Cypress School District*

Not all Orange County schools use the same technology, procedures and Educational Services codes to record bullying or harassment incidents. Tracy Mouren-Laurens Response to Finding 1: The District agrees partially with this finding, as not all Orange Human Resources/ County schools use the same technology and procedures to record bullying or Instruction 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 section 48900(r) defined Directors bullying by reference to sexual harassment (Education Code section 48900.2), hate Lenette Brown violence (Education Code section 48900.3), and harassment, threats and intimidation Child Nutrition Services (Education Code section 48900.4). The law did not contain a stand-alone definition of bullying. However, as of July 1, 2012, Education Code section 48900(r) provides a Robert Daley stand-alone definition of the term "bullying." (AB 1156.) School districts throughout Maintenance & California, including Cypress School District, are bound by this statute. Operations/Transportation

New legislation takes effect July 1, 2012, and broadens the definition of Marcos Rojas "Bullying." Technology Services Response to Finding 2: The District agrees that AB 1156 provides a broader definition of "bullying" than was contained in prior law. Principals M.J. Beatty 1 The Orange County Superintendent of Schools has been directed to respond to Recommendations 4 and Carol Erbe 5. Denine Kelly Jeannette Lohrman Jane Ann Snyder Jacki Teschke Cypress School District's Response to 2011-12 Orange County Grand Jury Report, "Anti-Bullying Programs in Orange County Schools" Page Two August 14, 2012

Education Code section 234.1 requiring posting of anti-bullying/anti- harassment policies in prescribed areas was not evident in all schools visited. Response to Finding 3: This finding 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, is new as of July 1, 2012.2 Thus, the District disagrees with Finding 3 to the extent it reflects on the District's practice in regard to posting its anti-bullying policy in prescribed areas prior to July 1, 2012. In regard to the finding that the District failed to post its anti-harassment policies in prescribed areas, the District disagrees with this finding. It is the policy of the Cypress School District that a copy, once Board approved, of the District's harassment policy, BP 5145.7, and anti-bullying policy, BP 5131.2, be displayed in the main administrative building or other area where notices of District rules, regulations, procedures, and standards of conduct are posted. In addition, it will be provided on the District's website by August 17, 2012.

Based on witness testimony, confidentiality was not maintained in a bullying incident as prescribed in California Education Code section 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.