Following repeated incidents at Wayland High School, School Superintendent David Fleishman and Assistant Superintendent Betsy Gavron outlined the department’s policy on how it handles possible racism incidents.
The latest situation was on Oct. 31 when a WHS student reported to school officials they found a traffic safety “children at play” plastic figure wearing the Wayland football jersey of a former team member, who is black. It was hanging in the boys locker room by a belt around its neck. The investigation “indicated that football players had hung up the traffic figure on a ceiling pipe near Halloween decorations and other football jerseys and that there was no criminal, hateful, or racial motivation behind the incident.”
Superintendent Gavron and then-Police Chief Ed Burman posted a joint statement, dated Dec.17, that provided the results of their respective investigations of the incident at the high school. A complaint was filed and the Wayland Police did not pursue criminal charges after consulting with the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office on hate crimes. The school investigation found no discriminatory intent involved.
The incident placed Wayland back in the spotlight. Incidents from 2023, occurring during former School Superintendent Dr. Omar Easy’s tenure were again raised. Residents outside the school community were left frustrated with no clear understanding of the recent events, given the ongoing anti-discrimination educational efforts in the district.
At a long-planned community forum on hate crime prevention with District Attorney Marion Ryan on Nov. 10, residents confronted town officials about their response to the jersey incident, asking for transparency, answers and action.
Fleishman and school officials repeatedly referenced the school district’s “Non-Discrimination Response protocol” (see tinyurl.com/WPSProtocol), which guides investigations and ensures accountability, learning, and healing, though this did not reassure audience members who had limited knowledge of the protocol.
He also acknowledged that federal privacy laws prevent the district from disclosing details of student discipline. “That can be incredibly frustrating,” he said, “but it’s not optional.”
Federal privacy laws create a situation where community accountability for a discrimination incident is administered within a small circle of participants, and the greater community has to trust the process without much scope to “trust but verify.”
High school and middle school students participated in a training on Nov. 4 and 5, respectively, focused on understanding the district’s Non-Discrimination Protocol. High schoolers participated in scenario exercises, while middle school students engaged in an inquiry exercise to gauge their understanding in order to shape future discussions. Students will have follow-up sessions regarding the protocol.
This information went out in a Jan. 5 email update from the Superintendent to the school community. “The district has been working with outside experts to deliver training, team building, and learning experiences for our students, athletes and staff members and the school community will be notified of these efforts over the remainder of the school year,”
Origins of the privacy restrictions
Massachusetts student-record privacy protections date back more than 50 years, and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (DESE) current student record regulations are built on a foundation established in the early 1970s with updates in 1980, 1995-2000, and 2006. The recent Trump administration policy changes have also affected Massachusetts protections.
The Massachusetts’ 1972 student-record statute grew out of the early 1970s push for parent/student due process rights in public education — especially around special education identification, placement, and services. Massachusetts passed its landmark special-education law in 1972, commonly called Chapter 766. Advocacy around Chapter 766 focused heavily on procedural protection so families could know what schools were writing about their children, and to be able to challenge or correct it.
Massachusetts later codified these ideas in regulation regarding parents’ and students’ rights of confidentiality, inspection, amendment, and destruction of records. Nationally, the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) law followed in 1974 with parallel privacy/access concepts.
Both FERPA and the Massachusetts Student Records Regulations protect the confidentiality of student records by prohibiting schools from disclosing, either orally or in writing, personally identifiable information from a student record to a third party without the written consent of the parent or eligible student (over age 14 or in ninth grade).
Schools may release student record information to appropriate parties in connection with a health or safety emergency if knowledge of the information is necessary to protect the health or safety of the student or other individuals which includes disclosures to the local police department and DCF. School principals are required to notify local law enforcement regarding incidents of bullying or retaliation if the principal has a reasonable basis to believe that criminal charges may be pursued against the aggressor.
Enforcing the protocol
At school, an act of bias, harassment, retaliation, hate or discrimination is referred to collectively under the umbrella term of “discrimination,” as defined by DESE and Massachusetts regulations, and invokes the district Non-Discrimination Response Protocol when witnessed or reported.
Any member of the school community – student, staff, and family (known as “the Reporter”) – may report behavior they believe discriminatory as it relates to the school environment. It is preferred that behavior be reported as promptly as possible, but no later than 180 days unless waived for good cause.
The Reporter may be a target, a witness or someone made aware of the discrimination. They can report verbally or in writing to any staff member, or by using the online discrimination complaint form. Staff who witness an act or receive a complaint are required to report to a District administrator no less than within 24 hours of the complaint. Anonymous submissions can be made but in most cases it may impede investigation and resolution.
The principal or district administrator will notify the parent/guardian/caregiver (“Parent”) that a complaint has been filed and assign an investigator within 24 hours (48 hours for weekends) of receiving the complaint. Communications between the Parent, student or staff involved and the investigator will be maintained throughout the process starting within 24 hours of the investigator’s assignment.
The investigation will include interviews with the Reporter, Target/Complainant, Witnesses and Aggressor/Respondent and a review of any relevant information. The Investigator has 15 school days to investigate and then 15 days to create a confidential record of the investigation. Parents will receive a written notice with a determination of findings that explain the decision as to if the complaint has been substantiated.
In collaboration with school and district administrators, and as appropriate Parent, a plan for corrective, educational and/or therapeutic actions will be determined. The school principal or superintendent will notify the relevant school community members of the incident and resolution in keeping with privacy considerations.
Administrators responsible for implementing this protocol will be provided with training in best practices and will adjust the response for the age/school level of the student(s). As the situation requires, the director of Student Services, Diversity Equity and Belonging, METCO or Title IX coordinator will be involved.
Responses could fall into any of three forms:
Corrective Action may use discipline or safety plans like behavior contracts;
Education Action may use restorative justice or educational programming;
Therapeutic Action may use counseling or supportive measures for individuals or groups affected by the behavior.
Upon conclusion of the Investigation, any disciplinary consequences for students or staff members will be kept confidential, as required by law.
Over the last decade, school districts have increased the use of restorative justice protocols for incidents involving disruptive behavior, for mending student relationships after a conflict and addressing sensitive topics. Instead of inflicting punitive penalties such as suspensions and detentions, these practices aim to start conversations and to repair harm.
Some examples of restorative justice circles include conversations in which two students can safely discuss an incident that has occurred or circles facilitated by trained staff, where multiple students can participate. Small group circles can also be implemented schoolwide to discuss difficult topics or to address a current event that has taken place in the school or community.
Restorative justice practices aim to empower students to safely voice their opinions and to promote a healthy school environment. Detentions and suspensions are still applicable for cases of bullying, harassment, assaults and hate crimes. Hate crimes include physical assault or property damage that warrant police involvement along with discriminatory behavior.
Ryan, speaking at her forum, said “I am an improbable supporter of restorative justice. I have spent my career as a prosecutor. When I first heard this idea, we were going to sit in a circle and we were going to talk and we were going to wait for each other to finish, I thought, I am not signing up for that, but I have actually seen it. …. It is that actual transformation of people’s hearts, having to really own what they’ve done, the harm they have caused. It is something of value to people who’ve been victimized as well.”
