Bullying and Harassment: District and Principal Responses

Response says

Agrees with the finding on legal compliance.

Audit analysis

Bare agreement states the position without further reasoning or identified compliance records. The audit does not independently certify compliance.

Response says

Agrees that staff received additional training.

Audit analysis

Bare agreement covers the training finding but supplies no training dates, materials or attendance records.

Response says

Disagrees; cites improving student safety perceptions and the report’s interview account.

Audit analysis

The response clearly disputes the trend claim and explains its safety-data and interview basis. It does not equate that reasoning with verified incident counts. Additional data tables on page 5 provide context, not an independent hub trend finding.

Response says

Agrees NUHS has the lowest perceived safety; explains school size, campus scale and diversity.

Audit analysis

The explicit agreement starts on page 1. Page 2 gives concrete school-specific reasons, but identifies no enrollment or demographic source for those explanations.

Response says

Disagrees; says LCAP measures broader climate and safety rather than bullying incident counts.

Audit analysis

The response identifies a concrete disagreement about intended survey purpose and names LCAP as the basis. It is not independently established that the metrics meet every measurement need.

Response says

Disagrees; says staff review data, can screen anomalies and duplicates, and trust participants.

Audit analysis

The disagreement and rationale are clear. Optional survey status and possible screening do not specify controls actually applied to ensure integrity; the response supplies no identified screening procedure.

Response says

Agrees participation was low in recent years and reports 65.5% in 2025–26.

Audit analysis

The historical finding is accepted and distinguished from a later school-year participation claim. The named survey and year provide a checkable basis for the reported improvement.

Response says

Agrees prevention primarily focused on staff; also describes beginning-of-year student training and continued efforts.

Audit analysis

Agreement is explicit and the additional student-training action is concrete, but no named session, material or attendance source is identified.

Response says

Disagrees; cites a Suspension and Expulsion Discipline Matrix and individual circumstances.

Audit analysis

Whole disagreement is explained through an identified policy and case-specific discretion. The response’s distinction between equity and identical consequences is reported without independently reviewing disciplinary cases.

Response says

Partly agrees some handbooks are difficult to find; says NUHS and Bear River handbooks are searchable.

Audit analysis

Availability and searchability are discussed, but the finding’s separate out-of-date branch is not clearly accepted or disputed. The named schools and search method are checkable, yet the partial position leaves material scope incomplete.

Response says

Agrees the superintendent publicly opposes bullying and harassment.

Audit analysis

Bare agreement covers the finding but adds no identified speech, action or supporting record in this paragraph.

Response says

Will not change LCAP metrics to estimate unreported incidents; disputes the proposed method’s validity.

Audit analysis

The refusal is explicit and gives methodological reasons. Disagreement with the proposed measure is not treated as failure to engage.

Response says

Defends existing data reliability and plans continued surveys with discretionary annual modifications.

Audit analysis

Continued use and confidence in data do not identify accuracy safeguards or clearly choose an implementation category for that request.

Response says

Says Resolution 23-25/26, Every Student Belongs, passed March 11, 2026.

Audit analysis

The response identifies a completed Board resolution directly matching the reaffirmation request. Adoption is the District’s report, not independently verified implementation.

Response says

Describes an earlier unsuccessful OBPP initiative and the need for stakeholder buy-in.

Audit analysis

The paragraph gives program-specific reasons and page 4 says Breaking Down the Walls continues on alternating years. It does not clearly choose whether another program like OBPP will be established, reviewed on a timeline, or declined.

Response says

Reserves discretion over which information receives homepage prominence.

Audit analysis

The response addresses placement priorities but does not clearly decide the requested bullying-policy homepage placement or promise a future action.

Response says

Accepts the recommendation and is adding handbook links at the top of the Parent Resource tab.

Audit analysis

The specific link placement is a forward action. A resource-tab link may differ from direct prominent display of a current handbook on the homepage; neither current content nor completed placement is independently verified.

Response says

Says low participation was investigated and corrective action raised 2025–26 participation to 65.5%.

Audit analysis

The response claims both investigation and corrective action and identifies a school year and result. It does not explain the causes or particular corrections, limiting public detail rather than eliminating engagement.

Response says

Will continue striving for consistent and equitable discipline using the referenced matrix.

Audit analysis

The response states an ongoing aim and distinguishes equality from equity, but identifies no new alignment action or clear implementation category.

Response says

Cites the March Every Student Belongs resolution and Board denunciations of bullying.

Audit analysis

The identified Board resolution directly addresses the action portion of this recommendation. The commendation is preserved in the jury inventory but creates no separate response item.

Response says

Partly disagrees; points to improved CHKS school-safety results.

Audit analysis

The explanation continues on page 3 but does not directly refute NUHS’s lowest District-relative safety ranking. Change over time and comparison across schools are different propositions.

Response says

Partly disagrees; distinguishes publicly available LCAP data, CHKS participation and survey methodology.

Audit analysis

The response identifies the challenged inference and explains its methodological and data-availability concerns; discussion continues on page 4. Its alternative CHKS participation measure is not presented as the same LCAP rate.

Response says

Disagrees for NUHS; says its current handbook is searchable and linked in weekly communications.

Audit analysis

The response clearly scopes its denial to NUHS and identifies website search and communications as checkable bases. Its supporting detail continues on page 5; no other school’s handbook status is inferred.

Response says

Labels the recommendation Requires Further Analysis and describes conditional participation in District decision-making.

Audit analysis

The category is explicit, but no scheduled analysis or completion period is stated. Anticipated participation if the District chooses a review is not a promise to begin or finish that review.

Response says

Labels the request Already Implemented, while promising direct homepage placement still to come.

Audit analysis

The completed-action label appears on the preceding page; this page describes proposed direct placement and work in progress. The label is preserved, but the requested homepage placement remains a future action.

Response says

Describes existing search and weekly-message access to current and past handbooks without an explicit finding position.

Audit analysis

The implied disagreement has concrete access methods but no clear agreement/disagreement label or mapping of the finding’s currency branch. Those documented methods are checkable; the hub does not verify website content.

Response says

Labels the recommendation Already Implemented but says a homepage link is being placed.

Audit analysis

The cited paragraph describes accessible handbooks and placement in progress. The completed-action label is not treated as proof that the requested prominent homepage placement is already complete.