Goshen board hears superintendent defend use of principals for bullying investigations; members discuss outside investigators and policy review

At a meeting of the Goshen Local School District Board of Education, Superintendent Michael Bailey reviewed the district’s anti‑harassment, intimidation and bullying procedures under board policy JFCF and the Ohio Department of Education model policy, and answered questions about reporting, investigations and appeals.

Bailey told the board he had reviewed district practice, public records and model rules and that the state model policy requires principals or their designees to conduct investigations. "The investigation, the principal designee is notified under the direction of the building principal designee, all such complaints are investigated," Bailey said, summarizing the model language he cited. He said the district reports verified incidents to the state through EMIS and that his semiannual report to the board follows that guidance.

The presentation came after public concern at an earlier meeting. Bailey said his review found the district is following the state model policy and that "our reporting to the state and the report that I provide to you on a semiannual basis is correct through the model policy and through what the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce is requiring." He also told the board the district documents investigations in student discipline files and communicates with families, while acknowledging communication sometimes falls short.

Board member Corey urged the district to consider contracting with outside investigators for some cases to increase perceived independence and to free administrators for other duties. "My recommendation is just to have someone that is not attached... Create that transparency," Corey said, adding outside investigators could be trained in education law and follow Ohio rules. Other board members raised concerns about student privacy, the promptness of outside investigators and legal ramifications, and asked whether the district already has outside investigatory resources.

Bailey and other board members explained the district currently has an appeal process under board policy that moves complaints from employee to principal to superintendent and then to the board. Bailey said if parents remain dissatisfied after an administrative investigation, the district can and does seek third‑party review — internally through retired administrators or, when needed, through legal counsel. He said, "If there was an appeal of a bullying investigation, I would find a third party whether it be internally or your current board's attorney, to have somebody that could do a separate investigation on that."

Bailey reported that the district has five verified bullying incidents recorded on this school year’s report and that four of those occurred before the board’s April discussion. He recommended continuing positive behavior supports, prevention education, staff training and formalizing how midyear and year‑end reporting is presented to the board so data are accurate and comparable.

Several board members urged taking the recommendation through the policy‑committee process rather than adopting immediate procedural changes. The board discussed hosting a public work session or a special meeting to gather input from parents and outside organizations before any change to the model policy. No policy change or directive to change current investigations was voted that night; board members agreed to have the policy committee formally vet options, legal implications and operational details for presentation to the full board.

Next steps Bailey outlined included: (1) formalizing how the district will capture and present reported vs. verified incidents on midyear/end‑of‑year reports; (2) continuing staff, student and parent education on bullying prevention and reporting; and (3) routing any proposed change that would move investigations outside principals/designees through the district policy committee for legal review and a formal recommendation.