The Intersection of Bullying and Intimidation in an Urban High School

Background

Davidson High School is part of the Clarke School District (CSD) located in the Mid-Atlantic. In the 2016–2017 school year, CSD served 4,100 students. The school district has five elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. Only 2.6 % of the students received free or reduced lunch, as the average median household income was $149,800. The average cost of a residence in CSD is $564,100. Davidson High School has 1,200 students in grades 9 through 12. Davidson High School received its ninth consecutive Advanced Placement Honor Roll award. In addition, Davidson High School received other awards for the stellar music and fine arts programs it offers to its students. Davidson High School was considered high socioeconomic status (SES) as only 1% of the student population qualifies for the Federal Free-Reduced Lunch program.

Regarding racial demographics, 72% of Davidson High School students are White, followed by 21.3% Asian, 4.3% Latinx, and 1.5% Black. Davidson has a small special education population, with only 6% of students qualifying for an Individualized Education Program (IEP). The graduation rate for Davidson High School is 99.0% in 4 years and 99.3% in 5 years. Davidson High School students typically attend 4-year universities and colleges; a small percentage will attend a 2-year community college or enlist in the Armed Services.

In the spring of 2018, Dr. Benjamin was appointed Superintendent of the CSD. One of the first announcements from the new Superintendent to the school board and parents, Dr. Benjamin, stated that CSD would be a leader in transforming schools into a bully, intimidation, and harassment-free environments. The district recently had a spike in students being harassed, bullied, or intimidated by other students. The Mid-Atlantic Department of Education requires public school districts to perform a self-assessment for determining grades under the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights for each school in the district. During the initial executive session meetings, the CSD Board of Education made it very clear to Dr. Benjamin that the community was concerned about the escalating infractions of harassment, intimidation, and bullying.

The Board of Education hired Dr. Benjamin because of her previous experience as an Assistant Superintendent in a neighboring district that focused on decreasing reported infractions of harassment, bullying, and intimidation. The Clarke School Board requested Dr. Benjamin develop a comprehensive bullying, harassment, and intimidation action plan to protect I.D. students and provide a safe learning environment for all children.

CSD did not have a positive track record of creating a safe and inclusive learning environment for all students. Ultimately, CSD’s apathetic approach to fostering an inclusive environment and creating support systems for students led to increased bullying and harassment incidents among the student population.

Three years before Dr. Benjamin’s candidacy, CSD received negative media coverage due to the civil lawsuit that seven families filed on behalf of the students with IEP diagnosed as intellectually disabled. The attorney of the seven families provided evidence that CSD segregated the I.D. students from others, which not only violated their right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE), but also became the catalyst for harassment and bullying from other students during transition periods (Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth, 1972). The attorney for the families claimed that if the students had been appropriately placed in regular education classrooms with support, other students would more than likely have accepted the children as regular peers, limiting bullying and harassment. The court sided with the seven families and directed CSD to implement an action plan to provide more inclusive classroom settings for students identified as Intellectually Disabled.

During her first press conference, Dr. Benjamin made it clear that the CSD would improve in this important area as the Mid-Atlantic School Report Card illustrated that more students were reporting bullying, harassment, and intimidation to the building administration. Dr. Benjamin elaborated in her conversation with the media that as Superintendent, she would focus on cleaning up Davidson High School’s bullying, harassment, and intimidation infractions, specifically focusing on students with an IEP.

CSD CARES 4 Kids

Dr. Benjamin was a strong proponent of “participative leadership” (House & Mitchell, 1974) and realized that to address the volume of HIB incidents in the CSD, she would need to assemble a strategic committee of diverse stakeholders (parents, students, building administrators, and central office). The purpose of the strategic committee, named CARES 4 Kids, was to make recommendations to the Clarke Board of Education. Dr. Benjamin distributed leadership to Mr. Bennett, the principal of Davidson High School to facilitate CARES 4 Kids by creating a menu of interventions and strategies that would help foster a safe and inclusive environment for all students, specifically students with special needs. She expected the committee under Mr. Bennett’s leadership to make recommendations at the February board meeting.

Dr. Benjamin acknowledged Davidson High School’s data (see Table 1) was alarming as the levels of incident reporting, investigations, and HIB reporting were increasing at an alarming rate, a 67% increase between the years of 2015–2016 and 2017–2018. Dr. Benjamin briefly shared her action plan to address the issues about HIB (Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying) with the media and claimed that the change in the CSD’s Student Handbook, specifically the change to the student cell phone use policy, may explain the dramatic increase in HIB-related issues. Specifically, Dr. Benjamin stated that before 2016 (before her tenure), middle and high school students were prohibited from possessing cell phones on their persons. Students were required to place their cell phones in their assigned student hallway locker and turned off during normal school hours.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

The Total Number of Self-Assessment Areas as Incident, Investigative, and Confirmed at Davidson High School.

Years	School-level HIB incident reporting	HIB investigative procedure	HIB case confirmed resulting in student discipline
2015–2016	35	32	31
2016–2017	46	41	39
2017–2018	77	72	70

Note. This table demonstrates the number of HIB incidents reported, investigated, and confirmed. HIB = Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying.

Although HIB incidences were lower in 2015–2016 compared to 2017–2018, student cell phone violations were endless but did not constitute HIB incidences. CSD’s non-negotiable cell phone policy and tiered disciplinary consequences disrupted and distracted the educational process. In addition, teachers were required to confiscate, submit student phones to the administration, write a disciplinary referral, and contact the parent for any student cell phone violations during school hours. After two academic years of enforcing the cell phone policy (2013–2014; 2014–2015), CSD teachers complained to their building union representatives that most of their planning and duty-free lunch time was consumed with writing student cell phone referrals and subsequently contacting parents. Clark School District Teachers Association (CSDTA) leaders decided to address the complaint in the October 2015 monthly meeting between Dr. Simmons (previous CSD Superintendent) and leaders from the CSDTA. In the spirit of collaboration, Dr. Simmons and CSDTA agreed to explore revising the district’s current cell phone policy and allowing students to possess their cell phones during the school day. Dr. Simmons directed Mr. Bennett, the principal of Davidson High School, to form a committee of teachers, parents, and students to explore the possibility of modifying the current cell phone policy and create a policy that would reduce the number of student referrals but protect the integrity of every classroom at the middle and high school level. Mr. Bennett conducted cell phone committee meetings once per month with teachers. During the meetings, Mr. Bennett facilitated open discussions about student cell phone use. In addition, he reviewed the neighboring school district’s policies and practices. In the spring of 2016, Mr. Bennett, with the committee’s approval, recommended to Dr. Simmons that students be permitted to have their cell phones on their persons during school hours. However, CSD teachers had complete discretion in the classroom, including elective and physical education teachers. In addition, each building principal and administration team would create appropriate cell phone use guidelines and parameters for students. Next, Dr. Simmons brought this policy change to the Clarke Board of Education in April 2016, and the BOE unanimously approved it.

However, Dr. Benjamin stated that she would directly collaborate with Mr. Jackson Bennett, the Principal of Davidson High School. Furthermore, Dr. Benjamin promised the Board of Education that she and Mr. Bennett would write and present a Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying policy at the February Board of Education meeting.

Beginning of the School Year

The first few months of school were going well for Mark. Mark enjoyed his classes; the teachers and his classmates appeared cordial and respectful. As far as school, Mark made a few friends and was adjusting to the school culture of Davidson High School, which was traditional from the perspective that student groups existed among the student population belonging to student groups such as honors, fine arts, and athletes. In addition, although Davidson High School made a concerted effort to welcome new students by partnering them up with an existing student, no formal induction process existed for transfer students. As a result, transfer students sometimes felt isolated and alone, becoming the catalyst for bullying and harassment.

Mark’s only class that made him anxious was physical education. Mark noticed a few boys in his class were looking at him in the locker room. Two boys who consistently bumped and snickered at Mark were Victor and Jeff. Victor and Jeff both came from affluent and athletic families and had a reputation for bullying and horseplay. They were not malicious students, but both struggled with taking anything seriously. Although Victor and Jeff belonged to the Davidson High School Wrestling team, they spent much time outside of school pranking students and posting it on social media websites. One of their social media platforms had 789 followers. Jeff and Victor had taken an interest in Mark. However, the students did not say anything to Mark. Still, they consistently looked at him, snickering and giggling at one another. More recently, male students would bump into Mark’s shoulder in the locker room or during a physical education game. Mark’s parents had instructed him to ignore these types of incidents. However, Mark did share with his case manager during a check-and-connect meeting that he was getting bumped in the locker room by Victor and Jeff. Ms. Stinson asked Mark if she wanted her to address the boys, and he declined the offer.

Mark knew from his previous school experiences that informing an adult tends to escalate bullying. Ms. Stinson did not contact either of Mark’s parents as she felt confident that Mark needed an opportunity to problem-solve without parental intervention. Still, she contacted Mr. Draper, the Dean of Students, to give him a “heads up” in case this situation intensified. Mr. Draper was in his third year as a Dean of Students. He possessed a reputation for being a “no-nonsense” type of disciplinarian. Mr. Draper spent 4 years as a Marine before earning his degree and teaching license in secondary education. He was certified in History, U.S. Geography, and American Government. After teaching social studies for 3 years, Mr. Draper attended a local university. He earned his Master’s Degree in Educational Leadership. His dream position was becoming a Dean of Students at an urban high school. When Ms. Stinson informed Mr. Draper about Mark’s concerns, Mr. Draper stated he would monitor the situation and let her know if anything transpired over the next few weeks. However, during physical education class the following week, the student bullies resurfaced and directed full attention to their new target, Mark Palmer.

Pants on the Ground

One day during physical education, about a week after Mark’s conversation with Ms. Stinson, Mark’s co-ed physical education class combined with another co-ed physical education class to perform physical fitness station activities. Students were in small fitness team groups and had to spend 4 minutes at each station. A transition alarm would ring at the 4-minute mark, and students had 1 minute to transition to the next fitness station. As Mark stood in line waiting to participate, two classmates pulled his physical education shorts down to his ankles. As a result, mark’s entire lower half of his body was exposed. Subsequently, a few students who did not dress for physical education recorded the entire act with their cellphones and posted it on the internet immediately after the event, which occurred during Tuesday’s class, a week after Mark’s conversation with Ms. Stinson. Just as important, approximately 40 students were in class and observed the entire episode. When the incident occurred, students began to laugh and point at Mark. The physical education teachers were in the gymnasium but did not see the incident. When the class erupted with laughter, both teachers immediately yelled at the students as Mark pulled up his athletic shorts. The two physical education teachers asked both classes who was responsible for pulling down Mark’s shorts, and immediately Jason and Chase admitted to performing the act. One teacher took both students to Mr. Draper’s office, Dean of Discipline. The other teacher resumed facilitating the physical education classes. Neither teacher was aware that nonparticipating students had video recorded the incident; however, students are prohibited from having cell phones in their possession during class. Davidson High School’s school procedure states that student cell phones should be turned off and placed in their student locker.

Mark was visibly upset by the situation. The remaining physical education teacher asked him if he wanted to go to the locker room, get dressed, and see a counselor or social worker. Mark declined the offer as he did not want to give this incident more credence. After about 15 minutes of the physical fitness activity, students were directed to go to the locker room and change for the rest of the school day. When Mark was getting dressed, a few male students were laughing at him and calling him “tightie whities” about his underwear which was visible to the students when his athletic shorts were pulled down. One of the students that were harassing Mark said to his buddy in the locker room, “Dude, let’s place this video on ‘Vine’ that would be hilarious.” Mark elected to ignore the students as he had been through this type of bullying at his old school. Still, he was concerned about the possibility of the video being placed on a popular social media platform. Mark decided he would wait and tell his parents when he got home. Next, Mark got dressed and went to his next class when the transition bell rang.

When Mark returned from School this Tuesday evening, he decided to inform his parents of the incident that happened at school. Mark told his parents that students were laughing at him and calling him “Tightie Whitie.” Furthermore, Mark told his parents that the students were sent to the Dean of Discipline’s office by one of the gym teachers, and he did not see them the rest of the day. Mark also mentioned to Dr. Palmer and Mr. Palmer that one of the students stated he was going to post the video on the social media platform Vine. Mark’s parents were upset that this situation occurred and extremely angry they were not notified about it before Mark arrived home. Dr. Palmer and her husband expected a phone call from either a teacher, administrator, or counselor. However, not a single staff member contacted Mark’s parents that Tuesday.

Dr. Palmer informed Mark and his father that she would contact Davidson High School’s administration first thing in the morning as this infraction was sexual harassment and bullying. Mark expressed to his parents that he did not want to make this situation a big ordeal because he was afraid other students would call him a “snitch,” which could lead to student intimidation or worse. Mark’s parents acknowledged his feelings, but they shared with Mark that these students need to be held accountable for their actions. After Mark’s conversation with his parents, he sauntered to his bedroom, closed the door, and removed his cell phone from his pocket. Next, Mark opened his ‘Vine social media application and searched for Davidson High School in the search engine. At that time, Mark saw the video of the incident with background music from that infamous YouTube video titled “Pants on the Ground” (Global Idols, 2017). The video continuously showed Mark’s pants being pulled down, with students hysterically laughing at the lyrics “pants on the ground, pants on the ground, looking like a fool with your pants on the ground” (Global Idols, 2017). After a few minutes of viewing the video, Mark began to cry and decided to inform his parents that the incident was posted on the internet. Mark, visibly upset, screamed at his parents, “See, I am tired of this! I am not going back to school, ever!” Mark turned around, walked back to his bedroom, and slammed the door.

The Next Day

The next morning, Mark woke up and told his mother that he had a stomach and headache. He did not want to go to school. Dr. Palmer asked Mark if he wanted to stay home from school because of yesterday’s incident. Mark assured his mother that this was not the case. Still, Dr. Palmer knew better as the family had experienced these bullying situations with their son at his previous school. Mark returned upstairs and went to his room. Next, Dr. Palmer scheduled a meeting with Mr. Bennett and the Dean of Discipline, Mr. Draper, for 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday.

Parent Meeting With Building Administration

Dr. Palmer appeared in Mr. Bennett’s office and met with Mr. Bennett and Mr. Draper. During the meeting, Dr. Palmer asked both administrators questions about the incident. First, she asked if anyone had spoken to Mark or asked him to write down what had happened. Mr. Bennett looked at the Dean of Discipline. The latter answered, “No, the other two students admitted to pulling down his shorts and underwear, so I didn’t feel the need to remove Mark from any classes. The students admitted their guilt.” Next, Dr. Palmer requested to be informed of the disciplinary outcome of both students. Mr. Bennett informed Dr. Palmer that it was appropriately handled, and the parents of the students were contacted. Then, Dr. Palmer stated if she could not be informed of the disciplinary infractions and if they would be willing to share how the discipline was reported in the system. Mr. Bennett did not see a problem with this question and responded the incident was coded as “horseplay.” Then Dr. Palmer took out her cell phone and showed the administrators the video posted on the internet. As she was showing the video, Dr. Palmer emotionally stated this incident was not “horseplay” but “sexual harassment, harassment due to Mark’s disability, bullying, and intimidation!” Next, Dr. Palmer asked if the students that posted the video were given appropriate consequences. Mr. Bennett deferred to the Dean of Discipline, who looked at Dr. Palmer and stated, “No.” The Dean claimed he was unaware that this video was on the internet. He promised to investigate the situation further to determine which students were responsible. Dr. Palmer closed the meeting by stating she was concerned for her son’s safety and mental well-being. She informed Mr. Bennett and the Dean that her son belongs to a protected class and the school is responsible for keeping him safe from harassment, bullying, and intimidation as stated under the law. Dr. Palmer provided a copy of legislation about HIB and handed it to the two administrators. Dr. Palmer read the following legislation aloud, NJ Rev Stat & 18A:37-14 (2013).

Harassment, intimidation, or bullying means any gesture, any written, verbal, or physical act, or any electronic communication, as defined, whether it be a single incident or a series of incidents that:

She shared with both administrators how disappointed she was in handling this situation. Dr. Palmer closed the meeting and informed both administrators that she would take this to a higher school authority as she wanted justice for her son. Mr. Bennett responded to Dr. Palmer and stated that he would like to look into this situation further and determine if all parties appropriately addressed this and which students posted the video of the incident. Dr. Palmer thanked Mr. Bennett for his time. Still, she was adamant about moving forward with scheduling a meeting with Dr. Benjamin. Dr. Palmer did inform Mr. Bennett that if any new information was gathered, please get in touch with her. She hoped the administration would have the video removed and determine who video recorded the incident.

Dr. Robert’s office received a phone call from Dr. Palmer requesting a meeting about her concerns about the incident with her son, Mark. Dr. Benjamin met with Dr. Palmer approximately 1 week after the initial meeting she had with the principal and the Dean of Discipline. Unfortunately, Mark had missed three out of five school days since the incident. However, he was anxious about attending school and was more depressed and withdrawn. Dr. Palmer’s husband was able to take Mark to an outside counselor to support him. However, on the 2 days, Mark attended school, Dr. Palmer’s husband had to pick him up early as Mark went to the nurses’ office, stating he did not feel well.

During the meeting, Dr. Palmer shared her concerns with Dr. Benjamin, stating that her son was the victim of the following student infractions: sexual harassment, harassment connected to Mark’s disability, bullying, and intimidation by other students. Furthermore, Dr. Palmer reiterated that the students who pulled down her son’s shorts in front of 40 other students only received an In School Detention. She wanted both students out of her son’s physical education class. Dr. Palmer ended her statement by sharing with Dr. Benjamin that Mark’s anxiety and depression have escalated since the event, and he does not want to attend school. Mark’s attendance has substantially decreased as he has become withdrawn and apathetic about school. Dr. Benjamin appeared sympathetic and waited to respond to Dr. Palmer until she was finished talking.

Dr. Benjamin apologized to Dr. Palmer for the entire situation. Then, Dr. Benjamin assured Dr. Palmer that she would personally go to Davidson High School and speak with Mr. Bennett and look at student statements and the video posted on the internet. Then, she would contact Dr. Palmer in a few days and determine if Mark was a victim of sexual harassment, bullying, and intimidation. Before closing, Dr. Benjamin reiterated to Dr. Palmer that she would be unable to share the issued discipline of the two students that pulled down Mark’s shorts and the student(s) that videotaped the incident and posted it on the internet.

As promised, Dr. Benjamin met with Mr. Bennett, reviewed all pertinent information about the case, and concluded the Davidson High School Administration team appropriately handled the situation. The Superintendent reviewed all student statements and the Video and even spoke to the students that pulled down Mark’s shorts during class. The two students affirmed their written statements and stated their intent was not to be malicious but to have a little fun. After discussing the situation with the students and Mr. Bennett, Dr. Benjamin returned to her office and contacted Dr. Palmer via phone.

Superintendent Discussion With Parent

Dr. Benjamin explained to Dr. Palmer that she examined all facts from the disciplinary situation and fully supported Mr. Bennett and the administration at Davidson High School. Dr. Benjamin explained that she viewed the video of the act, reviewed student statements, and personally spoke to the two students who pulled down Mark’s shorts. Dr. Benjamin concurred that appropriate student discipline was issued, and this situation had not violated any sexual harassment policy, bullying, or intimidation policy, nor harassment based on student disability. She elaborated on the incident and clarified for Dr. Palmer that a student must belong to a protective class for harassment, bullying, and intimidation to occur. Dr. Palmer reminded Dr. Benjamin that her son has an IEP and students with an IEP are a protected class under the law. Dr. Benjamin immediately stated that the two students did not target her son because of his IEP; therefore, the incident did not meet the standard for HIB.

Furthermore, Dr. Benjamin declined Dr. Palmer’s requests to remove the two students from the physical education class. Dr. Palmer, irritated and upset, informed the Superintendent that she would contact the Board of Education President to request a meeting in closed session. In frustration, Dr. Benjamin reminded Dr. Palmer that Mr. Bennett informed her [Superintendent] that Mark and the Palmer parents declined the offer to participate in the CARES 4 Kids committee, which would have provided the Palmers with an opportunity to be a part of the solution. Dr. Palmer, who was clearly upset about the comment from Dr. Benjamin, was adamant that her son was a victim and justice must be served. Dr. Palmer realized that the only possible remedy to this situation was to fight for her son and decided to pursue a solution with the Board of Education.

Discussion With the Board of Education

The next day, Dr. Palmer called the CSD Board of Education secretary, requesting to speak to the Board of Education in closed session. She informed the board secretary that she would speak about the HIB violation her son experienced at Davidson High School. Dr. Palmer was unsatisfied with the outcome and response she received from the school administration and subsequently wanted to discuss her concerns with the CSD Board of Education. The board secretary thanked Dr. Palmer for her request and informed her that she would communicate her request to Dr. Benjamin and the Board President. Immediately after hanging up the phone, the Board of Education secretary left her desk and walked to Dr. Benjamin’s office to inform her that Dr. Palmer requested a closed-session meeting with the Clarke Board of Education in closed session.

Dr. Palmer shook her head and told the board secretary, “I am not surprised by this request, as this parent warned me that she would continue to pursue justice for her son.” Next, Dr. Palmer informed the CSD Board of Education secretary that she would contact the Board President and Dr. Palmer directly. Next, Dr. Palmer contacted CSD Board of Education’s secretary, Mr. Gallagher.

Mr. Gallagher, the 13-year veteran of the CSD Board of Education and current president, had a reputation for using a laissez-faire leadership (Burgett, 2014) approach when parent complaints were brought to the board of education. Mr. Gallagher believed that the purpose of the board of education was to assure that school district leaders were good stewards of public tax dollars and provide support to the school superintendent. Dr. Benjamin and Mr. Gallagher had a trusting and transparent relationship.

During the phone conversation, Dr. Benjamin provided Mr. Gallagher with all pertinent information, including student statements, disciplinary consequences, and all of the action steps taken and communicated to Dr. Palmer. Also, Dr. Benjamin stated that she did not approve of Dr. Palmer attending a closed-session meeting with the Board of Education but preferred that Dr. Palmer voice her concerns and grievances during the open session of the meeting, where community members are allocated 3 minutes to voice their concerns as long as the parental request is made a week in advance of the bi-monthly scheduled board meetings. Mr. Gallagher agreed with Dr. Benjamin that this would be the best course of action. Dr. Benjamin thanked Mr. Gallagher and said she would contact Dr. Palmer this afternoon.

Superintendent Follow-Up Discussion With Parent

As promised in her meeting with Mr. Gallagher, Dr. Benjamin, Superintendent, called Dr. Palmer, the parent of Mark. Dr. Benjamin informed Dr. Palmer that her request to attend a closed-session meeting with the Board of Education to voice her concerns about how the school administration did not protect Mark from harassment, intimidation, and bullying was denied. Dr. Palmer was astonished that a board of education would deny her closed-session access; this denial was a farce. During Dr. Palmer’s rant, Dr. Benjamin informed Dr. Palmer that she had the right to speak to the CSD Board of Education in an open session for 3 minutes at the next board meeting in 1 week. Dr. Palmer, still extremely upset, informed Dr. Benjamin that she would speak with her husband and determine if they would accept the 3 minutes or pursue legal avenues. Dr. Palmer hung up the phone.

Relevant Themes in the Case

Themes in this case study illustrate (a) administrators need to be educated and versed in Title IX violations resulting in Harassment, Bullying, and Intimidation, (b) the need for administrators to train teachers to be vigilant with supervision during class, (c) administrators need to create a plan to deter or prevent students from video recording students during the school day without consent, (d) administrators need to conduct school, and district-wide training sessions with students and staff about the harmful effects of harassment, intimidation, and bullying (e) teachers need to be trained regarding appropriate locker room supervision, (f) administrators need to review the relevance of contacting parents when any situation out of the ordinary transpires, particularly for students in special education.

The case study focuses on a parent complaint to the Board of Education. The parent communicated several concerns during a board of education meeting in an open public session. The parent claimed that her tenth-grade son was a victim of sexual harassment, bullying, and intimidation during a physical education class. The parent informed the Board of Education her son’s Title IX rights were violated and not upheld by the school district. The parent followed the chain of command and met with the school administration and the Superintendent of Schools. She was not satisfied with the Superintendent of the school’s response to the matter. The parent elected to pursue a solution with the Board of Education.

Federal and state governments dictate that public school districts adopt policies prohibiting harassment, intimidation, or bullying. Although schools may adopt such policies, administrators are hard-pressed to reduce or eliminate bullying, harassment, or intimidation among students, which has steadily increased since 2002 (Fu et al., 2013, p. 3).

Student bullying, harassment, and intimidation are common challenges in school environments. Future district and building-level administrators will gain experience by reviewing, analyzing, and formulating theoretical solutions in addressing peer-to-peer harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB). Researchers have shown that “peer sexual harassment can have long-term psychological effects on student victims” (Eckes, 2006, p. 36). These inappropriate interactions may be elevated for students with disabilities. Despite government efforts, students with disabilities are more likely to be victims of bullying, harassment, and intimidation than regular education students (Lhamon, 2020). The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has taken the initiative since 1973 to protect the rights of students with disabilities and their rights to a FAPE. In light of these efforts, almost “80%” of students may be bullied and harassed in public schools (Eckes, 2006, p. 36). School administrators, teachers, and Boards of Education should be informed, trained, and assessed about the harmful effects of bullying, harassment, and intimidation from student to student. Furthermore, educational stakeholders should familiarize themselves with the “Davis Factors,” local Board of Education policies about HIB, Title IX, Title II, Section 504, and the rights of students with IEP.

Section 504 and Title II outlined the possible consequences school districts may receive if they do not adequately investigate, figure out the events, or are aware of a student in special education being harassed or bullied because of a disability (United States Department of Education, 2014). The U.S. Department of Education highlights important resources, scenarios, and a comprehensive overview for schools with ways to address the mistreatment of disabled students. In addition, the OCR outlines the following prongs for schools when investigating a possible disability-based harassment infringement under Section 504 and Title II: “(1) a student is bullied based on a disability; (2) the bullying is sufficiently serious about creating a hostile environment; (3) school officials know or should know about the bullying; and (4) the school does not respond appropriately” (United States Department of Education, 2014). If a school or district fails to address one of the four prongs mentioned above in protecting disabled students’ right to a FAPE, then litigation or possibly an OCR investigation will occur (U.S. Department of Education). Therefore, it is essential for teachers and school administrators to closely observe and determine why an IEP student’s academic performance, attendance, and behavior changes during a school year once they have been a victim of bullying, intimidation, or harassment.

Sexual Harassment

According to Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999), public schools are responsible for addressing sexual harassment when the inappropriate act is among students. Therefore, the school is responsible for investigating when a student reports to a teacher or school administrator that they are being sexually harassed by another student. Furthermore, if a school discovers through the investigation process that a student did, in fact, sexually harass another student, the school must appropriately remedy the situation. The Davis case used five factors that an accuser must use to demonstrate harassment. First, the accuser must show they belong to a “protected group” (Romano, 2001, p. 5). Second, the accuser must demonstrate that they received “unwelcome sexual harassment” (Romano, 2001, p. 5). Third, the accuser must show the harassment was “based on sex” (Romano, 2001, p. 5). Fourth, the accuser must show the harassment was “sufficiently” severe or prevalent (Romano, 2001, p. 5). Fifth and finally, the accuser must show that there is some “liability” on the school administration for not addressing the sexual harassment (Romano, 2001, p. 5).

Title IX

Title IX: On November 23, 2018, the Department of Education released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that altered the Education Department’s stance on sexual harassment (Cantalupo, 2019, p. 304). According to the NPRM, school organizations would no longer be required to use the “preponderance of the evidence standard of proof” but rather use a “clear and convincing” (C&C) prong approach when addressing sexual harassment claims by students. In addition, the law intended to guarantee accusers were provided their “Due Process” rights (Cantalupo, 2019, p. 304). School administrators are encouraged to be vigilant and attentive to student complaints regarding sexual harassment. Administrators must investigate every student complaint by meeting with students, requesting student written statements, disseminating appropriate school disciplinary consequences to assailants, and contacting parents. Depending on the severity or level of the harassment, schools may want to consider implementing restorative justice models to create an empathetic and positive school culture.

Dr. Benjamin, Superintendent of CSD, created a task force to address the HIB challenges in her school district. She delegated this task force to Mr. Bennett, the principal of Davidson High School. Mr. Bennett asked the Palmer Family, including Mark, the high school student, and victim, in this case, to participate in the CARES 4 Kids task force, but the Palmers politely declined the offer. Scholars have analyzed the benefits between educational leaders and school culture (Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996). Research has illustrated that effective school leaders created systems that “empower parents and other community members to engage in governance and decision-making” (Firestone & Riehl, 2006, p. 63). Based on the excessive HIB infractions at Davidson High School, Dr. Benjamin, with the support of Mr. Bennett, attempted to create an inclusive school community task force and, equally as important, asked a new family, including a special education student, to participate in the process. However, the family declined the offer. Even though the school district attempted to be inclusive, perhaps other strategies to inspire disenfranchised families like the Palmers to participate. As a result, the Palmers lost trust in the education system. For example, educational leaders may consider establishing models, such as a university for parents. A parent university may inspire disenfranchised school families by educating parents and building “trust between the schools” and families (Lunenburg & Irby, 2023, p. 15). As Hoffman-Skoog (2022) claims that “partnerships between schools and parents are not always easy,” but families are more apt to participate when the school’s standards for achievement and conduct are aligned with their own. The following questions and activities are presented to direct your thinking on policies, goal setting, parental involvement, inclusivity, and exploring research-based strategies to improve school culture.