Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Discipline Self Defense topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents say student was spat on, urge Alpine School District to adopt self‑defense guidance
Summary
Parents described an incident at Pleasant Grove Junior High in which a student says a peer spat in his face; they called on Alpine School district to clarify discipline rules and to adopt explicit self‑defense guidance after administrators suspended the victim for a short period.
Ellen Campbell and her husband, Scott Campbell, told the Alpine School District Board of Education that their son was assaulted at Pleasant Grove Junior High on Jan. 24 and that school discipline procedures left them feeling revictimized.
The Campbells described a hallway confrontation in which another student shouted at and then spat in the eyes, nose and mouth of their son; the parents said video shows their son pushed the aggressor only after being spat upon. They asked the board why district policy does not explicitly address self‑defense and why administrators required their son to stay home for several days after the incident.
The question matters, the Campbells said, because parents expect school discipline rules to protect victims and because inconsistent application of rules erodes trust in school staff. “Was [my son’s] response proportional to the threat?” Ellen Campbell asked, citing statutory definitions for assault, battery and self‑defense when urging the board to adopt clearer guidance.
Scott Campbell said he had met with school staff and described early contact with helpful administrators but said the family experienced “revictimization” during a later interview with a senior administrator and a school resource officer in which the parents were not notified the family said. “We have some things to take care of,” Scott Campbell said, adding he would meet with the district’s legal and human‑resources staff to pursue policy and training changes.
Board members and district staff did not take formal action on the complaint during the meeting. Superintendent Dr. Perkins and school staff told the Campbells staff would follow up; Dr. Perkins offered to coordinate with legal and human‑resources staff, and a district representative indicated the family had been put in touch with relevant staff.
The parents said they requested copies of the policies used in the suspension decision; Ellen Campbell said school staff had referred her to a district policy permitting denial of attendance privileges “whenever proper deportment and discipline behavior are not maintained by the student.” She argued the definition of “fighting” used in the policy did not fit her son’s response and asked the board to consider a specific self‑defense provision so victims are not penalized.
The district did not announce any immediate policy changes at the meeting. Board members acknowledged hearing the family’s concerns and said staff would follow up with additional information and meetings as requested.
The board’s public‑comment record shows the family asked for clearer rules, training for senior staff and SROs on victim responses and how to treat students with IEPs, and for written clarifications of the discipline procedures referenced in the decision to require the student to stay home.
District officials said they would provide the Campbells with the relevant policy language and meet with them and with district legal counsel as part of the follow‑up.
