Board reviews updated bullying and cyberbullying policy with new definitions, action plans and grievance path
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The district presented an updated anti-bullying policy that adds precise statutory definitions of bullying, includes cyberbullying that causes material disruption, requires action plans for victims and alleged perpetrators, and sets a grievance process for employees alleging abusive conduct by students or parents.
District staff presented an updated bullying policy that tightens definitions, adds cyberbullying language tied to off-campus communications and requires written action plans and reporting. The revisions follow state model language and administrative guidance presented to the board.
Director Dean and district administrators explained the changes the state has recommended, including a clearer definition that distinguishes bullying from teasing or ordinary conflict. The policy now includes staff bullying language, defining conduct that “a reasonable person would find hostile” and that “substantially interferes” with educational performance. The cyberbullying section was expanded to include “communication generated off campus that causes or threatens to cause a material and substantial disruption,” consistent with case law and past practice.
Administrators explained the new requirement for two action plans after an incident: one for the student who was the subject of the incident and one for the alleged perpetrator. Each plan must address safety, supportive measures and follow-up communication with parents. Director Dean noted principals have informally used action plans but the policy formalizes the requirement.
The updated policy also includes a grievance path for employees: an employee alleging abusive conduct by a student or parent may file a written grievance identifying the individual and proposed resolution; the principal must investigate and determine appropriate relief. Staff discussed the limits of district authority over parents (who are not under student disciplinary jurisdiction) but stressed available tools such as restricted communication plans or trespass notices.
Board members asked about timelines for parent notification and expressed interest in more precise language (for example, “as soon as reasonably possible” instead of “promptly”). Administrators said they will produce a clean, non-redlined version of the policy and training guidance for principals. The item was presented for review and no adoption vote was taken.