We, the undersigned parents and community members, support inclusive education and the rights of students with disabilities at all Issaquah School District (ISD) schools. We also affirm that every ISD student and every ISD staff member has the right to a safe, stable learning environment, as required under federal and Washington State law. However, we believe ISD has not upheld its responsibility to provide a safe and equitable learning environment for all students while attempting to provide an inclusive learning environment. We believe unclear and inconsistently enforced safety and discipline policies have harmed the learning environment across ISD schools.

Unclear behavioral expectations and inadequate support have led to substantial disruption and a disproportionate impact on the overall classroom experience. Over the past several years, repeated incidents of physical aggression by a small number of students have resulted in injuries to staff, students, parents, and volunteers at multiple ISD schools (e.g., thrown chairs and books; fingers slammed in doors; concussions; cuts and lacerations; bruises; broken bones; and head injuries). Volunteers, staff members, and students have been spat on, urinated on, sworn at, threatened with violence, and verbally abused. These are not isolated events; they reflect an ongoing pattern that disrupts learning and places students and staff at risk. Staff and family members report being told that individual schools have limited ability to change these patterns because of ISD policy. If trained adults and experienced educators struggle to manage these situations, it is unreasonable to expect children as young as five to endure them daily.

We see five main issues with the current state of affairs:

1. All ISD students are losing significant instructional time
2. The district is not using the tools available to address unsafe behavior
3. The current system is failing everyone, including the students receiving special services
4. There is no clear accountability system
5. The current “push‑in” model fails to account for situations requiring higher‑level support

Frequent behavioral crises require teachers to stop instruction, redirect the misbehaving student's attention multiple times, and sometimes evacuate the classroom. These disruptions have become common enough in many classrooms that students lose meaningful portions of the school day.

Washington law (RCW 28A.600.020) requires districts to maintain an “optimum learning atmosphere.” That standard cannot be met when instructional minutes are repeatedly lost and never restored.

Despite multiple incidents involving physical aggression, the district’s response has often been limited to brief resets or short‑term removals. The behavior continues because this approach does not address underlying causes or provide sustained support and accountability.

State law provides clear options:

• RCW 28A.600.460 allows removal from the classroom and, when appropriate, suspension or expulsion for assaultive or harassing behavior.
• WAC 392‑400 permits disciplinary action when behavior endangers students or staff.

Parents are not seeing these tools meaningfully applied. As a result, unsafe behavior persists, and the burden falls on teachers, students, and families.

RCW 28A.600.020 requires that “highest consideration is given to the judgment of qualified certificated educators regarding conditions necessary to maintain the optimum learning atmosphere.” However, many ISD employees report that their professional judgment about what is necessary to maintain that atmosphere is being ignored by district leadership—and some are leaving ISD as a result.

When a student repeatedly harms or attempts to harm others without meaningful intervention:

• The student with higher‑level needs is not receiving the support, structure, or placement required under WAC 392‑172A.
• Other students lose learning time and experience unsafe conditions, violating their right to equal access to education.
• Teachers are required to stop serving all other IEP/504 students under their care to address the behavior of one student, possibly multiple times a day. This means those other IEP/504 students are not getting their legally mandated service time.

This is not inclusion done well. It is a system that leaves all children underserved.

When parents present an issue involving safety to any level of administration, there exists no way for the parent to see if the concern has been addressed. We are told that privacy concerns prohibit any reporting back to families. However, the same issues involving the same students keep occurring and there has been no change in how those issues are managed. The district’s lack of urgency in fixing this issue signals that safety is not a priority. 

Additionally, parents of students with discipline issues report that they (1) were not notified when an incident occurred, or (2) were notified days or weeks later. These parents feel unable to support their child or their child’s teacher because they are not informed in a timely way about what is happening.

Parents who support appropriate discipline and safety measures are increasingly frustrated. We support inclusion when it is implemented responsibly. But inclusion without safety is not inclusion. Inclusion that repeatedly disrupts learning is not equitable. And inclusion that keeps parents at arm’s length about their child’s safety is unacceptable.

Teachers are overwhelmed under a Multi‑Tiered Systems of Support model that also requires multiple levels of behavioral intervention. Students are learning to ignore inappropriate behavior as the only way to keep the class moving. Students with severe behavioral needs are being kept in general‑education settings that are not appropriate for them, sometimes relying on screen time or reduced work as the primary behavior-management tools. We cannot pretend that every student, regardless of IEP/504 status or behavior-related accommodations, can be placed in any classroom, with any group of peers, and still achieve an optimal outcome.

These five issues all raise a critical question: Why are students with repeated, severe behavioral incidents allowed to remain in a classroom where their behavior continually impedes the learning and safety of others?

It is absolutely true that every child has a right to a free, public education. But it is equally true that all students have the right to equal access to education, and that right is being compromised. Codes of conduct exist to ensure that every child gets an accessible and safe learning environment. When students are allowed to repeatedly violate them without meaningful consequences, the system breaks down and the students suffer.

Parents and staff members are also noting that the lack of discipline or consequences for large-scale infractions is leading to more small-to-medium scale infractions. ISD students are learning that there are little to no consequences for disrespectful behavior, destruction of property, rude or lewd comments, refusal to work, inappropriate language, or disrupting the classroom. 

So, where does the accountability for discipline lie?

School districts have broad discretion in how they apply discipline. State law outlines what districts may do, but districts decide how and when to act, and legally the bulk of the responsibility for disciplinary guidelines lies with a District School Board.

ISD parents want clarity:

• What discipline authority does the district have? What discipline authority does school administration have? What discipline authority do classroom teachers and specialists have?
• What specific guidance exists at the state level that is shaping how ISD addresses behavioral issues?
• What is ISD’s standard for balancing a child’s right to an education (including students with behavioral needs) with other students’ right to a safe learning environment?
• What are the expected behavioral standards for (1) general‑education students with no IEP/504 plan and (2) students with IEP/504 plans or behavior-related accommodations? What are the consequences and interventions when those standards are violated, and what role does the individual school play in applying them consistently?

What We Are Asking the School Board to Do

We respectfully request that the board:

• Ensure the district is following RCW 28A.600 and WAC 392‑400 regarding safety‑related removals and non‑discretionary offenses.
• Require a review of the behavior records of any student with repeated behavioral incidents to determine whether their current placement is appropriate under WAC 392‑172A.
• Direct the superintendent to report publicly, without identifying information, on how the district is ensuring the safety of all students while meeting its obligation to provide services to those students who need them.
• Confirm that staff injuries, student injuries, and lost instructional minutes are being documented as required under state discipline data rules.
• Ensure that meaningful, lawful consequences and interventions are being used, and that consequences are escalating and not remaining at the level of temporary resets.
• Prioritize safety and accountability as essential components of inclusion.
• Meet with a focus group of parents to answer the questions above and provide clarity.
• Share, at a school board meeting no later than June 11, what families should expect regarding safety and accountability.

Closing

We believe in this district and in inclusion done well. But we cannot accept a system where safety is inconsistent, accountability is optional, and learning time is repeatedly sacrificed. Accountability requires no new funding and could be a meaningful tool to address declining enrollment. It requires leadership, consistency, and the will to act – especially at a time when enrollment and budget pressures demand that families trust the district.

We urge the board to act decisively, within the framework of Washington law, to protect students, support staff, and ensure that every child receives the safe, equitable education they deserve.