All towns · sau-37

2026-9-16 Policy Minutes.pdf

Document

MANCHESTER SCHOOL DISTRICT SAU #37 
POLICY COMMITTEE  
 
September 16, 2026 
5:30 p.m. Or Immediately following 
 
1. 
Chair Want called the meeting to order at 6:25 p.m. 
 
2. 
The Clerk called the roll.  
 
 
 
Present: 
Committee Members Want, O’Neil-Wong, Potter, Taylor, and St. John. 
 
 
Also Present: Committee Member Hamer (left at 7:03 p.m.) 
 
3. 
Public Forum 
 
There was no one present to give public comment. 
 
6. 
Approval of the Minutes from the August 19, 2026 Policy Committee meeting. 
 
On motion of Committee Member O’Neil-Wong, duly seconded by Committee Member Taylor, it was 
moved to approve the minutes of the August 19, 2026 Policy Committee.  All were in favor and the 
motion passed. 
 
 
7. 
Presentations 
 
There were no presentations this evening. 
 
 
8. 
Students 520: Discipline and Due Process policy proposed revisions – by Stacy 
  
Champey, Executive Director of Safe and Supportive Schools 
 
Stacy Champey, Executive Director of Safe and Supportive Schools, presented proposed revisions to 
Student Policy 520, Discipline and Due Process. Ms. Champey explained that the proposed revisions 
included updating policy references throughout the document and modifying terminology to align with 
current District practices. Specifically, the term “positive behavior intervention plan” would be revised 
to “behavior support plan” or “intervention plan” to avoid confusion with terminology specific to special 
education.  Ms. Champey also explained that the policy currently included possession of a firearm 
within the long-term out-of-school suspension section. Because possession of a firearm is addressed 
separately as an expellable offense, the proposed revision would clarify that the long-term suspension 

September 16, 2026 Policy Committee  
Page 2 of 8 
 
section applies to other types of weapons, including BB guns, pellet guns, airsoft guns, and paintball 
guns. 
 
Questions and comments included: 
1. Committee Member Potter noted inconsistent language regarding when an intervention plan is 
required following suspensions, specifically references to “more than 10 days” versus “10 or 
more days.” Ms. Champey clarified that an intervention plan should be developed when a student 
reaches 10 cumulative suspension days and agreed to revise the language throughout the policy 
to consistently state “10 or more days.” 
2. Discussion regarding responsibility for developing and monitoring intervention plans. Ms. 
Champey explained that the District is building this work into its Multi-Tiered System of 
Supports (MTSS). School-based staff are being identified to monitor suspension data so that 
intervention can occur before a student reaches 10 days. 
3. Intervention plans are intended to address the underlying behavior, establish goals, and identify 
appropriate supports. Multidisciplinary teams will participate in developing and implementing 
the plans. 
4. At the high school level, student success personnel have been incorporated into this process. At 
the middle and elementary levels, the District is working with school counselors, community 
partners, the Office of Youth Services, and community mental health providers to build 
additional capacity. 
5. Committee Member Potter also raised the importance of proactively providing language support 
when the District knows that a student or family is multilingual. Administration indicated that 
such support could be provided. 
6. Committee Member St. John expressed concern regarding broad “catch-all” language associated 
with BB guns, pellet guns, airsoft guns, paintball guns, and other objects that may resemble 
firearms. He noted that overly broad language could potentially include objects that were not 
intended to fall within this level of discipline. Attorney Upton explained that firearms must be 
treated separately because possession of a firearm falls within the expulsion provisions. He stated 
that the broader language was intended to address items that may not meet the legal definition of 
a firearm but could nevertheless pose a significant safety concern or reasonably appear to others 
to be a firearm. 

September 16, 2026 Policy Committee  
Page 3 of 8 
 
7. The Committee discussed examples including airsoft guns, paintball guns, cap guns, blowguns, 
and emerging types of devices that may resemble or function similarly to weapons.  The 
Administration emphasized that circumstances and intent would be important in determining the 
appropriate disciplinary response. The proposed language was also intended to eliminate 
confusion for students and families regarding the distinction between possession of a firearm, 
which can result in expulsion, and possession of other weapon-like devices. 
8. The Administration indicated that the revised policy would be reviewed with principals during 
an upcoming administrators’ Professional Learning Community to promote consistent 
application. 
 
On motion of Committee Member Potter, duly seconded by Committee Member O’Neil-Wong, it was 
moved to approve the proposed revisions to Students 520: Discipline and Due Process policy, as 
amended, and forward this item to the full Board of School Committee for approval.   
 
Committee Member St. John was opposed. 
 
All others were in favor and the motion passed. 
 
 
9. 
Student Code of Conduct Proposed Revisions – by  Stacy Champey, Executive  
  
Director of Safe and Supportive Schools 
 
Ms. Champey presented proposed revisions to the Student Code of Conduct.  She thanked the Board 
Clerk for assisting with the extensive reformatting and cleanup of the document. 
 
The revisions were intended to: 
 
Update policy numbers and references; 
 
Align terminology with current District language; 
 
Remove outdated or duplicative lists of behaviors; 
 
Clarify the different levels of offenses and responses; 
 
Incorporate Aspen discipline codes; 
 
Improve data entry and reporting; 
 
Identify who is responsible for responding to each level of behavior; and 

September 16, 2026 Policy Committee  
Page 4 of 8 
 
 
Better align the Code of Conduct with the District’s Multi-Tiered System of Supports. 
 
Ms. Champey explained that administrators no longer have permission to independently create new 
Aspen behavior codes. The revised structure establishes consistent offense levels, codes, descriptions, 
definitions, and responses. 
 
The Administration is also reviewing discipline data weekly by comparing office referrals with resulting 
actions to identify inconsistencies and provide additional training and support to schools. 
 
Questions and comments from the committee included: 
1. Committee Member Taylor asked whether the proposed Code of Conduct was consistent with 
the student handbooks previously approved by the Board.  Ms. Champey explained that the 
current handbooks were aligned with the existing Code of Conduct and would need to be 
reviewed following approval of the revised Code. 
2. Committee Member Taylor requested that, wherever possible, formatting and terminology in the 
Code of Conduct mirror the student handbooks to make the documents easier for students, 
families, and staff to understand and navigate. 
3. Committee Member St. John raised concerns regarding the Level Four offense of “riot,” 
particularly language allowing an administrator to determine whether an incident constituted a 
fight or a riot.  He expressed concern that an insufficiently defined standard could result in 
inconsistent application between schools and administrators. 
4. The Committee and administration discussed the distinction between a fight involving multiple 
students and conduct that rises to the level of a riot.  New Hampshire statutory language 
regarding riots was reviewed during the discussion. The Committee discussed incorporating 
more specific language regarding tumultuous or violent conduct that purposely or recklessly 
creates a substantial risk of public alarm. 
5. Ms. Champey agreed to revise the definition to provide greater clarity and to remove language 
simply stating that an administrator would decide whether conduct constituted a fight or a riot. 
6. Committee Member Potter raised concerns about elevating cutting class to a Level Two offense 
and the possibility that repeated offenses could ultimately move to Level Three and result in 
suspension. He questioned whether suspending a student for avoiding class could unintentionally 

September 16, 2026 Policy Committee  
Page 5 of 8 
 
reinforce the behavior by removing the student from school. Ms. Champey explained that the 
disciplinary consequences are only one part of the process. The District is developing 
intervention pathways through MTSS, behavioral health supports, student success staff, and 
community partners to identify why students are cutting classes and address the underlying 
barriers. She stated that she reviews discipline data weekly and examines the response when 
students repeatedly cut classes. If repeated detention or suspension is occurring without a referral 
to an intervention team, she follows up with administrators. 
7. Attorney Upton emphasized that the Code states repeated offenses may progress to a higher level 
and that Level Three offenses may result in short-term suspension. The language provides 
discretion and does not require suspension following a specific number of class cuts.  The goal is 
to use interventions and supports before resorting to exclusionary discipline. 
8. Committee Member Potter asked whether a structured in-school suspension option could be 
beneficial for students academically and behaviorally. Ms. Champey stated that an in-school 
model could be beneficial if it includes appropriate structure, continued access to academics, 
mentoring, behavioral supports, and a process to help the student successfully reengage in 
school. She cautioned against simply placing students in a room without support and calling it in-
school suspension. The District is working through its student success model to develop more 
meaningful interventions. 
9. The Administration also clarified that references to suspension in the Code are generally 
intended to refer to out-of-school suspension, as in-school interventions should be treated 
differently. 
10. Committee Member Hamer discussed community and teacher concerns regarding class cutting 
and noted that Student Conduct would also be reviewing attendance and class-cut data during its 
monthly meetings. 
11. Committee Member O’Neil Wong asked whether teachers would receive clear guidance 
regarding when Level One behaviors should be addressed by the classroom teacher and when 
repeated behavior should be referred to an administrator or behavioral health staff.  Ms. 
Champey explained that the District has been developing teacher-managed versus office-
managed behavior flowcharts and schoolwide behavior expectations.   
12. Training continues at the school level, recognizing that schools have been at different stages of 
implementation.  Systems are also being developed for tracking repeated behaviors across 

September 16, 2026 Policy Committee  
Page 6 of 8 
 
multiple classrooms so classroom teachers are not individually responsible for identifying 
patterns involving a student across an entire school day. 
13. Aspen is used to track class cuts and other applicable behavior data, and administration continues 
working with the schools to ensure consistent data entry practices. 
14. Discussion followed regarding whether some discipline-tracking challenges could be addressed 
through a different student information system. 
15. The Administration reported that the District has invested significant time and resources 
customizing Aspen and that transitioning to another system would have considerable short-term 
costs involving data migration, staff training, and customization. 
16. Ms. Champey noted that intervention referral systems and Power BI dashboards have been 
developed over several years using Aspen data. Any transition would need to account for the 
potential rebuilding of these systems. 
17. Committee members discussed the importance of considering both the limitations of the existing 
system and the operational impact of moving staff and families to a new platform. 
18. Committee Member Potter requested that administration consider circumstances in which a 
student is attempting to comply with an alternative-to-suspension program but encounters a 
barrier such as transportation or employment.  He expressed concern that students should not 
receive additional punishment when a legitimate barrier prevents participation. 
19. Committee Member Potter also discussed the proposed category addressing students who are “in 
the presence of” drugs or alcohol.  He noted that circumstances could vary significantly and 
suggested that administrators retain the ability to distinguish between a student actively 
participating in prohibited behavior and a student who may simply be present or attempting to 
assist another student. Attorney Upton explained that administrators already exercise significant 
discretion when investigating these incidents and consider the individual circumstances before 
determining an appropriate response. 
20. The Administration emphasized that, with the exception of certain mandatory offenses such as 
bringing a firearm to school, disciplinary situations generally require investigation, judgment, 
and consideration of the individual circumstances. 
21. The Code intentionally uses discretionary terms such as “may” and “can” rather than mandatory 
terms such as “shall” in appropriate sections. Ms. Champey noted that adding specific Aspen 

September 16, 2026 Policy Committee  
Page 7 of 8 
 
codes for students who are “in the presence of” drugs or alcohol would also allow the District to 
better track patterns and determine where additional prevention efforts may be needed. 
22. Ms. Champey proposed adding an additional Level Four category of “Other Weapon” to align 
the Code of Conduct with state Safe Schools reporting requirements.  The category would 
include possession of a weapon other than a firearm or destructive device, including examples 
such as: 
 
Knife; 
 
Club; 
 
Razor blade; 
 
Chain; 
 
Sharp object used as a weapon; and 
 
Stun gun. 
23. The Administration clarified that ordinary objects used during an assault would not necessarily 
be categorized as an “other weapon.” The circumstances and nature of the incident would 
determine the appropriate reporting category. 
24. Ms. Champey explained that accurate classification is important because Safe Schools data is 
used for state and federal reporting and can help the District identify where prevention programs, 
funding, and additional resources are needed. 
25. The Committee incorporated the amendments discussed during the meeting, including revisions 
to the definition of riot and the addition of the “Other Weapon” category. 
 
On motion of Committee Member Taylor, duly seconded by Committee Member O’Neil-Wong, it was 
moved to approve the proposed revisions to the Student Code of Conduct, as amended, and forward this 
item to the full Board of School Committee for approval.  All were in favor and the motion passed. 
 
The Committee thanked Ms. Champey for her work on the revisions and again recognized the Board 
Clerk for the extensive work involved in reorganizing and formatting the Code of Conduct. 
 
 
10. 
TABLED ITEMS 
 
 
There were no tabled items this evening. 
 

September 16, 2026 Policy Committee  
Page 8 of 8 
 
 
11.   
NEW BUSINESS 
 
There was no new business presented. 
 
 
ADJOURNMENT 
 
12. 
If there is no further business, a motion is in order to adjourn.  
 
On motion of Committee Member O’Neil-Wong, duly seconded by Committee Member Taylor, it was 
moved to adjourn.  All were in favor and the meeting adjourned at 7:17 p.m. 
 
True Copy.  Attest. 
Respectfully Submitted, 
  
 
Clerk of Committee