Board asks for clearer bullying reporting materials and stakeholder review of new ‘Safe to Help’ flowchart

Board members spent a substantial portion of the Feb. 18 meeting discussing a new Safe to Help reporting flowchart posted on the Batavia USD 101 website. The flowchart maps steps administrators take after an incident is reported; board members and administrators debated whether the document as published gives parents and students adequate detail about what to expect after they submit a report.

What was presented Administration showed the webpage location (Students → School safety helpline → Safe to Help) and displayed the flowchart that outlines the reporting process and additional considerations. The district has printed QR‑code signs for each school level (elementary, middle and high) linking to the Safe to Help page and added the reporting QR code to student IDs.

Board concerns and suggestions Several trustees — notably Danielle, RJ and others — said the displayed flowchart is a useful high-level schematic but does not resolve parents’ recurring concerns about consistency, who to contact, and what follow‑up they should expect once a report is filed. Danielle asked that the district seek stakeholder input (including BEA, VESPA, BIC and parent representatives) to develop clearer user‑facing materials: a short “what happens next” fact sheet for people who file reports, a step‑by‑step checklist for school administrators, and templates for follow‑up communications to families of both the target and the alleged aggressor.

Administration response and next steps Superintendent Tom and staff said administrative procedures (AP1, AP1 E7 and related documents) already document investigative steps, documentation and possible responses (from loss of privileges up to suspension/expulsion) and that building administrators receive training. The administration proposed drafting a one‑page public guide with links to the district’s administrative procedures and suggested presenting a draft to the Batavia Inter School Council (BIC) in March to obtain stakeholder feedback. The board agreed to that approach and asked administration to return with a draft and BIC input at a future meeting.

Ending The board directed administration to synthesize a concise, public‑facing version of the flowchart, add links to administrative procedures, and seek stakeholder feedback at BIC; the board will review the results at the March meeting.