The West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District Board of Education voted to accept the district’s semiannual harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB) report covering Jan. 1–June 30, 2025.

Dr. Jessica Smedley, who presented the report, said the district uses the New Jersey Department of Education rubric and state reporting procedures. "HIB includes any gesture, written, verbal, or physical act or any electronic communication whether it be a single incident or series of incidents," she said, describing the state standard used to determine whether a report meets statutory criteria.

The presentation summarized preliminary determinations, investigative outcomes, and self‑assessment results. Smedley told the board that the district recorded eight preliminary determinations in the period (six at the two middle schools and two in K–5 schools) and identified classroom settings as the most common reported location. She also reviewed the district’s school self‑assessment, noting high average scores across the rubric’s elements and use of districtwide prevention programs and training.

Why this matters: the report is the district’s required semiannual filing under state law and feeds into school‑level planning for prevention, counseling, staff training and parent engagement.

Key findings and metrics cited in the presentation

- Preliminary determinations: 8 (six in middle schools; two in K–5 schools). Smedley said preliminary determinations represent reports that did not meet the NJSA 18A:37‑14 three‑prong statutory test for a full HIB finding but were still addressed via conduct codes, restorative practices or counseling.

- Investigations and outcomes: Smedley said the presentation showed either 84 or 92 total reports during the period (the presentation referenced both figures at different points); she reported that roughly half of incidents were found in favor of the complainant on at least one slide. The transcript shows both statements; the district did not provide a single‑figure reconciliation during the presentation.

- Incidents by grade band (raw counts shown in the presentation): K–5: 47 (about 56% of investigations cited in the presentation); grades 6–8: 19 (about 22.6%); grades 9–12: 18 (about 21.4%).

- Locations (raw numbers from the slide): classroom 33; school bus 11; lunchroom 14; hallway 10; playground 7; cell phone (texts/apps/social media) 5; internet (other online platforms) 1; other 3.

- Distinguishing characteristics cited most frequently: race/ethnicity (22 incidents) and appearance (20 incidents). Smedley said some reports were marked "no identifiable characteristic," a category the district uses when an investigation does not find a protected characteristic motivating the conduct.

Smedley described district prevention and response work, including: regular training for administrators and staff, monthly anti‑bullying specialist meetings to review investigative consistency, use of a reporting software product (referred to as "Hipster" in the presentation) and a Culture and Climate Summit held May 28 with roughly 70 participants including students, staff and parent representatives.

Board questions and clarifications

Board members asked for clarification about the grade‑band breakdown and the distinction between categories on the slides. Board member Loy asked about the higher K–5 share shown on the slide: "It just looks like the K‑5, at 56 percent is the breakdown — is there like a separate…" Smedley explained that classroom reporting is common in K–5 because teachers and adult volunteers typically make reports and that middle school reporting often includes more student‑initiated reports.

When a board member asked for the difference between the "no identifiable characteristic" and "other" categories, Smedley said: "No identifiable characteristic would be that it's generally a report of something that isn't founded... Other is, again, in the eye of the beholder," and noted categorization can depend on investigator judgment and impact versus intent.

Formal action and vote

The board president moved to "approve and accept the 01/01/2025 to 06/30/2025 district semiannual report of harassment, intimidation, and bullying as required by the New Jersey State Department of Education under the Anti‑Bullying Bill of Rights Act," and to verify the school grade report had been reviewed and posted per state law. A roll call recorded affirmative votes by board members present and the motion carried.

What the report does and does not say

Smedley emphasized the district’s mission language: "We are committed to providing all students with a safe learning environment that is free from harassment, intimidation, and bullying," and that the district adheres to the New Jersey Anti‑Bullying Bill of Rights Act. She described both restorative and disciplinary responses depending on investigatory outcomes. The presentation included school‑level goals tied to social‑emotional learning (Second Step, Zones of Regulation) and targeted teacher and family training; it did not present a single reconciled total figure where two slide totals differed.

Next steps and context

Smedley said the district will continue monthly anti‑bullying specialist meetings and use the data to inform school improvement plans and parent outreach. She noted that the preliminary‑determination rule adopted in 2022 remains a feature of local practice and that state reporting (SSDS) timelines mean some statewide comparisons are published with a lag.

Ending

The board accepted the report by roll‑call vote and directed that the district post the report and the school‑grade report as required by state statute.