The Carson City School District has recently reported its bullying and violent incident cases are dropping. While this is true, an investigation into cases of significant violence at local elementary schools indicates this is likely due to reporting being down – not the violent incidents themselves. 

During the course of this investigation, multiple families of elementary-school aged children spoke with Carson Now, detailing a traumatic sexual assault, repeated violent incidents from “packs” of boys, and a consistent lack of action from school admin and district leadership to follow state laws and district policies established to protect their children. 

Names have been changed for victim privacy, and the names of individual schools are not mentioned for similar reasons. 

Some conversations with families were off the record and are not included in this report, but Carson Now spoke with families representing each Carson City elementary school (with the exception of the Montessori charter). 

Their stories indicate this is not a single school or admin problem, but rather a district-wide issue. 

Public comment reveals first-hand accounts on classroom violence from teachers, students

Earlier this week, dozens of parents, educators and students attended Tuesday’s school board meeting pleading for the district not to move forward with a proposal to remove social workers from the district, which would leave Carson City elementary schools without full-time mental health workers. 

Stories were shared highlighting the importance of social workers to the day-to-day operations of the schools, but they also highlighted the increasing levels of violence and behavioral issues that, according to several employees who spoke out, are occurring each day. 

I would have had to evacuate my room multiple times a month, which now destroys my whole class’ learning opportunity, as well as the class that we have to evacuate into for at least 30 minutes.

Christine Wagner is a Fritsch teacher who is in her 18th year of teaching and told the board that student behavior is becoming worse each year, with real life consequences: “Each year student conduct has become increasingly severe, aggressive, and at times violent. What was once an occasional issue involving one student has now become a daily reality involving multiple students. I have personally been spat on, I’ve had chairs, books and other objects thrown at me, and I have intervened in situations where students were attempting to harm one another. I’ve been told to shut up, called stupid, directed to ‘eff off’ and called an ‘effing bitch’ by eight-  and nine-year-olds.”

She said that staff members are being threatened with violence by students and at times, even their parents. “This currently is reality for educators … these are not isolated incidents; they occur daily across our classrooms.” 

Wagner ended her comment by stating the lack of ‘consistent accountability for students and parents in the areas of behavior, academics, homework and attendance is contributing to this growing problem.’ 

Seeliger Elementary teacher Lindsey Bly mentioned that if it weren’t for the presence of their school social worker the previous year, “I would have had to evacuate my room multiple times a month, which now destroys my whole class’ learning opportunity, as well as the class that we have to evacuate into for at least 30 minutes while that student is helped by admin-if they’re not already handling several other students in crisis.” 

In total, around a dozen public commenters identified themselves as district employees, all speaking to the rising levels of violence, behavioral issues, self-harm, suicidal and homicidal ideation and other concerning issues seen from students – most explicitly mentioning the elementary school levels. 

Several more parents, grandparents and students also spoke on the importance of school social workers while detailing what they see in the classrooms and even from their own children – aggression, hitting, and frequent “evacuations” in which entire classes of students are forced to leave a room if a student is having an emotional episode that may place other students in harm’s way. 

One public commenter told the board that while in kindergarten the prior year, her six-year-old grandchild was in the restroom at school when another student “put his hands around [their] neck and choked [them]” causing them to be terrified of returning to school or even using the bathroom. She said it took months working with a school social worker for her grandchild to process the trauma and rebuild their sense of safety. 

“​​So I ask you: what happens now, when incidents like this occur–and they will–and there is no trained professional in the building to respond?” the grandmother asked. “What happens to the students who experience trauma inside the walls of our schools?” 

However, for those who spoke with Carson Now as part of this investigation, whether or not trained professionals are on site hasn’t made a difference when the district is failing to protect their children from violence.  

Even after her son’s attacker was arrested, mom of 9-year-old sexual assault victim says district failed to report additional incidents   

In the case of one Carson City family, their lives have been irreparably damaged due to an incident that occurred at a Carson City elementary school a year ago this month. 

“Jess” (name changed for victim privacy), is a life-long Carson City resident and mother of four, including her 9-year-old son. One morning in March 2025, his school principal called her, and at first, it sounded like he and another boy had been horsing around in the bathroom. 

“At first, the principal laughed it off saying ‘Oh you know, boys will be boys, they were playing in the bathroom,’” Jess said. She was told the boys would be receiving a talking to and be sent back to class. 

However, Jess received a second phone call shortly after, which changed their lives forever. 

​​”This time, the principal advised me that the issue was more than just playing around; some inappropriate behavior that occurred,” she said. “He told me I needed to come down to the school, that an officer was also there awaiting my arrival.”

When she arrived to the school, Jess learned from her son, flanked by a victim’s advocate and an advocate from the school, that he had been sexually assaulted by another student in his grade. 

 “When I learned that my son was the victim in this case, my heart sank,” Jess said. They were escorted by law enforcement to undergo a forensic interview during which DNA was collected, photos were taken, and he was asked to relive the events during a recorded conversation. 

While Jess says that day is still the worst day of her, her son and her family’s lives, it was unfortunately only the beginning of what they would have to endure over the course of the next year. 

For starters, according to Jess, the student who assaulted her son was not removed from the school. She said that the administration “lacked protocol on what steps to take, as this had never happened before.” 

“The principal at the time while trying to make a ‘safety plan’ was leaving on vacation and [said] that it would be finalized when he got back,” Jess said. “It felt like that was a much higher priority for him than my son’s safety.” 

“I feel that the schools, and even the justice system in my opinion, have personally failed him and the other children who attend that school

Jess said that she also had to remove her son from his after-school program at a local youth club because his attacker also attended the program, and they similarly couldn’t establish any protocol or safety plan. 

“When I spoke to one of the leaders there they said ‘Unless the incident occurred on their watch or on their premises, their hands were tied,” Jess said. “I just couldn’t risk another possible incident occurring.” 

Jess said that she learned there had been multiple prior incidents involving this student prior to the sexual assault, including him bullying Jess’s youngest daughter, but he was never removed from school. 

She said that she was forced to remove all of her children from the district and switched them to a neighboring county’s district because she did not trust them to be able to keep her son safe. During a phone call, Jess said school staff floated ideas on how to handle things going forward, including keeping the boys separated at all times, and providing her son with an escort to the bathroom. She said they told her that if that sounded alright, they would draft something up when the principal returned from his vacation.  

However, Jess felt since the assault was horrific enough for the school to call law enforcement, it should have been more than enough to remove the child from the school so her children weren’t forced to leave. However, she confirmed the student was never sent home or removed from the school until his arrest five months later on charges relating to her son’s assault. 

“They never said they would remove the child until after I had signed paperwork stating we were pulling [my children] out of school out of fear for their safety,” Jess said. “That’s when they said we can see about possibly removing him if you’d like to stay with the district.” 

But it was too little, too late. She kept her son home for a week before re-enrolling him at a neighboring district, during which he exhibited anxiety, bedwetting and fear of starting a new school without his friends. He was particularly upset about no longer being able to attend choir, which wasn’t offered at his new school. 

Arrest and court proceedings

In August 2025 – five months after the assault – her son’s attacker was arrested, and Jess said her family was forced to relive the trauma repeatedly during subsequent juvenile court proceedings. 

“We had a total of three hearings, all of which were difficult to attend, forcing us to relive the horrific event in detail of what that individual did to my son that day,” Jess said. 

She said the boy’s parents pleaded with the court to release their son, arguing that he is not a criminal and poses no threat to society. 

“On the very last hearing I was not notified by anyone at the juvenile DA’s office [of proceedings], which resulted in me not being able to attend the sentencing, which was really his release with special conditions,” Jess said. 

During a one-year check up hearing last week, Jess said that none of the special conditions had been met, leading to an extension – especially due to the fact that the school had failed to report two additional incidents with the same student that occurred during his release in violation of his conditions. 

In addition, one of his special conditions stated he needed to complete a sexual evaluation – which was also never completed. 

“He violated his special conditions yet remained free attending school instead of being sent to juvie,” Jess said. “His attorney argued they were never aware of these ‘so-called special conditions,’ but they agreed to them to secure his release.” 

Jess said while the courts did not go into detail on the incidents that occurred at school, one occurred in September – only a month after his arrest – and another just a few months later in December. 

“His probation officer stood up trying to state that he was the victim in the last offense and that he and the girl involved resolved the issue with the principal with a hug and an apology,” Jess said. “I sat in the courtroom, shaking my head and struggling to contain the building anger so I wouldn’t do something stupid. Is it okay to just break these conditions and a hug and apology fixes everything? I’m still sitting here trying to understand all of this.” 

Due to a lack of documentation, as well as the revelation that two incidents had occurred without the knowledge of the juvenile DA’s office, the case was continued to allow the other boy’s attorney to source the necessary information. 

“I feel that the schools, and even the justice system in my opinion, have personally failed him and the other children who attend that school,” Jess said. 

Jess is considering litigation against the district over what she said is their continued disregard for the law as well as the safety of other students. 

District says violence, bullying dropping –  but their students and staff disagree 

According to official state discipline records, bullying in the Carson City School District has been drastically reduced, if not completely eradicated. However, internal climate surveys from the district’s own staff paint a starkly different picture of campus safety.

Data submitted to the Nevada Department of Education shows a dramatic downward trend in documented behavioral issues. During the 2022-2023 school year, the district reported 289 incidents involving violence to other students and 86 reported bullying incidents, 51 of which were substantiated. 

The following year, 2023-2024, the district logged 452 violent incidents, but reported bullying dropped to 38 cases, with only 19 substantiated. 

By the 2024-2025 school year, the district officially reported 108 violent incidents and exactly zero reported or substantiated bullying incidents across all its campuses. However, it should be noted that the zero reported incidents is more likely a filing error, rather than what the district truly logged last year; we have asked the district to provide the accurate data and are waiting on those numbers. 

In contrast, the Nevada School Climate / Social Emotional Learning surveys, administered to staff and students to measure school conditions, directly contradict the district’s official ledger.

Despite the “zero bullying” statistic reported to the state for 2024-2025, staff responses reveal systemic, ongoing behavioral crises. In the fall 2025 survey at Carson Middle School, 58% of staff agreed or strongly agreed that “bullying is a frequent problem at this school,” and 65% reported that physical conflicts among students occur “often.” 

At Carson High School, 59% of staff surveyed in 2025 similarly identified bullying as a frequent problem.

The discrepancies are evident across multiple campuses and years. At Eagle Valley Middle School in the fall of 2024, 54% of staff agreed that bullying was a frequent issue. Staff across the district also reported high rates of abuse directed at educators; in the 2025 district-wide survey, 46% of high school staff reported that student verbal abuse of teachers happens “often.”

The gap between the district’s state reports and the reality documented in the climate surveys lends credence to allegations from parents and whistleblowers. The conflicting data raises questions regarding a potential systemic failure to properly document, investigate, and report severe behavioral and violent incidents to the state.

Investigation of student’s attack shows school failed to investigate previously documented incidents 

Christina is a Carson City mom who said her son’s bullies have been targeting him since Kindergarten – meaning he has never experienced a year of peace during his education.

Despite this, it wasn’t until the end of her son’s third grade year – just two weeks before the year ended – that a bullying investigation finally occurred. In the paperwork completed by the school’s admin, multiple other incidents from that school year were retroactively added, showing the school did not take the legally-required steps until an incident in which the student was thrown to the ground, beaten, and kicked in the head by a ‘pack’ of four other boys.  

Christina said over the years she has done everything a mom is supposed to do; she’s talked with his teachers, the school social workers, the principal and vice principal, and made a formal complaint at the district office. She’s asked for safety plans, or to meet with the other students’ parents so they can figure out how to deal with it amongst themselves. At nearly every turn however, she said she was either ignored, blocked, or told things would change, but results were either non-existent or short lived. 

In her son’s third grade year, the school recorded five documented bullying incidents in which her son was physically attacked by four other students. Christina said these involved everything from being beaten in the library with hard plastic toys, to being jumped on the playground, hit with rocks, and held down while being covered in goose poop to the point it saturated through his jeans. 

In March 2025, following the fourth recorded incident in three months, she was told that the other boys were “given consequences” and that “precautions” were being taken to protect her son, but Christina said there was no formal documentation provided to her, and no specifics relayed about what these consequences or precautions were. 

However, her son came home with apology letters written by the other students, and she learned that the boys had missed recess as their only consequence. 

The issues reached their boiling point in May 2025, during an incident in which Christina said the same group of boys who had been hurting her son all year attacked him on the playground. He was thrown to the ground, kicked and punched, and he was kicked in the head. 

Christina said this was her breaking point.

The school finally opened a formal investigation following the May incident, which spanned two days. 

In the formal investigation report, it stated that a “parent face-to-face conversation [had occurred] in March” — yet no formal investigation was opened at that time, and it wasn’t until after the May 20 incident that messages were sent to the other parents, along with bullying letters, according to the report. 

A student safety plan was provided to Christina stating that “students have been instructed to stay away from student in previous incidents,” and that there would be ”no interaction during recess, and adult supervision and all times.”  However, she was later provided with an amended copy, which removed the line “in previous incidents,” and expanded that the other students would be kept away from her son during end of the year activities as well. 

As a consequence for the May attack, Christina said the boys were required to miss recess and signed “pre-typed, one-sentence apology letters.” 

Two weeks after the May incident, school ended – but at the start of this school year, the violence began again almost immediately. 

In an October incident documented with the school, her son was punched and hit with rocks by the same students, and just recently, another incident involving her son’s head being stepped on took place. 

During the few weeks from the beginning of my interviews with Christina to the publication of this story, multiple additional violent incidents occurred from these four boys and her son – none of which, she said, were reported to her by the school. 

Christina claims the school administration has never proactively communicated with her about her son’s injuries. She said for every incident of violence her son has experienced at school, she learned about them only after her son came home upset, bearing bruises, or wearing bandages applied by school staff.

 When she demanded harsher punishments for the students she said were repeatedly assaulting her child, she was told by administration that the school cannot suspend students under the age of 11. 

However, the truth of this statement is far murkier and more frustrating – for all parties involved. 

Yes, you can absolutely suspend elementary school students – well, sort of?  

The statement that schools cannot suspend students age ten or younger is something that has been repeatedly told to all parents interviewed for this story – but it is not the case, as is shown by both state law and the district’s own discipline manual. 

There are two types of suspension in schools: ISS (in-school suspension) and OSS (out-of-school suspension), along with other disciplinary measures outlined in the school’s Restorative Justice Disciplinary Plan. 

What is interesting about CCSD’s disciplinary plan is that suspension for substantiated bullying incidents – meaning one or more individuals targeting a victim who is not mutually engaging in violence – is optional. 

However, both ISS and OSS are required punishments for fighting – defined as the mutual use of physical force between students. In addition, ISS is similarly required for students who instigate or promote a fight between students. 

CCSD regulation 0525 states that while suspension or expulsion of students under the age of 11 is “generally prohibited,” it outlines the seven categories of behavior that are an exception to this: 

1. Student who sells or distributes a controlled substance;
2. Student who commits a battery against a school employee;
3. Student who commits a battery against a school employee with intent to result in bodily injury;
4. Student who poses a continuing danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disrupting the academic process;
5. Student in possession of a dangerous weapon other than a firearm;
6. Student in possession of a firearm; and
7. Student deemed a habitual discipline problem.

Habitual disciplinary problems and students posing a “continuous danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disrupting the academic process” specifically permits the removal of students under the age of 11 and states that ISS is required, and OSS is optional. 

I think they really are trying their best, but their hands are being tied by the district or the state, or both. They can’t do an investigation every single time a kid or a parent says the word ‘bullied’ – especially when many of them don’t actually understand what bullying is. It would be literally impossible to investigate every single ‘report’ based on those requirements.

Employee says IEP practices and laws create barriers to discipline

There are differences in how discipline is metered out for students with disabilities who receive IEP services, and this seems to be the crux of the issue, according to one school district employee who spoke on the record with the requirement of anonymity. 

The district’s regulation states that students with IEPs can be suspended from school for ten days or less for each incident (as well as expelled) only after the school board or their designee reviews the circumstances and determines that the suspension/expulsion is in compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

According to the employee, admin are frustrated by the fact that they cannot meter out any disciplinary actions against students with IEPs that removes them from the classrooms, regardless of the level of violence or disruption they are exhibiting, without permission from the district’s Director of Special Services. However, the very same regulation also states on the next line that “school administrators are responsible for taking actions as necessary to protect students and school personnel from dangerous or socially detrimental actions of students.”  

The regulation states that the Director of Special Services determines whether IDEA procedural requirements are satisfied, which must be made before the student can be removed from the classroom. 

Except, according to the employee, it can take several weeks for the Special Services representative to respond to a school’s request, and even if they are requested and they do show up weeks later, they almost never find that conditions to support removal from the classroom are met. 

According to the employee, what this ends up looking like in practice is a student behaves violently or is destructive to the point that they could qualify for removal, either through ISS or OSS, but because they have an IEP, all that admin is permitted to do is remove them for a short period of time from the classroom. During this brief removal,  they might take a walk or place the student in the office of an admin if they are still behaving in an unsafe manner. 

The secondary piece to the puzzle is simply the paperwork. The employee said admin must respond to so many incidents like the one described above (without the ability to remove the student) that it’s impossible to conduct investigations on every incident in the time period required by state law. 

This is especially true for students that the admin knows any removal requests would be denied for. The employee stated that earlier this year, they overheard their school’s admin venting frustrations about another denial from the district regarding a particular student who had become a constant disciplinary problem.

The admin then stopped all other work for the day to work on preparing significant documentation for an appeal of the district’s denial to remove this student. But during that day, the admin was unable to complete any of the other work required as part of their job. 

“I think they really are trying their best,” the employee said of CCSD admin. “But their hands are being tied by the district or the state, or both. They can’t do an investigation every single time a kid or a parent says the word ‘bullied’ – especially when many of them don’t actually understand what bullying is. It would be literally impossible to investigate every single ‘report’ based on those requirements.”  

Documentation indicates only after bringing hair-cutting incident to the press was an investigation conducted 

A few weeks ago, Bailey said her son was sitting in his school’s library before first recess when a classmate reached over and snipped off approximately 3-3.5 inches of his hair. Bailey and her children are of Inuit descent, and in their culture – especially for boys – it holds deep cultural and spiritual meaning. 

“My son had been growing out his hair for two years because we’re indigenous – [my sons] have only had three haircuts in their whole entire lives. My boys, they grow it out to show their strength and to show family love and to honor our ancestors.” 

I just want a good outcome with the school to a point where they take initiative and actually do something about this instead of acting like my children and I don’t matter. 

Bailey said her son became so upset that an admin had to come and take him out of class to calm him down. She said, despite this, she didn’t learn of what had occurred until after he came home from school. 

The girl who had cut her son’s hair admitted to it immediately, Bailey said they were later told, and that she hadn’t had a reason – which the school principal believed was “normal child behavior.” 

“He said he sees a lot of it with the kindergarteners,” Bailey said. “But these kids are in fourth grade.” 

As punishment, the girl was required to miss a recess and write a one-sentence apology which was sent home with Bailey’s son. She said that, in contrast, the principal took her son from the class and had him speak to classrooms of younger students. “He walked around the school with him. He had my son talk to the kinders and the first graders about what not to do and what the consequences are if you do do it,” Bailey said.

Later, when Bailey and her husband went to the school to speak with admin about what had happened, she said the principal told her he’d spoken with the girl’s father who claimed the girl “has a crush” on her son, and since she “has a good-looking son, little girls are gonna be having crushes on him – but think if that were reversed.” 

Unhappy with the response from the school, Bailey said they attempted to file a police report for assault with the Sheriff’s Office. While waiting for a deputy to arrive, however, Bailey said they received a call from the responding deputy who told the parents she wouldn’t be coming to the house because they “had more important things to take care of” and that the incident would be referred back to a School Resource Officer. 

She said at that point she contacted Carson Now, because she felt it was her last avenue to getting justice. 

“I don’t understand why nobody’s taking us seriously,” Bailey said. “I just want a good outcome with the school to a point where they take initiative and actually do something about this instead of acting like my children and I don’t matter.” 

In February Carson Now spoke with a district representative to let them know we would be beginning an investigation for the sake of transparency. Up until that point, Bailey’s son had not received a formal investigation into the haircutting incident – all information about what had occurred and what consequences came afterwards were relayed by the principal directly to Bailey’s husband. 

However, an investigation was eventually completed by the school – nearly three weeks after the incident occurred, and following Carson Now’s discussion with the district representative stating we were looking into the incident. 

While an investigation did finally take place, the issue isn’t only about the what – it’s about the when. 

State law reporting requirements  

The incident with Bailey’s son occurred on January 28, 2026. If an investigation were conducted according to the laws set forth by the state and adopted by the district, the student’s parents or guardians would be told the same day about the incident by a representative of the school no later than 6 p.m. Then, the school has five days to complete the investigation, and once completed, must provide the investigative report to the family within 24 hours.

However, in the case of Bailey’s son, his investigation wasn’t completed until February 13 – including the interviews with the students, who by that point had already received consequences. 

The restorative plan was created by admin, which included interventions such as keeping the students separated in class and during recess, a no contact agreement between the students involved, and having Bailey’s son complete daily check-ins and an end-of-day self assessment “to assist the teacher in understanding that his emotional needs are being met.” He was also tasked with meeting one-on-one with a district mental health services coordinator, and the plan states that any “reocurrence [sic] of harmful behavior will result in administrator review” and that “parents will be informed of additional disciplinary or restorative steps” taken. 

The safety plan provided to Bailey and her husband states that the district “cannot disclose student discipline of Alleged Aggressor due to FERPA,” but also includes the other student’s full name (which violates FERPA itself) – and according to Bailey, the school had already disclosed that the student had lost a recess and been instructed to write an apology note. 

Families Carson Now spoke with all stated when it came to official documentation, the schools said they could not disclose who the students involved were, or what consequences were given to them relating to incidents of violence or bullying. 

However, FERPA only relates to disclosing education records and personally identifiable information obtained by education records maintained by the school. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s FERPA FAQ, this does not apply to information obtained or observed personally by a school official, rather than through a record: 

“For example, if a teacher overhears a student making threatening remarks to other students, FERPA does not protect that information from disclosure.  Therefore, a school official may disclose what he or she overheard to appropriate authorities, including disclosing the information to local law enforcement officials, school officials, and parents.”

But what many parents continue to report is that they are never told about incidents that occur at school, even when adults are involved. Christina said that she has never heard from the school directly about the incidents involving her son and his bullies, and it’s only after she reaches out to them in person or via parent square that she hears the school’s side of the story. 

Just in the last few weeks prior to this story’s publication, a number of social media posts from Carson City parents have been posted in which parents themselves are seeking information about injuries their child sustained at school. 

Earlier this week, a mom posted on social media that her daughter was kicked in the throat on the playground by another student, which resulted in the other student being sent to the “refocus room.” However, this information came only from her daughter, not the school itself, so the mother was seeking the parents of the other child so they could resolve it amongst themselves. Because many of the parents Carson Now spoke with have the same concern: if the schools aren’t telling parents of victims when these incidents occur, are they telling the parents of aggressors as well? 

And if they aren’t, how can those students learn to do better or be held accountable?  

District response

Carson Now sent several questions to the district for review. Initially, they declined to respond citing privacy issues, but later they did respond to policy questions just before our deadline, which we are including below:

1) Does the district have a sexual assault policy for students? 

District Response: All district policies and regulations can be found on the district website: https://go.boarddocs.com/nv/carson/Board.nsf/Public.

Sexual assault would fall under the bullying policy or the District Plan for Restorative Discipline, which can be found at the following link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1guOJPsSvEmpxAwRCpwtURcLxLjtVVILy.

Editor’s note: It should be noted that contrary to the district’s response, sexual assault is not specified within the bullying policy or the Restorative Discipline plan, which is why Carson Now requested information about whether or a policy exists elsewhere.

2) Who (if anyone) is in charge of alerting the juvenile courts when a violation occurs at school? 

District Response: The district does not alert courts. It sends matters through the proper law enforcement channels as appropriate.

3) What is the policy when it comes to escalating measures after safety plans were previously in place?

District Response: All district policies and regulations can be found on the district website: https://go.boarddocs.com/nv/carson/Board.nsf/Public. 

Editor’s note: There is no policy contained within the public documents provided that discuss escalation of previously enacted safety plans.

4) Are parents able to get their safety plans extended across multiple school years if requested?

District Response: Yes. 

And 5) if admin aren’t proactively opening investigations, who can parents escalate their concerns to at the district? 

District Response: This is a poorly worded question and is based on your assumption that district employees are doing something wrong. We reiterate that site teams are compliant with the law and follow the required steps for all bullying investigations.

6) Is there a position within the district tasked with checking the compliance of investigations? 

District Response: No. Again, this question is written with the intent and assumption that district employees are inherently doing something wrong.

7) What is the district’s procedure relating to special services when a school requests the suspension or expulsion of a student,

District Response: All district policies and regulations can be found on the district website: https://go.boarddocs.com/nv/carson/Board.nsf/Public 

Editor’s note: There is no procedure or regulation contained within the public documents provided that discuss how special services responds to requests for student removal.

and 8) how many requests for removal were submitted for evaluation last school year?

Of those, 9) how many were escalated to the school board for evaluation? I ask because the data does not appear to have been submitted to the state or there was an error in updating it; however, I’m not sure if it the requests for removal are typically reflected? 

District Response: To answer these two questions, let me reiterate again that we take very seriously the privacy of students, staff, families and education records as detailed in privacy laws, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The information you are seeking appears to be an attempt to acquire confidential and privacy-protected information that you are not entitled to obtain that may otherwise single out specific individuals.

10) And do you have the bullying data from last year? 

District Response: This information is presented annually to the school board. Please see the meeting minutes.

11) Is it a state or district rule that suspension is optional for bullying (which includes physical violence) but required for fighting?

District Response: The State requires three out-of-school suspensions, and those include the following: 1) Battery Against Employee with Intent to result in bodily injury, 2) Controlled Substances, Sale or Distribution and 3) Firearm, Possession. All other student behavior discipline is at the district discretion based the District Plan for Restorative Discipline, which can be found at the following link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1guOJPsSvEmpxAwRCpwtURcLxLjtVVILy

12) Can you speak to where that discrepancy is coming from between the reported incidents going down, but the climate surveys of staff concerns going up? 

District Response: No. This is an attempt to try and tie specific reported data to subjective and interpretive research.

13) Does the district take into account the climate surveys when looking at policy decisions around bullying etc.? Or is it more from the hard data? 

District Response: The state makes the policies surrounding bullying and the district follows those policies with complete fidelity. Again, this is an attempt to try and tie specific data to subjective and interpretive research.

Latest News

Support Carson City arts while getting outside: Brewery Arts Campus Beautification Day happening Sunday, April 12 

Events happening Friday in Carson City; plus: a look at the weekend ahead

License plate reader cameras abound in Nevada. The state has no laws to regulate them.

Teens facing felonies for ‘fight’ video circulating on social media

Carson City Sheriff’s Search & Rescue conducts Swift Water Rescue Training

Sonoma Park to close March 30 – April 14 for maintenance and repairs