District Says Intent of Anti-Bullying Law Good, Process Not So Good

No one disputed the intent of the new anti-bullying bills thrust upon them by the state legislature was a good thing. But district administrators and board members said Monday night that the process has been a challenging one that fundamentally changes how the district responds to student personnel issues.

Unlike 2010-2011, with the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (ABBRA) procedures now in place, district officials are required to initiate a formal investigation into allegations of harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB) that fall under the guidelines in 2011-2012. The district has tight timelines and faces process audits in completing investigations, Superintendent of Schools Daniel Fishbein said.

It's something of a departure from the less formal process the district had been accustomed to, and officials say it will take adjustments.

"The intent is a good thing and I don't have any objection to that – but that's not the problem," said Trustee Sheila Brogan. It's the process, she said, one administrators have found rigid.

"As it is, there are a lot of timelines and signoffs that have to be met, and we have to prove upon auditing that we've done all these things," Fishbein said to the school board.

Thus far, Fishbein reported 15 investigations have been conducted into Harassment, Intimidating and Bullying (HIB) allegations in the first month of the 2011-2012 school year. Of that number, four came from G.W.; three from RHS; two each from Somerville, Orchard, and B.F.; and a single tally from Ridge and Travell. Five were considered to have met HIB standard.

"In some of those cases it did not meet the definition of HIB but it did meet our code of good behavior and there are consequences for those students," Fishbein said. "It just didn't meet that very strict definition [of HIB]."

According to procedure, the building's designated anti-bullying specialist (each school is required one under the ABBRA rules) first looks into the alleged incident(s) and must file a written report within 10 days to the principal, who either agrees or disagrees with the findings and presents his/her report to the superintendent.

Fishbein then makes the ruling either agreeing with the school's decision the allegations did not meet the criteria, which kicks up to the school board. The board can agree with Fishbein or send it back for further investigation.

Under the new requirements, Fishbein must also brief the school board before the next scheduled public meeting as well as send the investigative report to the parents of those involved within five days of the report issued to the school board.

Questioned by Brogan, he said most incidences under HIB would have been dealt with last year as well. It just wouldn't meet the formal process Fishbein called "growing pains."

"What we're looking at now is whether we can still honor the specific requirements and intent of the law and try to infuse that typical district level of communication and collaboration with the parents . . . without compromising the compliance with the law," said Gary Hall, the district HR Manager. "So that's a little bit of a trial and error we have to go through."

Those found to be bullied, harassed or intimidated will have a report in their student file, with the possibility of a letter from the parent of the child found to have been bullied, harassed or intimidated. Those accused and found to have not committed an infraction will not have any paperwork in the folder.

Brogan suggested staff could reflect on the challenges it has had in implementing the new policies at a future school board meeting. The school board should let its legislators know those findings, she said.