Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Safety And Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge changes to district HIB process, request certified notices and case‑manager involvement
Summary
Two Rockaway Township residents told the school board that current bullying/investigation (HIB/HIP) procedures can deny parents timely hearing rights and asked the board to require same‑day certified notices, case‑manager participation for classified students and clearer timelines.
Two members of the public urged the Rockaway Township Board of Education on July 30 to change procedures for investigations under the district’s HIB (harassment, intimidation and bullying) process so parents receive timely notices and special‑education staff participate when a student with an IEP or 504 plan is involved.
"Right now, many parents do not receive timely documented notice of HIB outcomes," said Gracie Palomino, a district resident, during first public comment. She said state law requires written notices within five school days and a hearing within 10 days if requested, and said administrative delays can eliminate hearing rights. Palomino asked the board to commit to sending notices by certified mail and email the same day, to require anti‑bullying specialist identification and signatures on reports, and to publicly post the district’s hearing timeline and policies.
Christopher Rosa, another resident, told the board that policy 5512 (the Anti‑Bullying Bill of Rights guidance cited in the meeting) does not protect students with IEPs unless the case manager or child study team is included in investigations. "When that does not happen, the student is at risk for the district," Rosa said. He asked the board to require documented CST or case‑manager participation in every HIP investigation for qualifying students, to add a verification checklist so the board sees proof before voting, and to ensure board members and parents receive identical materials ahead of hearings.
Board members did not debate or vote on policy changes during the meeting; administrators acknowledged the comments and said issues raised would be considered. The board’s public comment period closed after the remarks and the meeting proceeded into scheduled agenda items.
Ending: The board did not adopt immediate procedural changes at the July 30 meeting; residents' requests were entered into the public record and board members asked administrators to consider follow‑up steps and provide a response when appropriate.
