).pdf

BUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLS PROCUREMENT OFFERING

RFP 26-0630-080 Independent Monitor – Student Discipline Reform

Offering Summary

SUMMARY:

The Buffalo Public Schools (BPS) invites proposals from qualified individuals or firms to serve as an Independent Monitor to oversee the implementation of student discipline reforms required under the Assurance of Discontinuance (AOD) with the New York State Office of the Attorney General.

The Independent Monitor will ensure that BPS implements required reforms with fidelity, transparency, and accountability.

DESIGNATED CONTACTS:

Owner (Primary): Antoinette M. Amos, Chief Equity and Governance Officer

Buyer (Copy To): Jennifer LoTempio, Director of Purchase jlotempio@buffaloschools.org

The dates specified on the timeline of this offering are subject to change via addendum

TIMELINE:

Release Date: 04/24/2026 8:00 AM Advertise Dates:

Questions Due*: 05/01/2026 noon - Website/BONFIRE 04/24/2026 Answers Posted: 05/04/2026 4:00 PM - Buffalo News 04/28/2026 Offering Closed: 05/11/2026 4:00 PM - Contract Reporter 04/24/2026 Presentations: N/A - Rocket 04/23/2026 Tentative Award: 05/13/2026 - Criterion 05/02/2026

*Questions regarding this offering must be submitted via the online offering portal @ https://buffaloschools.bonfirehub.com/portal/?tab=openOpportunities

OTHER OFFERING PARAMETERS:

Type of Offering: RFP Basis of Award: Best value Award may be split among respondents: No Award may be consolidated: NA Subcontractors may be used: No Insurance is required: Yes NYS DOL Prevailing Reference: N/A Response Surety Required (“Bid Bond”) No Performance Bond Required: No Formal contract required: Yes Proposals valid for: 90 days past closing minimum mailto:jlotempio@buffaloschools.org https://buffaloschools.bonfirehub.com/portal/?tab=openOpportunities

Offering Summary

SUBMITTAL OPTIONS:

Please refer to the “Standard Terms, Conditions, and Disclaimers” document for more detailed instructions. Only one method of submittal should be used; mailed responses will be entered into the electronic portal by the BPS Purchase Department for evaluation/scoring purposes.

Submittals may be mailed OR submitted electronically per the instructions below:

Mailed or delivered responses must include two (2) printed copies and one (1) electronic copy.

Electronic submittal is ALLOWED (and encouraged) via BPS BONFIRE portal at:

https://buffaloschools.bonfirehub.com/portal/?tab=openOpportunities.

https://buffaloschools.bonfirehub.com/portal/?tab=openOpportunities

Offering Specification

1) GENERAL INFORMATION

a. GENERAL DEFINITIONS: Please refer to “Standard Terms, Conditions, & Disclaimers”.

b. OFFERING SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS:

Assurance of Discontinuance (“AOD”) – An agreement entered into between the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York (“OAG”) and the Buffalo City School District (“District”) to resolve an investigation conducted by the OAG regarding the District’s discipline policies and practices. A copy is attached.

Ombudsperson – The Ombudsperson of Discipline is an employee of the District who is responsible for ensuring District compliance with state and federal laws regarding school discipline, ensuring that the implementation of the District’s policies concerning discipline is fair, equitable, non-discriminatory, and in compliance with the AOD and state and federal law.

Restorative Practices – Strategies used in schools to prevent conflict, address misconduct and strengthen relationships among students, staff and the school community by teaching interpersonal skills, encouraging responsibility and repairing harm caused by misbehavior.

c. VENDOR INFORMATION:

Qualified vendors are encouraged to submit a response for providing the goods and / or services described. If the vendor plans to subcontract any of the work described in the Scope of Work the vendor must complete all response requirements for the subcontractor.

If a vendor plans a joint venture with another company and/or utilizes subcontractors, the vendor shall specify accordingly and complete all response requirements for each company involved in the offering response.

d. RESPONSES:

Any and all contracts awarded as a result of this offering are subject to the Terms & Conditions stated in the offering. The submission of any other terms or conditions by a respondent may be cause for rejection of the response.

All responses should clearly state/include the following:

STANDARD REQUIREMENTS:

1. Completion of “Offering Questionnaire”, Question Set 1 “Standard Response

Requirements”.

2. Current Certificate of Liability Insurance.

3. Completed “Equal Employment Opportunity Employee Information Report”; form provided.

4. Signed “Non-Collusive Bidding Certification”; form provided.

5. Respondent must provide a list of at least three (3) client references and their contact information. References will be contacted at the sole discretion of the District.

6. Cost proposal in the requested format.

7. Optional items as required by responses to the “Offering Questionnaire”, including but not limited to:

a. “Disclosure Narrative”, any format.

b. “Debarment Narrative”, any format.

c. “Certifications” such as MBE/WBE/SDVOB

d. “Policy 5414 Compliance Narrative”, any format.

e. “Subcontractor Documentation”, any format.

f. “Anti-Lobbying Narrative”, any format.

8. Respondents may submit any other information they consider relevant to their response to this offering by using the “Other Vendor Information” document upload.

SCOPE OF WORK

I. INTRODUCTION

The Buffalo Public Schools (BPS) invites proposals from qualified individuals or firms to serve as an Independent Monitor to oversee the implementation of student discipline reforms required under the Assurance of Discontinuance (AOD) with the New York State Office of the Attorney General.

The Independent Monitor will ensure that BPS implements required reforms with fidelity, transparency, and accountability.

II. PURPOSE

The purpose of this RFP is to procure an Independent Monitor with expertise in educational equity, civil rights compliance, and discipline reform to:

• Ensure compliance with the AOD

• Monitor implementation of discipline reforms

• Provide independent evaluation and reporting

• Support systemic improvement and sustainability

III. SCOPE OF WORK

The Independent Monitor shall perform the following:

A. Compliance Oversight

• Monitor implementation of all AOD requirements

• Review policies, procedures, and practices related to student discipline

• Ensure alignment with applicable laws and regulations

B. Data Monitoring & Analysis

• Review and analyze discipline data disaggregated by subgroup

• Identify trends, disparities, and areas of concern

• Monitor progress in reducing disproportionality

C. Reporting

• Submit quarterly reports to the District and the Office of the Attorney General

• Provide annual public reports summarizing findings and progress

• Identify areas of non-compliance and recommend corrective actions

D. Stakeholder Engagement

• Conduct school visits and observations

• Engage students, families, staff, and community stakeholders

• Coordinate with the Ombudsperson and relevant District staff

E. Technical Assistance

• Provide guidance on:

o Restorative practices o Positive behavioral interventions o Culturally responsive approaches

• Recommend strategies for continuous improvement

IV. DELIVERABLES

The selected Monitor shall provide:

• Monitoring Plan (within 60 days of contract execution)

• Quarterly Progress Reports

• Annual Public Reports

• Final Comprehensive Report

• Immediate notification of significant compliance concerns

V. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

Proposers must demonstrate:

• At least five (5) years of relevant experience

• Expertise in civil rights, education policy, or compliance monitoring

• Experience with discipline reform and disproportionality analysis

• Demonstrated ability to produce public-facing reports

Preferred qualifications include:

• Experience with large urban school districts

• Familiarity with New York State education law

VI. REPORTING STRUCTURE

The Independent Monitor shall:

• Operate independently of District administration

• Report to the Buffalo Board of Education and the Office of the Attorney General

• Maintain transparency through public reporting

VII. TERM OF CONTRACT

The contract shall be for a period of four (4) years, consistent with AOD requirements, with possible extensions as needed.

VIII. COST PROPOSAL

Propose a single annual all-inclusive cost for each of 4 single year periods.

IX. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

Proposals must include:

1. Cover Letter

2. Organizational Profile and Experience

3. Technical Approach and Methodology

4. Staffing Plan and Key Personnel

5. Implementation Timeline

6. Cost Proposal

7. References (minimum of three)

2) EVALUATION PROCEDURES

a. Review of Responses Responses will be evaluated by a cross functional team consisting of subject matter experts and a Purchasing representative.

b. Evaluation Criteria Responses will be evaluated on a 100 point scale as defined in the table below. Cost will be calculated proportionally compared to lowest cost response. The minimum non-cost score is 40/70 points.

CRITERIA VALUE

COST 30

Experience and Qualifications 30 Technical Approach 25 Capacity to Perform 15

d. Final Selection

The Board of Education and its representatives will select a firm based upon the recommendations of the evaluation team. It is anticipated that a firm will be selected by the date listed in the offering summary. Following notification of the firm selected, it is expected that a contract will be executed between both parties. The selected firm must be prepared to begin work upon execution of the BPS contract. The contract will not necessarily be awarded to the response with the lowest cost projection.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF THE STA TE OF NEW YORK

CIVIL RIGHTS BUREAU

IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION OF

LETITIA JAMES,

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STA TE OF NEW YORK,

OF

BUFFALO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

ASSURANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE

AOD No. 26-004

WHEREAS the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York ("OAG") commenced an investigation into the Buffalo City School District' s (the "District") compliance with federal and state laws that protect students from discrimination and provide students with procedural safeguards in the application of school interventions and discipline;

WHEREAS this Assurance of Discontinuance ("Assurance") contains the findings of the OAG's investigation and the relief agreed to by the OAG and the District (collectively referred to as "the Parties");

WHEREAS the District is subject to the requirements of: N. Y. Education Law§ 3214, which requires school districts to observe student procedural safeguards when making a decision to remove a student from the education program; the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. ("IDEA"), which establishes the procedures school districts must follow when disciplining students with disabilities; the New York State Human

Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Executive Law§ 291 et seq.; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. ("Title VI"); Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. , ("ADA"); and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. ("Section

504''), w-hich prohibit schoo l di stricts from denying the benefits of their educational program to any student on the bas is of that student' s race, ethni city, di sability, or sex ;

WHEREAS the OAG has fo und, based on the fac tual findin gs described below, that the Di strict is in vio lation of these laws in its admini strati on of schoo l di sc ipline by, inter ct!ia, fa iling to effect ively address di spariti es in di scipline across racial groups and between students w ith and without di sabilities, fa iling to afford appropriate due process protections to students w ho are subj ected to di sc ipline, and fa iling to provide language access to Limited

Engli sh Profi cient ("LEP") parents and students who are Engli sh Language Learners

(" ELL");

WH EREAS the Parti es share a commitment to ensuring that the educati onal environment is safe and conducive to learning, seek to reduce the total number of suspensions and the amount of time students spend out of the classroom whil e serving suspensions, and agree that misconduct should be addressed through restorati ve practices and positi ve interventions;

WHEREAS the Di strict has demonstrated a commitment to address ing di sparities in suspension rates among students that ex ist a long lines of race, ethni city, and di sability status while ensuring that a ll students in the Distri ct have equal access to educational oppo1iunity;

WHEREAS the Parti es are willing to accept the terms of thi s Assurance to resolve the investigati on into the District ' s di scipline policies and practices; and

WH EREAS the Parties believe that the obligations imposed by thi s Assurance are prudent, appropriate, and necessary to ensure compliance with the legal requirements set fo rth in N . Y. Education Law § 32 14, the IDEA, the NYSHRL, Titl e VI , Titl e II of the

A DA, and Secti on 504 .

IT IS HEREBY UN DERSTOOD AN D AG REE D, by and between the Di stric t and the OAG, as fo llows:

PART ONE: DEFINITIONS

I . As used throughout thi s Assurance, the terms set fo rth below· shall have the fo llowing meanmgs.

a. "Abbrev iated School Day" refers to any day that a student receives educational services fo r less time than age/grade-leve l peers within the same school and/or school program at the directi on of the Distri ct or its employees fo r di sciplinary or classroom management reasons.

b. "Alternati ve Program" refers to an educati on program at a location separate from the student ' s general education setting that serves students who have been removed fro m their home school fo r violating the Code of Conduct.

c. "Assurance" means thi s Assurance of Discontinuance.

d. "Behavior Intervention Plan" or "BIP" refers to an individuali zed plan des igned to respond to problem behav ior. B!Ps are developed using the fi ndings from a Functional Behavioral Assessment and focus on the target behaviors and associated functions of target behaviors identifi ed in the

Functional Behavioral Assessment.

e. "Code of Conduct" or "Code" means the District-l evel policy governmg student behavior and di scipline.

f. "Detentions" refer to consequences fo r violations of the Code of Conduct that do not remove a student from the classroom during instruction time, but do require a student to spend some amount of time in a particular school location during lunchtime, after school , or on the weekend.

g. The "District" means the Buffalo City School District and its board of education, trustees, school authorities, school officers, school administrators, superintendents, principals, employees, agents, representatives, or other persons acting on its behalf.

h. " Economically disadvantaged students" refers to students who participate in, or whose family participates in, economic assistance programs such as the

Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Programs; Social Security Insurance (SSI);

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); Foster Care; Refugee

Assistance (cash or medical assistance); Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC);

Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP); Safety Net Assistance (SNA);

Bureau oflndian Affairs (BIA); or Family Assistance: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

1. "Effective Date" means the date this Assurance is executed by both parties.

J. " Employee" means any person who works for the District.

k. " Essential Information" includes, but is not limited to: (a) report cards and other academic progress reports; (b) documents concerning academic options and planning; (c) documents concerning enrollment or registration; (d) documents concerning screening procedures requesting a student's language background, a parent/guardian ' s preferred language of communication, and the process for refusing all or only specific ELL/LEP services; (e) requests for parent/guardian perm1 ss1on for student participation 111 Di strict/school sponsored programs and activities; (t) promotional materials and announcements distributed to students that contain information about school and District activities for which notice is needed to participate in such activities (e.g. , testing, co-curriculars activities requiring an application, parent-teacher conferences, open houses); (g) special education documents, including IEPs, BIPs, and FBAs; (h) information about student discipline ; (i) parent/guardian handbooks; U) information related to public health and safety;

and (k) any other written information describing rights/responsibilities of parents/guardians or students and benefits/services available to parents/guardians and students.

I. "Exclusionary Discipline" refers to any disciplinary consequences that remove a student from classroom instruction, including but not limited to, in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension, expulsion, or transfer to an alternative education program. The term does not refer to positive interventions, loss of privileges, detentions, or other corrective strategies that do not remove a student from instruction.

m. "Free Appropriate Public Education" or " F APE" refers to F APE under the

IDEA.

n. "Functional Behavior Assessment" or "FBA" refers to a systemic process that is used to operationally define a behavior, identify factors that support the behavior, and determine the underlying function or purpose of a behavior, so that an effective Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) can be developed.

o. ' ·Individuali zed Educati on Plan" or " IEP," is provided to students with a di sability so they may continue to receive a free and appropriate public educati on with as minimal restrictions as possible consistent with the requirements of the IDEA.

p. "Manifestati on determinati on review" or "MOR" refers to the IDEA ' s regul ations determining whether the conduct for which certain di scipline is proposed is a mani fes tati on of a student 's di sability. See 34 C.F.R. §

300.530( e ). For purposes of thi s document, this type of evaluation is referred to as a "mani fes tati on determination," and includes any hearing required under

Section 504.

q. "Outliers" refers to any instances where 1) a student is receiving di sciplinary referral s or Exclusionary Discipline at more than twice the rate of the average student at that student ' s school ; or 2) Staff issuing di sciplinary referral s at more than twice the rate of the average teacher/S taff member at the same school ; or 3) a school resource officer o r security guard is refe rring a student at more than twice the rate of the average student resource officer or security guard. The term is not intended to measure whether the conduct is di scriminatory as a legal matter, rather it is fo r the Distri ct to be able to identi fy situations that warrant further inquiry to ensure nondi scrimination or further interventions, behavioral support, or support for Staff.

r. " Staff' means any person on the payroll of the Distri ct, who is not part of the admini stration, Executive Level, the Superintendent 's employees, or the

Board of Education.

s. '·School Administrators" or "administrators" refers to all principals and assistant principals or their designees at any District school.

t. "School" ' means any elementary, K-8 , middle, secondary schools, innovation zone schools, special schools, or alternative education programs currently or formerly open in the District.

u. "School Resource Officer" or "S RO" means any personnel that provide the

District vvith security services on school grounds, including private security officers, regardless of a written contract.

v. "Student experiencing homelessness" refers to a student who lacks a fixed , regular, and adequate nighttime residence.

w. "Student in foster care" refers to a student who is in the legal custody of the state.

x. "Student Support Team" refers to the District personnel at each school primarily responsible for providing students with positive interventions and supports to divert from the use of exclusionary discipline, including the school psychologist, school social worker(s), or counselors(s), restorative workers or other similar staff. The composition of the student support team varies at each school.

y. As used throughout this Assurance, " referrals," " teacher referrals," and

"referred" means a consequence for one or more violations of the Code of

Conduct that removes a student from their regular classroom and school pursuant to N.Y. Education Law § 3214(3-a).

z. Terms of construction:

1. "And·' and ·'or·' shall be construed conjuncti ve ly or di sjunctive ly as necessary to make the meaning inclusive rather than exclusive.

11. "All " means "any and all " and "any" means "any and all."

111. "Concerning" means relating to, referring to, describing, evidencing, regarding, reflecting, or constituting .

1v. " Day" refers to a calendar day, not a business day.

v. " Including" means without limitation.

v1. The singular of any word includes the plural ; the plural of any word includes the singular.

PART TWO: OAG FINDINGS

2. The OAG opened an investigation into allegations that the District was, inter ctlia, engaged in a pattern of disproportionately disciplining Black and Latinx students for misconduct compared to their White peers; disproportionately disciplining students with disabilities compared to students without disabilities; and failing to provide students with all of the procedural safeguards required by state and federal law.

3. Since initiating this investigation, OAG reviewed a substantial volume of data and documents pertaining to the District ' s policies and practices related to school discipline.

The OAG's investigation included: interviews of multiple parents, guardians, students, student advocates, lawyers, experts in school discipline and student development, and other witnesses; reviews of the District 's policies and procedures relating to school disc ipline; and analysis of d isc ipline data publi c ly avail able, as vve ll as additional data produced by the Di stri ct and Nevv Yo rk State Educat ion Department (" 'NYSED").

4 . Pri or to exec uting thi s Assurance, the Parti es met to di scuss these findings and then met a number of additi onal times over the course of several months to negoti ate the remedies contained in thi s Assurance . Below is a summary of the princ ipal findi ngs of OAG ' s investigati on, as well as the remedial prov isions that OAG deems necessary to reso lve thi s matter.

The Buffalo City School District

5. As of the 2023 -2024 schoo l year, the Buffa lo C ity School Distri ct has approximately

27,45 0 students. Black students make up approximately 42% of overall enro llment.

Latinx students make up approximately 2 1 % of overall enrollment and As ian or Nati ve

Hawaii an/Other Pacifi c Islander make up approximately 15% of overall enrollment.

White students make up approximately 17% of overall enrollment.

6. According to data reported to NYSED, students that are ELL represent approximately

19% of the student population; students with di sabili ties represent approximately 24% of the student body population; and economically di sadvantaged students represent approximately 87% of the student body population.

7. The Distri ct is supervised by Dr. Pascal Mubenga, and a 9-member Board of Education

(the "Board") . The Superintendent serves as the chief executi ve offi cer of the District and is responsible fo r implementing policies, as well as advising and recommending action to the Board . The Board has several responsibilit ies, including carrying out duties imposed by federal and state laws, providing and organizing personnel, maintaining suffi cient resources for the school system, and establi shing policies and procedures necessary for the District.

OAG Findings Regarding the District's Code of Conduct & Its Application

8. In 20 I 3, the District adopted a revised Code of Conduct and has updated it multiple times in the years s ince . Recent modifications to the Code introduced a progress ive form of intervention and discipline that moved away from relying on exclusionary discipline or

"zero tolerance" as a primary response to misconduct to using suspensions as a last resort when other interventions have not worked.

9. Although the Code' s revised interventions marked progress, OAG's investigation found that certain deficiencies persisted, and that the Code of Conduct was not implemented in a manner that would reduce disparities and ensure that students ' procedural rights were consistently protected.

10. OAG ' s investigation found that the Code does not include clear, objective definitions for offenses that can result in classroom removal or Exclusionary Discipline and includes undefined or ambiguous terms that do not give students or parents or guardians adequate notice of prohibited conduct.

11. OAG's investigation found that the Code has not been followed consistently by employees in disciplinary determinations and the District must implement sufficient oversight of the employees making disciplinary determinations to ensure consistent and equitable use of the Code. The OAG investigation also determined that the District needs to provide Staff with additional guidance and training to ensure consistent responses to address specific misconduct.

12. Further, OAG's investigation found that the District does not have adequate control measures, checklists, or other accountability measures in place to determine that

Exc lusionary Di sc ipline is being accurately reported in the school management system by referral parties, clerks, or administrators.

OAG Findings Regarding Racial and Disability Disparities in School Discipline

13. OAG analyzed data regarding the District 's application of discipline from a variety of sources, and in multiple school years, to determine that disparities exist across several student demographic groups, including Black and Latinx students, and students with disabilities who have IEPs.

14. OAG's analysis measured discipline disparities through an examination of the metric

"days of instruction lost per 100 students," which captures the lost instruction time when students are removed from classroom instruction, and normali zes the data across differently sized groups of students to allow for comparisons regardless of the size of the subgroup.

15. OAG determined that Black and Latinx students in both elementary and secondary schools recei ve disproportionate suspension durations compared to their White counterparts. For example, for the 2022-2023 school year:

a. Black elementary students were twice as likely to receive an out of school suspension compared to their White counterparts.

b. Black secondary students were more than 6.4 times more likely to recei ve an out of school suspension compared to their White counterparts.

c. Latinx elementary students were I .6 times more likely to receive an out of school suspension compared to their White counterparts.

d. Latin:--: secondary students were more than 3.8 times more likely to rece ive an out of schoo l suspension compared to their White counterparts.

16. Further detail regarding these di sparities from the 2019-2023 school years I is summari zed in the following tables:

BPS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

School Subgroup Total out of school Total students Days lost per 100 year name suspension clays enrolled students enrolled

2019-20 BLACK 11 ,428 9,579 119

LATINX 3,287 4,786 69

OTHER 957 3,375 28

WHITE 1,549 3,855 40

2021-22 BLACK 15,568 8,290 188

LATINX 4,927 4,309 114

OTHER 1,981 3,659 54

WHITE 2,835 3,347 85

2022-23 BLACK 11 , 124 8,085 138

LATINX 4,456 4, 150 107

OTHER 1,616 3,747 43

WHITE 2,127 3,227 66

BPS SECONDARY SCHOOLS "

School Subgroup Total out of school Total students Days lost per 100 year name suspension days enrolled students enrolled

1 OAG 's analysis excluded data from the 2020-2021 school year (the District reported zero suspensions in that school year) due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and related school closures. OAG excluded the data from 2020-202 1 to avo id disp laying results affected by a school year radically impacted by the COVID- 19 pandemic.

2019-20 BLAC K 14,558 5, 121 28-'

LATINX 3, 102 1,827 170

OTHER 883 1,649 54

WHITE 1,6 11 2,312 70

2021-22 BLACK 21 ,543 4,651 463

LATINX 4,784 1,893 253

OTHER 2,580 1,877 137

WHITE 2,186 2,100 10..i

2022-23 BLACK 18,028 4,417 408

LATINX 4,691 1,915 245

OTHER 1,904 1,960 97

WHITE 1,245 1,970 63

17. In its analysis of data produced by the District from 2018-2024,2 OAG found that Black and Latinx students lost significantly more days compared to White students for minor non-violent incidents, including suspensions for absences, cutting class, elopement

(leaving a designated school area without permission or notification), and tardiness. This data indicated that Black students were nearly three times more likely to be suspended for minor/non-violent offenses than their White counterpa11s. Latinx students were nearly

2 OAG 's investigation included a review of data extending back to 20 I 4, and OAG observed asimilar pattern of di sparities i11 di scipline within this earlier data set. However, due to inconsistenc ies in the manner in which the District recorded and maintained this data, it is not included in these findings, which focus on more recent trends.

tvvo times more likely to be suspended for minor/non-violent offense than their White counterparts. Students with di sabilities and IEP plans were nearly two times more likely to be suspended for minor/non-violent offenses than students without disabilities.

18. OAG ' s analysis of avai lable data also found students with disabilities with IEPs across both elementary and secondary schools have been di sciplined at far higher rates than their peers without IEPs. For example, For the 2022-2023 school year, elementary students with an IEP were I. 7 times more likely to recei ve an out of school suspension compared to students without an IEP. Secondary students with an IEP were 2.2 times more likely to receive an out of school suspension compared to students without an IEP.

19. Further detail on these disparities from the 2019-2023 school years is summarized in the following tables:

BPS STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES (ELEMENT ARY SCHOOLS)

School Subgroup Total out of school Total Days lost per 100 year name suspension days students students enrolled enrolled 2019-20 No IEP 9,626 16,36 1 59

IEP 7,595 5,234 145

2021-22 No IEP 16,882 15,081 112

IEP 8,429 4,524 186

2022-23 No IEP 12,444 14,520 86

IEP 6,879 4,689 147

BPS STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES (SECONDARY SCHOOLS)

School Subgroup Total Out of School Total Days lost per 100 Year Name Suspension Days students students enrolled enrolled 2019-20 No IEP 13,495 8,812 153

IEP 6,659 2,097 318

202 1-22 No IEP 19,73 1 8,418 234

IEP 11 ,362 2, 103 540

2022-23 No IEP 16,713 8,18 1 204

IEP 9,155 2,081 440

20. In its examinati on of the data, OAG also determined that the Di strict imposed fi ve-day suspensions fo r many students ' first-time offenses, which is the max imum a ll owable fo r a Short-Term Suspension.

2 1. The data provided by the District also showed some students were suspended fo r being tardy or absent, which is against state policy.

22. Beginning in or around 202 1, the Di strict began publishing some suspension data on its website as a data dashboard . The OAG identifi ed a number of ways that the Data

Dashboard does not present a full picture of the District' s suspension practices, such as suspensions being miscategorized, and other issues . The remedial provisions below

(Paragraph 90) are intended to address the identified defi ciencies.

OAG Findings Regarding Due Process Rights, Short-Term & Long-Term Suspension Practices, and Alternative Education

23 . The OAG investi gation also identifi ed defi ciencies in the District ' s adherence to due process protections established by state and fed eral law, which are summari zed here.

24. Informal conferences: The Code of Conduct states that fo r students subject to in-school suspensions, parents or guardians shall be given notification of such action as soon as possible, and the student and the student ' s parent or guardian must be provided with a reasonable opportunity fo r an in fo rmal confe rence with the Distric t offici a l impos ing the in-school suspension to di scuss the conduc t and the penalty invo lved. OAG revievved ev idence that info rmal confe rences do not appear to be happening consistentl y.

25. Adequate notices : The OAG investi gati on fo und that sometimes students and parents or guardians were not prov ided the noti ce of Short-Te rm Suspension as required by law. Nor did admini strators adequately describe the all eged mi sconduct when prov iding vvritten notice to parents or guard ians. For example, OAG rev iewed noti ces that included onl y a reference to the incident category in the Code, such as "Minor Altercati on," "Other

Disrupti ve Incidents," or " Disrupti ve" conduct, without identify ing the underly ing misconduct or a narrati ve response that would a llow an effecti ve response to the charge or to appeal the suspension.

26. Provision of notices in the appropriate language and with sufficient detail: OAG also learned of instances where schools did not provide adequate notice letters in the dominant language of the parent or guardian, as required by state law despite being on notice of the language of the family. Furthermore, OAG reviewed non-Engli sh notices that did not have the same info rmation as the Engli sh noti ce, such as clari fy ing that parents or guardi ans have the ri ght to question complaining witnesses, nor did the notices adequately describe the charges against the student.

27. Manifestation Determination Reviews: OAG reviewed evidence that families of students with di sabilities were not always adequately info rmed of their ri ghts fo llowing repeated or Long-Term Suspensions that would have triggered a student's right to an

MDR.3 Even vvhere MD Rs did occur, OAG reviewed evidence that the District sometimes failed to consider a student ' s IEP or 504 plan when making determinations during MD Rs, whether the suspension should be overturned as a manifestation of their di sability, or whether the Di strict failed to implement the IEP or 504 plan and whether mi ss ing services may have caused the misconduct. OAG also found the District failed to consistently ensure that Staff with personal knowl edge of the student 's disability and behavior, including their teachers, counselors, social workers, and/or school psycholog ists, were invited to attend MDRs. During di scussions with the District, it acknowledged to OAG that the District does not have a system in place to track overturned suspensions due to an

MOR. Nor the record to cross reference suspension data with disability data to identify trends it can measure and work to reduce.

28. Sending students home: In addition, many families told OAG that their children were often sent home early for "acting out" even though the student had an IEP or 504 plan that had been designed to mitigate that risk or prevent an Abbreviated School Day.

Sending students home early without documenting it as a suspension deprives students of

3 If a student is suspended for ten (10) days or more consecutive days, or when cumulatively the student' s suspensions of ten ( 10) days or more form a pattern that constitutes a change of placement, a MDR must take place. The District must review the discipline to ensure that it has not been imposed for conduct that is a mani festat ion of the student ' s disability or results from a failure of the District to provide the student with the services the student needs to participate in the academic cu1Ticulum (such as the student not receiving the services mandated by the IEP). If the District finds a nexus between a student 's misconduct and the student 's di sabili ty, the District must conduct a Functional Behavioral Assessment ("FBA") to detem1ine the underlying causes and triggers of the student ' s misbehavior and create a plan. The plan is called the Behavioral Intervention Plan ("BIP") and it is based on that assessment. The plan implements solutions and interventions to address the identified causes of the misbehavior so the District can reduce their reoccurrence.

educational opportunities, and it is likely that these incidents are not adequately tracked in the District ' s di sc ipline data. Without correct reporting, such absences may never trigger a mandatory MOR following the student being out-of-school for ten (10) days or more, or lead to a review about whether the educational supports in place are sufficient for the particular student.

29. Superintendent Hearings: The OAG also found evidence that the District ' s

Superintendent' s Hearings did not always comply vvith state law. 4 OAG learned of instances where the District failed to require the attendance of complaining witnesses, such as teachers, and instead relied on statements read by assistant principals or others who lacked personal knowledge of the misconduct. This practice denies students an opportunity to question witnesses or challenge the evidence used against them. The OAG also reviewed instances of impartial hearing officers considering irrelevant evidence during the sentencing stage of hearings, including evidence of the academic performance of students, which is improper. Other deficiencies identified by OAG in its investigation include the failure to inform parents or guardians that they could request an interpreter in their native language, and to provide an interpreter with sufficient skills to effectively communicate to the parents and guardians to afford them meaningful participation in the hearing.

4 Under New York law, Long-Term Suspensions (more than five days) must be issued by the Superintendent or Board of Education , and the student must have an opportunity for a superintendent ' s hearing. At the hearing, the student has an opportunity to question witnesses and present a case in the student 's defense before an impar1ial hearing officer. There are two phases of the hearing, an evidence stage and a sentencing stage.

30. Alternatin Education: The OAG investigation found that the District does not consistently meet its obligation to provide Alternative Education for students who are suspended consistent with state law.5 OAG reviewed evidence suggesting that the District has failed to consistently and adequately inform parents or guardians of their right to seek

Alternative Education for their students w-hile they are suspended . OAG reviewed evidence that some parents and guardians received notices that simply stated that the school vvill contact the family to arrange Alternative Education, but then the parents and guardians never received any further contact from the District. OAG also interviewed families who alleged they received no information from the District about how many hours of Alternative Education the student is entitled to receive, nor where to complain if the student did not receive the Alternative Education. Even when students were placed in

Alternative Education, OAG reviewed evidence that students received course material not relevant to their classroom studies, were prov ided non-interactive material , or were taught by an instructor who did not know the material.

31. Alleged retaliation: OAG also spoke with families , parents or guardians, and advocates that believe retaliation occurs against students and families who raise their voices about deficiencies in the District 's disciplinary policies and practices. For instance, multiple families told OAG that after they engaged in protected activity related to their student ' s

5 Under state law, the District has an obligation to offer Alternative Education serv ices to students serving suspensions of any length at least two hours per day for e lementary students and at least three hours for secondary students. This is the minimum amount necessa ry to ensure students have an opportunity to continue their education at a similar rate to their peers.

education and/or di scrimination with the Di strict, they believed that the District called

Child Protecti ve Services (" CPS") in response, alleging they had reasonable cause to believe the families were denying their students an education or otherwise being neglectful or abusive in violation of state law. Others told OAG that they feared vo icing concerns about the District ' s discipline policies and practices because their access to

Di strict services and grant opportunities would be jeopardized. Retaliation against parents or guardians and families for engaging in protected activity is against the law.

PART THREE: PROSPECTIVE RELIEF

LEGAL COMPLIANCE AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES

32. General Injunction: The District shall not engage, or attempt to engage, in conduct in violation of any applicable laws, including but not limited to N. Y. Education Law § 3214, the IDEA, the NYSHRL, Title VI , Title II of the ADA, and Section 504 and expressly agrees and acknowledges that any such conduct is a violation of the Assurance, and that the OAG thereafter may commence the civil action or proceeding contemplated in

Paragraph I 02 in addition to any other appropriate investigation, action, or proceeding.

33. The District shall provide all students with schools that are safe and conducive to learning by implementing the following General Principles:

a. Adopting fair and appropriate student discipline policies that provide students with the procedural safeguards required by state and federal law, as well as policies that protect students from disciplinary action taken on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, or disability status;

b. Utili zing preventati ve stra teg ies that both teach and rein fo rce appropri ate behav ior and vve llness, and which ensure that students remain in the Di stri ct" s educati on program rather than in the disc iplinary system; and

c. Ensuring that Staff utili ze a range of correcti ve measures and positi ve intervention services before remov 111g a student from the ir educati onal program, except when it can be documented that the safety of students and/or

Staff is threatened, the behav ior in question is such that the di srupti on to the educati ona l environment can only be remedied by such a referral to an out-of-school suspension, or as otherwise required by law.

RETENTION OF AN INDEPENDENT MONITOR & DESIGNATION OF

INTERNAL OMBUDSPERSON & SCHOOL COORDINATORS

Independent Monitor

34. Within 90 days of the Effecti ve Date, the Di stri ct shall retain, at its own expense, a qualified individual or organization to serve as an Independent Monitor ("Monitor"). The

Monitor shall be responsible fo r monitoring the District 's compliance with the terms of thi s Assurance. Before se lecting the Monitor, the Distri ct shall develop a proposed descripti on of duties and responsibilities of the Monitor, subj ect to the approval of OAG.

The selecti on of the Monitor sha ll be subj ect to the OAG review and approval. The

District shall retain the Monitor fo r at least four (4) complete school years.6 The Monitor

6 For the purposes of this Assurance, a complete school year means a year of schooling begin ning on the firs t day of school, endi ng on the last day of schoo l, and excl uding summer schoo l.

shall have suffic ient e:--;pe rience in the subj ect matter of school di sc ipline, di spari ties in d isc ipline e:--;perienced by students of co lor and students with disabilities, and the development and use of alternat ives to suspensions. The Monitor shall have access to the

Di strict' s fi les and records suffi cient to be able to audit compli ance with thi s Assurance.

35. T he Monitor shall create a plan to conduct peri od ic reviews of records to assess compliance with the Di stri ct' s poli cies and practices and with thi s Assurance, subj ect to

OAG approval, and to make recommendati ons based on the fi ndings of these reviews.

The District shall implement recommendations made by the Moni tor, upon approval by the Superintendent. Within 20 Distri ct business days of a written recommendat ion based on the findings of the review, the Distri ct will noti fy the OAG and Monitor that it agrees to either implement the recommendati on or provide a written explanation to the Monitor and the OAG detailing its dec ision to rej ect the recommendati on of the Monitor, and offering a reasonable and feas ible alternati ve to the recommendations. The Parties agree to work cooperatively with the Monitor and in good fa ith, to reach an agreement.

36. The Monitor shall be in regular contact with OAG regarding any concerns about compliance wi th thi s Assurance and shall submit biannual reports to the OAG outlining the Di stri ct's compl iance with each prov ision of thi s Assurance.

Ombudsperson of Discipline

37. Within 60 days of the Effecti ve Date, the District shall retain or designate an Employee to serve as an Ombudsperson of Di scipline ("Ombudsperson"). The Om buds person shall have suffic ient experience in the subject matter of school di scipline and the development and use of alternatives to suspensions, including restorati ve practices and a whole school/wellness model. The Ombudsperson shall be responsible fo r ensuring District compliance vv ith state and federal lavvs rega rding school di scipline, ensuring that the impl ementati on of the Di strict 's poli cies concerning di scipline is fa ir, equitable, non di scriminatory, and in compliance with thi s Ass urance and state and federal law. The

Ombudsperson shall also be responsible fo r communicating with students, parents, guardians and Staff about issues relating to the District ' s di sc ipline poli cies and the implementation of thi s Assurance. The Ombudsperson shall report to the Superintendent or cabinet member as des ignated by the Superintendent. The selecti on of the

Ombudsperson shall be subj ect to OAG review and approval.

School Coordinators

38. Within 30 days of the Effecti ve Date, the Distri ct shall appoint an administrator or admini strator' s designee at each School to serve as the Coordinator of Student Behavior

("Coordinator") fo r the Student Services Team. The Coordinator shall work with the

Om buds person to ensure compliance of their schoo l with Di strict policies, thi s Assurance, and state and federal law. The Coordinator shall be available to work with the Staff at the

School to help determine appropriate di scipline is being admini stered and shall also coordinate with the Ombudsperson.

DEVELOPING PREVENTIVE STRATEGIES & CODE OF CONDUCT REFORM

39. The District shall continue to implement a Preventati ve Strategies Plan and, within 60 days of the Effective Date, update it consistent with the terms of thi s Assurance. This Plan develops, expands, and invo lves age-appropriate strateg ies fo r teaching that encourages and re info rces positi ve student behavior that do not require engagement with the di scipline system.

40. Within 120 days of se lecting the Ombudsperson, the Di st ri ct shall submit its updated

Preventati ve Strateg ies Plan to the Mo nitor. Once the Mo ni tor dete rmines that the

Preventati ve Strategies Plan complies with thi s Assurance, the Monitor shall info rm the

OAG, and the District shall implement the updated Preventati ve Strateg ies Plan.

4 1. The strategies in the Preventati ve Strategies Plan shall be des igned to prevent the occurrence of student misconduct, prov ide constructi ve feedback, teach alternati ve or replacement behaviors, and moti vate students to comply ·with establi shed school expectati ons. The Preventati ve Strateg ies Plan shall include, without limitation, the fo llowing strategies and e lements:

a. Classroom Management and Behavioral Support for Staff: The Di stri ct shall implement a requirement that Staff consider and utilize, as appropriate, a range of interventions before referring a student to di sciplinary authorities and/or law enfo rcement, including, but not limited to, behavior contracts, refl ecti ve writing ass ignments, peer support, conflict resolution, and restorative practi ces. The District shall document interventions attempted fo r the student and the results of those measures before any short-term or long-term suspension.

b. Staff may refer students to the admini stration without the use of intervention only where the safety of students and/or Staff is threatened, the behavior in question is such that the di sruption to the educational environment can only be remedied by such a referral, or the referral is required by law. In thi s event, Staff must provide documentation of the safety threat, di srupti ve behavior, or legal justifi cation that justifi es immediate referral and the narrati ve explaining vvhy within 48 hours when practicable . The Di st ri ct shall a lso ensure that Staff have appropri ate resources and support to prov ide effective classroom management, inc luding, but not limited to, consultations with the Coordinator, tra inings, and other resources they may require.

c. Rewarding Positive Behavior: The District shall continue to have in place, at every School, a system fo r positive ly encourag ing and reinfo rcing appropriate student behavior.

42 . Supports for Struggling Students: If, after the correcti ve measures have been full y implemented, a student is referred fo r di scipl ine more than once fo r one day or more in a school year fo r behavior that di srupts their education and/or the educati on of other students, the Distri ct will provide schoo l-based supports to ass ist the student. These supports may include, but not be limi ted to, the fo llowing:

a. adult in-schoo l mentoring;

b. access to guidance counselors, student support Staff, counselors, social workers, schoo l psychologists, coaches, or student advocates as appropriate;

c. invo lvement of parents or guardi ans;

d. the development and implementation of a behav ior management plan;

e. an FBA or BIP, as appro priate;

f. ass istance with learning appropriate behavior…