Students and parents press Goshen board on bullying and mental‑health follow‑up; district outlines supports

Three speakers during public participation told the board their families had been harmed by persistent bullying and asked the district to strengthen mental‑health follow‑up and impartial investigations.

“Troy, I’m sorry.” (opening aside). Twelve‑year‑old Braxton Hayden told the board, “At school, I've been verbally harassed and humiliated by other students. ... When this first started happening, I thought if I just ignored it, it would go away, but it didn't.” He said disciplinary action against him preceded adults learning what he had endured and asked for adults to ask children “are you okay?” before moving to punishment.

Katie Hayden, who spoke as a parent, urged the board to make middle‑school mental health a priority and offered concrete steps: training all staff in de‑escalation and trauma‑informed strategies; providing regular mental‑health check‑ins for students; ensuring that student concerns receive documented follow‑up; promoting transparency about how reports are handled; and guarding against bias when staff and students have personal ties.

Holly Hoffman described her daughter’s change in demeanor after bullying and told the board, “I fully support bringing in an external company to handle bullying investigations.” She argued an external investigator would provide a neutral, consistent process for students and families.

District staff later presented the semiannual bullying and mental‑health status report. “There were 5 recorded incidents of discipline that was identified as bullying where, our administrators went through the full investigation process and students were disciplined for bullying,” the district’s report said for the second semester of the school year. Staff emphasized that discipline‑count is one limited metric and that the district’s approach is broader and largely proactive.

The report documented several district supports in place this year: PBIS (Positive Behavior Intervention Supports) in buildings to teach behavior and routines; facility dogs on campus for student and staff support (named Roland, Artis and Meg); a district mental‑health team led by an in‑district mental‑health expert and school counselors; contracted partners such as Child Focus and Catalyst at buildings on scheduled days; a county behavior specialist who observes classrooms and coaches staff; and mobile health services (vision/dental/medical) through community partners.

Staff said referrals and parent contacts trigger the district’s follow‑up process and generally expect an initial contact within a day and an investigation within about 24 hours in most on‑campus incidents. Administrators emphasized that many interventions focus on teaching social skills and conflict resolution as well as remediation and counseling: “The first time there's an incident, we try to intervene and teach students how to advocate for themselves,” staff said.

Why it matters: Parents described long delays between the onset of harassment and effective adult support; they asked for trauma‑informed responses and external investigations in serious cases. District staff described multiple in‑district and contracted supports and said measured disciplinary outcomes (five formal bullying discipline incidents) do not capture the full scope of prevention, counseling and follow‑up work underway.

Next steps and board direction: trustees heard public testimony, received the semiannual bullying report and were told staff will pursue expanded parent engagement, clearer web resources for families and continued staff training on de‑escalation and trauma‑informed techniques. The board did not take a formal vote on investigation procedures at the June 9 meeting.