Note: To print this issue, you may need to choose the "shrink to fit" option in the print window.
Policy implications of the bullying bill • The Ohio Core: a refresher • Student First Amendment rights and student publications • Auditor of state unveils new fraud reporting system • Sample policies included with this issue
Policy implications of the bullying bill
by Megan Greulich, policy consultant
House Bill (HB) 116, the 2012 bullying bill also known as the Jessica Logan Act, was signed by Gov. John Kasich on Feb. 2. The bill requires districts to update their hazing and bullying policies by November 2012, and extends districts’ responsibilities on bullying, particularly the language that must be included in hazing and bullying policies and regulations. OSBA has updated its current policy language, which already covered many of the changes. Let’s review the additions to the existing requirements.
The first addition is the definition of “electronic act.” Ohio Revised Code Section (RC) 3313.666(A) defines electronic act as an act committed through the use of a cellular telephone, computer, pager, personal communication device or other electronic communication device. Beyond the new definition, the bill also adds “electronic act” to the definition of harassment, intimidation or bullying.
Previously, under RC 3313.666(C), the district was required to include board policy language dealing with hazing and bullying in any student handbook. That language remains, and HB 116 extends this section to now require that the policy and an explanation of the seriousness of bullying by electronic means be made available to students and their custodial parents or guardians. This places additional responsibilities on the district regarding policy notification. It is important for districts to begin complying with these additional notification requirements.
HB 116 also adds two new requirements under RC 3313.666(D). First, to the extent state or federal funds are appropriated for this purpose, each board must require that all students enrolled in the district be provided annually with age-appropriate instruction — as determined by the board — on the board’s policy, including a written or verbal discussion of the consequences for policy violations. This is only required where state or federal funds have been appropriated for this purpose. If the funds are made available, it is up to the board to determine the appropriate instruction that should be provided to students.
Second, RC 3313.666(D) states that each board must require that a written statement describing the policy and consequences for policy violations be sent to each student’s custodial parent or guardian once each school year. HB 116 also provides that this statement may be sent with regular student report cards or delivered electronically. Be sure that your district complies with this new requirement.
Next, HB 116 requires that training on the board’s harassment, intimidation or bullying policy be incorporated into the in-service training required by RC 3319.073(A). Additionally, the bill extends training on the district’s harassment, intimidation or bullying policy under RC 3313.667 to school employees and volunteers who have direct contact with students and are not subject to the in-service training requirements of RC 3319.073. Make sure the appropriate employees in your district are receiving this important training.
Requirements for board policy
The bullying bill adds several requirements to the language that must appear in your district’s board policy manual. RC 3313.666(B) requires boards of education to adopt a policy prohibiting harassment, intimidation or bullying, and HB 116 adds new requirements and extends existing requirements.
First, the policy must include a statement prohibiting harassment, intimidation or bullying of any student on school property, on a school bus or at school-sponsored events. The bill extended this language by adding “on a school bus.” The bullying bill also added the requirement that the statement expressly provide for the possibility of suspension of a student found responsible for harassment, intimidation or bullying by an electronic act. OSBA’s existing language covered these requirements, but the language has been updated for clarification.
Next, districts are required to include in board policy the definition of harassment, intimidation or bullying from RC 3313.666(A). This requirement is not new, but HB 116 updated the definition of harassment, intimidation or bullying to include electronic acts, which must be added to your existing language.
The policy must include a procedure for reporting prohibited incidents. School personnel are required to report prohibited incidents of which they are aware to the school principal or other designated administrator. These requirements are not new and should already be reflected in your existing language.
The requirement that the custodial parent or guardian of any student involved in a prohibited incident be notified and have access to any written reports pertaining to the prohibited incident, to the extent permitted by law, is an existing requirement that is only slightly adjusted by the bullying bill. HB 116 clarifies that this notification is provided to the “custodial parent or guardian” rather than simply “parents or guardians.” OSBA has made terminology updates in the sample language and you should check your existing language to ensure it includes the accurate terminology.
The policy also must include a procedure for documenting any prohibited incident that is reported and a procedure for responding to and investigating any reported incident. These are existing requirements that should already appear in your board policy manual.
Next, the policy is required to include a strategy for protecting a victim or other person from new or additional harassment, intimidation or bullying, and from retaliation following the report. This is an existing requirement, slightly adjusted by the bullying bill, which adds “or other person” and “new or.” Additionally, HB 116 requires that this strategy include a means for a person to anonymously report an incident. OSBA has updated the sample language to clarify these changes.
The policy must include a disciplinary procedure for any student found guilty of harassment, intimidation or bullying that does not infringe on the student’s rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This existing requirement has not been changed and should already be addressed in your existing policy language.
HB 116 requires the board policy to include a statement prohibiting students from deliberately making false reports of harassment, intimidation or bullying, and a disciplinary procedure for any student responsible for deliberately making a false report of that nature. This requirement is new, and districts need to update policy language to address this issue. OSBA added a statement to its sample policy to reiterate this new requirement.
Finally, the district administration is required to provide the board of education president a semiannual written summary of all reported incidents and, to the extent permitted by law, post the summary of those incidents on its website, if the district has one. Since this requirement has not been changed, it should already be addressed in your current policy.
OSBA’s existing sample language covered many of HB 116’s new requirements, but we have made several adjustments to ensure compliance with the new requirements. The updated language is available for download with this edition of PDQ.
Bullying is an important issue, and the law surrounding it is ever-changing to address new issues as they arise. Be sure to update your existing policy to reflect the bullying bill changes and remain compliant with the new requirements.
OSBA will be hosting a Management Development Series workshop on the topic at its Columbus office on May 16 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., which will provide you with helpful information on the issues surrounding bullying and what you can do to prevent it in your district.
by Kenna Haycox, policy consultant
The Ohio Core was established to prepare Ohioans for the demands of the 21st century. The core requirements for graduation were designed to create a stronger partnership between K-12 schools and postsecondary institutions and reduce the need for remediation at the college level. Because the Ohio Core will be in effect beginning with the graduating class of 2014, it is important for district leadership to be aware of the specific requirements and be able to effectively communicate and implement these requirements.
The Ohio Core requirements for graduation, totaling 20 units, as outlined in Ohio Revised Code Section (RC) 3313.603(C) for students who entered ninth grade for the first time on or after July 1, 2010, are:
• English/language arts — four units
• mathematics — four units
• social studies — three units
• science — three units
• health — one-half unit
• physical education — one-half unit
• electives — five units
There also are some important requirements for mathematics, social studies, science, health, physical education, fine arts and electives outlined in the Ohio Core:
• Mathematics: In addition to increasing the number of required math units, students must now complete one of these units in Algebra II or the equivalent. It is important for students, parents and teachers to understand the level of math needed and ensure that the students are taking the appropriate sequence of courses to earn the Algebra II or equivalent credit.
• Social studies: These units must include one-half unit of American history and one-half unit of American government. The study of economics and financial literacy must be integrated into the social studies curriculum or into the content of another class so that every high school student receives instruction in these concepts. Schools are to use public-private partnerships, resources and materials that exist in business and industry, and the centers for economics in education at postsecondary institutions to develop the curriculum. The requirements for the study of economics and financial literacy are outlined in the social studies academic content standards adopted by the State Board of Education. If districts choose to integrate this course of study into another course, it is important to review the social studies standards related to financial literacy, entrepreneurship and economics as a model to follow.
• Science: The three required units must be inquiry-based laboratory experiences that engage students in asking valid scientific questions and gathering and analyzing information. The units must include one unit of physical sciences, one unit of life sciences and one unit of advanced studies in one or more of the following:
• chemistry, physics or other physical science;
• advanced biology or other life science;
• astronomy, physical geology or other earth or space science.
The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) classifies an advanced course as containing content beyond that required by the Ohio Graduation Tests (OGT) and designed around benchmarks at the 11th- and/or 12th-grade Ohio Academic Content Standards in science. As students are scheduling their science classes, it is important to help them understand which courses meet the advanced science requirements and ensure that these courses are appropriately coded to reflect the advanced level.
• Health: Instruction must include nutrition and the benefits of nutritious foods and physical activity for overall health.
• Physical education: RC 3313.603(L) permits a district to adopt a policy to exempt students from the physical education requirements who participate in high school interscholastic athletics, marching band or cheerleading for at least two full seasons, or who participate JROTC for at least two full school years. An important distinction between the two exemptions is that students who are exempt based on participation in interscholastic athletics, marching band or cheerleading are required to complete one-half unit in another course of study; students who are exempt due to JROTC participation may use the credit earned through the program to satisfy this requirement.
• Fine arts: RC 3313.603(K) requires students to complete two semesters or the equivalent of fine arts to graduate from high school unless they are pursuing a career-technical instructional track as determined by the board or are participating in the Ohio Core opt-out. These units may be counted toward the required five elective units. Fine arts course work may be completed during grades seven through 12, and high school credit can be granted for courses completed in grades seven and eight if the course is taught by a licensed/certificated individual who is certified to teach high school and the course is designated by the board as meeting the high school curriculum requirements.
• Electives: The five units for electives must come from one or a combination of the following: foreign language; fine arts; business; career-technical education; family and consumer sciences; technology; agricultural education; or JROTC. Electives also can come from English language arts, mathematics, science or social studies courses not otherwise required. If a district chooses to require additional elective units, it can permit these units to be completed in courses such as additional physical education, but these courses do not fall into one of the categories outlined in RC 3313.603(C)(7) and cannot be counted toward the required five units for the Ohio Core. If your district requires additional elective credits and permits these to be earned in courses other than those outlined in the Ohio Core, it is important that this distinction is made clear when communicating graduation requirements to your students and parents.
Additional considerations
Credit flexibility: In accordance with RC 3313.603(J), students may earn credits for high school graduation based on demonstrating subject area competence instead of, or in combination with, completing hours of classroom instruction. These credits may be earned for any subject and the district may not set a cap on the number of courses or credits that a student can earn through credit flexibility. Districts are to comply with the provisions of the State Board’s credit flexibility plan. Credits earned must be reflected on a student’s transcript in compliance with the plan set forth by the State Board. Districts should allow for graded options for courses completed, and these grades are to appear as they would for any other course and be figured into the students’ overall grade point average.
Advanced course work prior to ninth grade: The district may permit students to earn high school credits for courses taken in middle school provided they are taught by high school-certified teachers and are designated by the board to meet the high school curriculum requirements. Eligible grades and credits earned prior to ninth grade are to be recorded on the student’s high school transcript.
Dual enrollment: The Ohio Core requires students to be provided with opportunities to participate in a dual enrollment program and earn college credit while attending high school. These opportunities may come through dual enrollment programs or accelerated learning programs. The most commonly known dual enrollment program students participate in is a Postsecondary Enrollment Options Program (PSEO). It is important for each district to provide these opportunities in compliance with state regulations and plans, and give students and parents the appropriate guidance related to these opportunities.
Integration of technology: Districts are to integrate technology into learning experiences across the curriculum to maximize efficiency, enhance learning and prepare students for success in the 21st century. It is important for districts to integrate technology, to the extent possible. This integration may be in the form of distance or Web-based courses or supplementing classroom instruction with technology. Districts are encouraged to use opportunities provided by the eTech Ohio Commission, the Ohio Learning Network, education technology centers, public television stations and other public and private providers.
Ohio Core opt-out: RC 3313.603(D) provides an opt-out for the Ohio Core. The procedure is outlined in detail in the code. Additionally, the February 2012 issue of PDQ has more in-depth information on the Ohio Core opt-out.
Students with disabilities: ODE provides some helpful guidance on options for students with disabilities who are required to complete the Ohio Core. Three options are outlined:
• As part of the transition planning process, an individualized education program (IEP) team may determine, based on the student’s postsecondary goals, that he or she will complete the Ohio Core course work. This should be noted in the IEP, and if accommodations are needed in these courses, these also should be noted in the IEP.
• Based on the student’s postsecondary goals, he or she may choose to use the opt-out provision provided for in RC 3313.603(D).
• The IEP team may determine that a student will meet graduation requirements solely by meeting the goals on the student’s IEP as permitted in RC 3313.61(A)(1).
Testing requirements
To be granted their diplomas, students must pass the state-mandated tests in addition to completing the Ohio Core. Currently, students who are required to take the Ohio Core must pass all five sections of the OGT to receive their high school diplomas unless otherwise exempted (RC 3313.614). RC 3301.0712 outlines the college and work-ready assessment system that will replace the OGT. The effective date of the requirement to meet the standards required by the college and work-ready assessment has not been determined. When these assessments are finalized and the time line determined, they will replace the OGT.
These new assessments will consist of a nationally standardized assessment that measures college and career readiness that is selected jointly by the state superintendent and the Ohio Board of Regents chancellor. There will be additional end-of-course examinations in science, math, English/language arts and social studies. The discussion of assessments has been an integral part of the conversation on the transition to the Common Core. Since the transition to the Common Core standards is to be complete in the 2014-15 school year, we may receive more definitive information on the transition to the college and work-ready assessments as a requirement for graduation.
Common Core Content Standards and the Ohio Core
There has been much preparation and planning for the transition to the Common Core Content Standards, and districts are reaching the end of the transition process for the 2014-15 academic year. While these content standards are not addressed in the Ohio Core graduation requirements, the two are closely related, as the transition to these standards affects the courses that are taught to fulfill graduation requirements. The intent of the Common Core standards is to prepare students for success in college and beyond, and to raise the bar on educational standards. These new standards integrate well within the requirements of the Ohio Core, as both seek to prepare students for college and careers in the 21st century. The greatest impact that districts may see related to graduation requirements as a result of the Common Core standards is the transition to the new assessment requirements addressed earlier and the resulting impact on graduation requirements. For additional guidance on the Common Core standards, visit http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicID=1699&TopicRelationID=1696.
Policy implications
The district graduation requirements outlined in board policy should reflect both the Ohio Core and the current graduation requirements for students who are not required to complete the Ohio Core. OSBA policy IKF, Graduation Requirements, provides information on both the Ohio Core and the district-specific graduation requirements. As the final groups of students not subject to the Ohio Core requirements graduate, OSBA will provide an updated policy to reflect only the Ohio Core minimum requirements. Districts are still permitted to require additional credits outside the 20 mandated for graduation under the Ohio Core. If your district has additional requirements for graduation, it is important to outline these specifically in your board policy. Furthermore, if your district-specific requirements for students entering high school pre- or post-July 1, 2010, are different, this distinction needs to be made clear in your board policy.
Summary
As is often the case in education, this is a transitional time. High schools currently have students subject to and exempt from the Ohio Core, and while this transition is occurring, there is also the transition to the Common Core Standards. It is important to clearly understand who is and is not required to complete the Ohio Core. You may have students who are trying to graduate early who are required to complete the Ohio Core or students who are graduating late and would not be subject to the Ohio Core requirements. It is important to clearly reflect the different requirements in your board policy and student handbooks and provide support to students and parents about what they are required to take, particularly regarding math, science or electives, as well as to help students successfully graduate on time. Additional information and guidance on the Ohio Core is available through ODE.
Student First Amendment rights and student publications
by Megan Greulich, policy consultant
Student First Amendment rights are a touchy subject. We know students have limited First Amendment rights, but the waters tend to muddy once we start discussing how far districts’ restrictions can go on issues like student speech, particularly when that speech appears in a student newspaper. There are several factors to consider before restricting student speech in student publications. The best place to begin is by considering student First Amendment rights in general.
There are three main federal court cases that deal with student First Amendment rights. The first, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), represents the initial standard for dealing with student First Amendment rights. In Tinker, the court developed a two-prong test for determining whether student speech is protected under the First Amendment and, if so, how much protection is afforded to that speech.
The first prong of the test requires the court to determine if the student speech is protected under the First Amendment. To make this determination, the court considers whether the student intended to convey a particularized message and whether the intended message is the type of speech entitled to protection under the First Amendment. Once the first prong has been satisfied, the court moves to the second prong.
The second prong requires the court to consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that those who view the speech in question will understand the message. If both prongs are satisfied, the speech is entitled to some constitutional protection. Tinker is a very liberal approach to student First Amendment rights, as it allows most student speech to be protected. When Tinker applies and some restriction is appropriate, the allowable restriction is that of reasonable time, place and manner.
The next case dealing with student First Amendment rights is Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), which applies when the speech in question is considered vulgar, indecent or disruptive. In Fraser, the court noted that although students have First Amendment rights, they are not equal to the First Amendment rights afforded to adults. Under Fraser, the court found that when speech is construed as being school-sponsored or school-endorsed, the district should have the ability to regulate it if it is vulgar, indecent or disruptive. Applicable speech can be punished and prohibited in classrooms, assemblies and other school-sponsored educational activities because such speech runs contrary to the school’s educational objectives. It is important to remember that this reasoning is only applicable where the speech in question is vulgar, indecent or disruptive.
Finally, Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988), deals specifically with student First Amendment rights regarding student publications and, more specifically, school-sponsored or school-endorsed student publications. The finding in Hazelwood arose out of the court’s concern for balancing students’ First Amendment rights against the school’s ability to do its job. The basic considerations under Hazelwood are if the speech would be allowed as part of a school activity or function, and whether it would be contrary to the basic educational mission of the school. In Hazelwood, the court stated that a district’s ability to restrict student speech is dependent upon six factors, which are used to determine both the nature of the student publication and whether it can be characterized as a forum for public expression.
There are three types of forums of public expression: the traditional public forum, the designated or limited public forum and the nonpublic forum. A traditional public forum arises when the publication is not school-sponsored. When dealing with a traditional public forum, the speech is granted the highest level of constitutional protection, and the district may only restrict the speech if it disrupts the educational experience, as noted under Tinker.
A designated or limited public forum arises when the publication is school-sponsored, but under a limited amount of school control. When dealing with a designated or limited public forum, the speech is granted a mid-level of constitutional protection. This means the district may only restrict the speech through reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions.
Nonpublic forums arise when the school exhibits complete control over the publication. When dealing with a nonpublic forum, the speech is granted the lowest level of constitutional protection, and the district has far more leeway to restrict speech in the publication.
To determine the level of control exhibited and the type of public forum, the court in Hazelwood considered the following six factors:
• whether the students produce the newspaper as a part of the high school curriculum;
• whether the students receive credits and/or grades for completing the course;
• whether a faculty member oversaw the production of the newspaper;
• whether the school deviated from its policy of producing the paper as a part of the educational curriculum;
• the degree of control the administration and faculty advisor exercise;
• the school board’s applicable written policy statements.
The district’s policy is crucial when determining the level of public forum and the level of control the district maintains over the student publication. Additionally, once the policy is adopted, compliance with and implementation of the policy by administrators is necessary to maintain that level of control.
The degree of control the school retains over the publication is a major factor in determining the school’s ability to restrict its content. When the school retains control over every aspect of the publication and its content, it has not created a designated public forum and, therefore, retains more control over restricting the speech included in the publication. If the forum is reserved as a supervised learning experience, it is not a public forum and school officials may regulate the contents in any reasonable manner. The six factors determine the district’s ability to control content, so districts should take a proactive stance on the six determining factors by adopting and implementing effective policy language to govern school-sponsored and school-endorsed publications.
There is also the issue of "underground" publications, those not sponsored or endorsed by the school that are distributed on school grounds. The Tinker two-prong test should be applied to determine if these publications could be restricted. Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions may be applied if the speech can be restricted under Tinker. Alternately, in the case of underground publications that are developed and distributed off school grounds, there is very little the district can do to regulate the speech.
It is critical that boards adopt effective policy language on this topic and ensure that administrators effectively and accurately implement it. If the policy is not being implemented, a court could find that you have opened the publication to a public or limited public forum. Doing so can prevent you from restricting speech, which may contradict your educational mission. A student publications policy is best coded as IGDB and should be cross-referenced with policy JF, Student Rights and Responsibilities. Putting solid policy language in place can protect your administration by allowing it to make reasonable decisions about what information can and cannot be printed in student publications, especially those that carry district sponsorship and are considered to reflect the district’s ideals.
Auditor of state unveils new fraud reporting system
by Renee L. Fambro, deputy director of labor relations
In March, House Bill (HB) 166 was signed into law. This legislation requires the Ohio auditor of state to establish a fraud reporting system to handle reports of fraud within Ohio’s public offices. In addition, it extends the whistle-blower protections found in Ohio Revised Code Section (RC) 124.341 to employees who file a fraud complaint with the auditor’s office and places notification requirements on all public employers.
Auditor of state requirements
HB 166 requires the auditor of state to maintain a system for reporting fraud, including the misuse and misappropriation of public money by any public office or public official. Newly enacted RC 117.103 provides for an anonymous complaint process for all Ohio residents and all employees of any public office. The complaint can be made through a toll-free telephone number, the auditor’s website or mail sent to the office.
RC 117.103 further requires the auditor of state to maintain a log of all complaints. The log shall include the date the complaint was received, a general description of the nature of the complaint, the name of the public office or agency against whom the complaint is directed and a general description of the status of the review by the auditor.
Lastly, the auditor’s office is required to confirm that all public offices have properly notified new employees. There are two ways this can be done. First, public offices can require new employees to sign forms acknowledging that they were informed of the fraud reporting system. In the alternative, the fraud reporting system information may be provided in the employee manual or handbook. The employee should sign a form verifying his or her receipt of the manual or handbook.
Whistle-blower protections
RC 124.341 already provides whistle-blower protections to civil service employees who file a written report with their supervisor or appointing authority about a violation of federal or state statutes, rules or regulations, or the misuse of public resources. HB 166 now specifically extends the same protections to civil service employees who file a complaint with the auditor’s fraud reporting system. Under this law, these employees are protected against certain retaliatory or disciplinary actions.
As the law currently reads, these protections are only for civil service employees, which for school districts primarily means city school districts. OSBA has sought clarification from the auditor’s office on whether the protections are intended for all public employees, which would mirror the language in RC 117.103.
Requirements for public employers
This legislation has a direct impact on all public employers, including public and community schools. On its effective date, May 4, 2012, all public employers are required to make their employees aware of the fraud reporting system. In addition, all new employees must confirm that they have received information on the fraud reporting system within 30 days of beginning employment.
Policy implications
OSBA policy EBCE, Protection for Reporting Safety & Fraud Violations (Whistleblowers), has been updated to include protections for employees who report fraud violations. In addition, the corresponding regulation, EBCE-R, has been updated to include the new fraud reporting system with the state auditor’s office, as well as the whistle-blower protections for civil service employees under RC 124.341. Finally, two exhibits have been added. EBCE-E-1 is the sample language provided by the auditor of state’s office that can serve as the notification of the fraud reporting system. EBCE-E-2 is the sample acknowledgement form for employees to sign indicating that they have received the required information about the fraud reporting system. Both the policy and regulation have an updated title to reflect the inclusion of the fraud reporting language and protections. The updated language and new exhibits are available for download. And, remember, when you update your board policies make sure to update the section index, cross-references and code finder index to reflect the new titles.
Compliance
The new law requires that all employees be notified of the fraud reporting system by May 4, 2012. For existing employees, schools should use whatever means they normally use when they must communicate with all employees (email, employee mailbox, etc.) Schools also should require their employees to sign and verify that they received notification about the fraud reporting system.
For new employees, boards have two notification choices. The first option is to add the fraud reporting system information and sign-off form to employee handbooks. The second option is to provide the form as part of the orientation packet for new employees. Whichever option your board chooses, make sure that your employees sign the form verifying that they received this information.
The auditor’s office has provided sample forms for the notification of the fraud reporting system, as well as the acknowledgement form for employees to sign. Again, these forms can be found as exhibits EBCE-E-1 and EBCE-E-2, but they can also be found on the auditor’s website.
Sample policies included with this issue
Note: Policies and/or regulations marked with an * are required. Check to confirm that you have a policy and/or regulation.
New policies/regulations/exhibits (provided for information)
EBCE-E-1, Protection for Reporting Safety and Fraud Violations (Whistleblowers)
EBCE-E-2, Protection for Reporting Safety and Fraud Violations (Whistleblowers)
Revised polices/regulations (add new language shown in bold type and delete language in italic type)
EBCE, Protection for Reporting Safety and Fraud Violations (Whistleblowers)
EBCE-R, Protection for Reporting Safety and Fraud Violations (Whistleblowers)
IGDB, Student Publications
*IKF, Graduation Requirements
*JFCF, Hazing and Bullying (Harassment, Intimidation and Dating Violence)
*JFCF-R, Hazing and Bullying (Harassment, Intimidation and Dating Violence)
Other policies (provided for information only; feel free to use if interested)
JF, Student Rights and Responsibilities