Carson City School District outlines annual restorative-discipline regulation, clarifies bullying investigations and suspension rules

Carson City School District officials reviewed the district—s restorative-discipline regulation and supporting tools at a board workshop, emphasizing that the regulation must be submitted to the board annually and posted online and at each school.

The presentation, led by Christy Perkins, director of MTSS and student wellness, explained the regulation—s role as a site-level guide for administrators and outlined a tiered approach to behavioral supports, required steps for bullying investigations and specific procedures that trigger more formal actions such as behavior hearings or long-term suspension.

Perkins said the plan ———acts as a guide for our administrators as kind of a frame of reference for all things that can occur in a school—— and said the regulation was adopted earlier in the year. She described three tiers of behavior supports: universal (Tier 1), targeted group supports (Tier 2) and individualized, intensive interventions (Tier 3). She repeated that certain severe incidents or patterns of misconduct can push a student quickly to Tier 3, and that administrators must use judgment while following required steps.

Perkins also described how many incidents that used to be recorded under separate categories are now processed first through a bullying-investigation lens in the district—s reporting system. —If a family or student reports that—s bullying, —we have to list it as a bullying investigation——— she said, noting administrators next determine whether the event meets the statutory definition of bullying (for example, an imbalance of power, repeated or pervasive conduct, or conduct motivated by a protected characteristic).

The district—s procedures require notification of victims— and alleged perpetrators, timelines for interviews and witness statements, and state reporting of substantiated and unsubstantiated bullying incidents. Perkins said the district follows legal advice from counsel in structuring investigations, and that the investigative label often starts as —administrative investigation— until facts are confirmed.

Trustees pressed staff about parent notification and privacy. Trustee Walker asked whether parents sometimes refuse to take part in required restorative plans; Perkins and a student-support staff member said refusals are rare but occur. The board clarified FERPA limits: administrators can notify families that an investigation was opened and confirm whether an investigation was —founded— or —unfounded,— but they cannot disclose disciplinary details about other students. Perkins said the district uses safety plans to protect potential victims and to provide details to families about the steps the school is taking without violating privacy laws.

Staff underscored statutory safeguards that affect discipline decisions: out-of-school suspension of three or more days (or five cumulative days) requires creation of a restorative plan that must involve parents and other team members; students with IEPs subject to suspension for more than 10 days trigger a manifestation determination review; McKinney-Vento status (students in transition) limits suspensions; and the superintendent must approve suspensions for students under age 6. Perkins said the district aims to use out-of-school suspension sparingly and to provide educational services during suspensions.

Perkins and other staff showed administrators— tools for documenting investigations and building restorative plans, including a Google Drive folder, a bullying flowchart, a standardized restorative-plan Google Form (the state form converted to a fillable format), and a matrix mapping behaviors to required and optional responses. The materials list required team members for different plans, flowcharts for threat assessment, and links to the district—s policies and training resources.

Why it matters: The district—s regulation defines administrators— responsibilities, sets timelines and creates documentation workflows that district staff said are necessary to comply with state law while balancing student privacy and safety. Trustees asked staff to bring any proposed changes back in September, when the regulation must be reviewed again.

The board did not take action; staff said the regulation will be presented to the board for annual approval in September.