Beaufort County committee reviews new school-based threat-assessment regulation with required teams and training

The Beaufort County Board of Education academics committee on Feb. 25 reviewed a new administrative regulation, SS 62, that establishes procedures for school-based behavioral threat assessment and management districtwide.

The regulation spells out how districts must respond when staff report a concerning pattern of student behavior, who may serve on assessment teams, and what training is required. The proposal describes a two-tiered response: an initial “core” team and, if needed, a full protocol threat-assessment team.

According to Deputy Superintendent Dr. Lee and the student services presenters, the core team must include at least two members: an administrator and one school-based mental-health professional (school social worker, school counselor or school psychologist). If the core team determines a potentially imminent threat (for example, a specific threat involving a weapon), the regulation requires notifying the school resource officer and calling 911. When immediate danger has passed, the core team completes a threat screener; if uncertainty remains or the screener flags intent, a full protocol assessment follows.

Under the full protocol, the regulation requires at least three members, including an administrator, a school-based mental-health professional and, where appropriate, the school resource officer. The full protocol team collects and analyzes additional information using the district’s Behavior Threat Assessment and Management full-protocol tools, determines a level of concern (low, moderate or high) and, when needed, develops an individualized management plan with interventions, supervision and monitoring.

The proposed regulation allows school officials to disclose personally identifiable information from education records to other officials when that knowledge is necessary to protect student health or safety. It also names who may participate in assessments beyond school staff—law enforcement and community agencies may support the process.

Andrea Murray, who said she was trained by the Department of Education and is a certified trainer for the district, described the training requirement: “It is an all day training, minimum of 6 and a half hours,” Murray said. The regulation would require annual threat-assessment training for principals, assistant principals, counselors, social workers, psychologists, behavior specialists, school resource officers and other team members.

Board members asked for clarification on several operational points. A committee member asked what the regulation means by the situation being “stable,” and Murray answered that stability depends on the circumstances and could include keeping two team members with the student, calling the SRO, involving the school nurse or calling 911 when appropriate. She said the regulation intentionally uses a flexible standard because responses differ by age and context.

Committee members also asked about out-of-school time while assessments occur. Murray and student services staff said there is no single required number of days; the time a student may be out of school depends on the level of concern, the threat type and availability of community supports. The presenters said parents must be contacted and involved in the full-protocol process and that forms in the full-protocol package include a page documenting parent contact and implementation details.

The presenters said the regulation aligns with Department of Education best practices and noted that the district will implement role-specific training and case-study exercises so staff can practice what “stable” looks like in different settings. No vote on SS 62 was recorded at the committee level during the meeting; staff said the item was being presented for committee review.

The committee discussion highlighted three operational points staff said they will clarify for schools before final adoption: a more detailed description of what constitutes “stable” in sample guidance for teams, procedures for incidents involving adults (staff incidents would rely on medical and personnel processes rather than the student threat-assessment protocol), and the district’s process for coordinating with community crisis units when available.

Ending: Student services staff said they will bring clarifications to the committee and provide final drafts and training schedules to principals and senior staff before the regulation is considered further by the board.