Board of Trustees Capistrano Unified School District Gary Pritchard, Ph. D. President John M. Alpay Vice President*

Not all Orange County schools use the same technology, procedures, and codes to record bullying or harassment incidents. Response to Finding 1: The District agrees partially with this finding. The District agrees that not all Orange County schools use the same technology and procedures to record bullying or harassment incidents. Different districts use different databases and internal procedures to track bullying complaints. With regard to the codes used to record bullying or harassment incidents, prior to July 1, 2012, Education Code §48900(r) defined bullying by reference to sexual harassment (Education Code §48900.2), hate violence (Education Code §48900.3), and harassment, threats, and intimidation (Education Code §48900.4). The law did not contain a stand-alone definition of bullying. However, as of July 1, 2012, Education Code §48900(r) provides a stand-alone definition of the term "bullying," which is Assembly Bill (AB) 1156. School districts throughout California are bound by this statute.

New legislation takes effect July 1, 2012, and broadens the definition of "Bullying." Response to Finding 2: The District agrees that AB 1156 provides a broader definition of "bullying" than was contained in prior law.

Education Code §234.1 requiring posting of anti-bullying/anti-harassment policies in prescribed areas was not evident in all schools visited. SERVING THE COMMUNITIES OF: ALISO VIEJO • COTO DE CAZA • DANA POINT • LADERA RANCH • LAGUNA NIGUEL • LAS FLORES • MISSION VIEJO RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA • SAN CLEMENTE • SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO Correspondence to The Honorable Thomas J. Borris, Presiding Judge, re: Capistrano Unified School District's Response to 2011-12 Orange County Grand Jury Report, "Anti-Bullying Programs in Orange County Schools" September 5, 2012 Response to Finding 3: The District cannot comment on what policies are posted in all schools throughout Orange County, but can respond only on behalf of the District itself. Finding 3 combines the requirement to post anti-discrimination/anti-harassment policies in prescribed areas with the requirement to post anti-bullying policies. The requirement for school districts to post their anti-bullying policy in all schools and offices, including staff lounges and pupil government meeting rooms, was new as of July 1, 2012. Thus, the District disagrees with

Based on witness testimony, confidentiality was not maintained in a bullying incident as prescribed in California Education Code §234.1 Response to Finding 4: The Grand Jury report does not contain sufficient information to enable the District to respond to this finding, nor does it identify which school district was involved in the alleged breach of confidentiality. Therefore, the District disagrees wholly with this finding.