Student safety advisory committee advances consolidated recommendations on mental‑health plan, code revision and district communications

The Student Safety and Well‑being Advisory Committee spent its latest session reviewing a consolidated set of recommendations aimed at strengthening school safety and student wellness across the district.

The committee’s presenter summarized a package that includes: a coordinated mental‑health and wellness implementation plan led by the local behavioral health authority and CCPS Student Services targeted for release by 07/01/2027; an updated, developmentally appropriate student code of conduct (with supplemental materials to be piloted in 2028–29); establishment of a district‑level communications role and student‑led social media teams under central oversight; and a centralized digital resources hub and public‑facing dashboard to track behavioral incidents and supports.

Why it matters: committee members said the recommendations respond to consistent feedback from students and families and to the committee’s own review of surveys showing high rates of reported bullying. The measures are intended to improve access to mental‑health services, create clearer expectations for student behavior and provide timely, accurate communications during incidents to reduce rumor and misinformation.

On the mental‑health plan, the presenter described the proposed scope: identify priority needs, recommended programs and a phased timeline, designate responsible partner agencies, and include evaluation measures and annual updates. The committee asked that the language remain flexible so existing local subcommittees or agencies could be designated as implementers rather than mandating a single entity.

On discipline and conduct, the presenter recommended a comprehensive code review by 07/01/2027 to strengthen safety, clarity and consistent enforcement across schools; age‑appropriate supplemental materials are listed for elementary, middle and high schools, with piloting and phased district‑wide adoption outlined in the draft.

Communications and transparency were a focal point. The draft calls for a central communications staff member to coordinate rapid, accurate messaging during incidents and to develop a district branding/expectations guide. The presenter also proposed student‑led social media teams supervised by administrators, with central office access and oversight to ensure consistent messaging. "If you don't proactively participate," the Chair said in reference to social media, "you will become the dog wagged by the tail."

The committee recommended creating a centralized digital resources hub—overseen by the Office of Student Services in collaboration with communications staff—to maintain an up‑to‑date inventory of supports, a user‑friendly decision flowchart for common scenarios, and monthly updates. Members added that community partners who provide services should be involved in building the hub.

Data and threat assessment practices were also discussed. The committee proposed a district system to track incidents and intervention outcomes by school, grade and demographics and to publish a high‑level anonymized dashboard for families and stakeholders. Members urged clearer protocols for threat assessment teams, including who is notified and when; one member said teachers should at least be informed that a student has undergone an assessment so they can take appropriate precautions.

Staffing and training needs drew repeated attention. Members noted that high schools generally have two safety advocates, middle schools one, and elementary schools none, and that the committee should consider coverage plans and substitute pools so schools are not left without advocates during absences or investigations. The presenter and members discussed targeted training—particularly for administrators, counselors and those who serve on threat assessment teams—and recommended standardized de‑escalation and crisis intervention training for staff who work directly with students.

Other proposals included establishing wellness/de‑escalation spaces in schools (framed around 'escalated behaviors' rather than a generic 'stress' label), reviewing counselor/psychologist caseloads against per‑pupil ratios, and strengthening youth mentoring and out‑of‑school supports.

What the committee asked for next: members requested redrafted language for items highlighted during the meeting (including softened wording that replaces absolute terms such as "will" with "recommends"), clearer timelines and implementation responsibility assignments, and additional cost/feasibility details where needed. The presenter said staff would revise the flagged sections and circulate a new draft ahead of the committee’s next meeting in January.

No formal policy or board action was taken at the session; the committee focused on refining recommendations for submission to the elected board and district officials. The meeting ended with no public comments and a motion to adjourn.