Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews anti-bullying self-assessment; district reports 34 HIB investigations, 13 founded
Summary
The Elizabeth Board of Education received the district’s Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights self-assessment and a report that 34 harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB) investigations were completed since March 25–April 15, of which 13 were found to be HIB-related; districtwide assessment scores averaged 71.
At its April 23 meeting, the Elizabeth Board of Education received a district presentation on the Anti‑Bullying Bill of Rights Act self‑assessment and the district’s recent HIB investigations. The presentation reviewed eight core elements and 26 indicators the district used to score schools and said results would be published on school and district web pages.
The district reported that all 37 schools scored between 65 and 76 on the self‑assessment, with a district average of 71 (an improvement from 70 the prior year). The presenter described the state rubric (0–3 per indicator) and the required process: complete the assessment, present results publicly, obtain board approval, and submit to the New Jersey Department of Education.
District staff also reported that, since the previous meeting (covering March 25 through April 15), school counselors and social workers completed 34 investigations of alleged harassment, intimidation or bullying. Of those, 13 cases were found to meet the law’s HIB standard. The presentation included demographic breakdowns of alleged victims and offenders and a list of remedial actions the district said it has provided, including counseling sessions, skill‑development lessons, parent conferences, class changes and suspensions.
The presenter listed specific interventions: 13 skill‑development lessons, 27 counseling sessions, three behavior interventions, three referrals for outpatient mental‑health treatment, three classroom changes, eight administrative counseling sessions, nine in‑school detentions, 21 parent conferences, three agency referrals, and 10 out‑of‑school suspensions; four cases were listed as continuing to be monitored.
Board members did not debate the substance of any individual investigation at the public meeting; the presentation noted that written summaries of previously reported investigations had been provided to board members in advance so they could affirm, reject or modify superintendent decisions at a later agenda item as required by statute.
Next steps described by the presenter included continued family engagement, staff training and publication of scores on the district website. The board took no immediate public action on individual investigations during the meeting.
