Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bullying Prevention Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears comparison of four bullying-prevention options; staff to continue research
Summary
District staff presented four bullying-prevention programs — Second Step, OAS, Kaiva and Rachel’s Challenge — with wide cost and implementation differences; trustees discussed pilot vs. districtwide adoption, survey/parent-permission constraints and next steps.
Lee Miller reviewed four bullying-prevention options for trustees at the May 19 meeting and asked the board whether it wants to pursue a comprehensive program districtwide or add bullying-specific modules to the district’s existing Second Step subscription, which remains paid through 2025–26.
Miller identified the four programs as Second Step, OAS (a comprehensive program with a survey-driven approach), Kaiva (a Finland-based program), and Rachel’s Challenge (a lower-cost, culture-based program). He described key differences in scale, cost and training requirements:
- OAS: Miller described OAS as “the most comprehensive” of the four, with an initial start-up/training cost he reported at about $110,000 and then an ongoing fee of about $550 per school per year. OAS uses pre- and annual surveys to guide implementation and requires multi-day training for school leaders and staff teams.
- Kaiva: Miller said Kaiva quoted a conversion that equated to roughly $95,000 per year; training is substantial (a one-week course that the presenter said is often conducted in Finland) and Miller noted Kaiva had no existing U.S. district partners at the time he researched it.
- Rachel’s Challenge: The program, created after the Columbine tragedy, was described as a lower-cost option — Miller said it runs about $5 per student — focused on culture-building through clubs, sequential lessons and five “challenges” around empathy and resilience. Miller said the district previously used Rachel’s Challenge starting around February 2012 but that the effort faded over time.
- Second Step: The district already has Second Step access through 2025–26; Miller characterized it as module-based, not a comprehensive replacement, and said the bullying module could be used as part of the existing subscription. Trustees were told Second Step receives periodic content updates.
Trustees discussed implementation choices: piloting in a subset of schools versus a districtwide rollout; training requirements and costs; the need to obtain parent permission for student surveys; and reporting/measurement. Board members asked whether there is data on the most common bullying types; staff said they are cleaning incident-coding in the district’s Infinite Campus discipline records so reliable bullying trend data will be available after clerical reclassification by administrators.
No formal adoption occurred; trustees asked staff to continue researching options and to return with additional information, budget implications and possible pilot schools. Board members emphasized that if the district adopts a resource-intensive program, staff should identify or remove other items from teachers’ responsibilities to preserve implementation time.
