This letter was sent to the Gilpin County School community members on Thursday, March 27, 2025, and was shared with The Mountain-Ear. 

Dear Gilpin School Community,

In an effort to offer transparency, the Board of Education has asked me to provide responses to recent concerns and questions surrounding the grades 6-12 life skills coaching curriculum delivered to students by a consultant under the Peer Purposes Mentorship Program.

On March 11, I informed you of a program change that had taken place at Gilpin County Secondary School. The consultant gave the District notice that the Program delivery to students in grades 6-12 had ended. 

Why did the District not notify parents about the matter when the first concerns were raised? 

The initial notice was through an anonymous Safe-2-Tell report directed on November 18, 2024 to the Gilpin County Sheriff’s Office and the District. The receipt of that report immediately prompted a conversation with the consultant and an investigation by law enforcement and the District.

The District follows strict protocols when investigating matters of this type which includes protecting the privacy and confidentiality rights of the student and others who may be potentially involved.  As a result, an allegation may not be communicated to the entire school community. The District is careful to investigate these matters discreetly to ensure a fair process, respecting both the rights of the student, the parents, and, in this case, the consultant. Publicly sharing details could compromise the integrity of the investigation, create unnecessary rumors or panic, and violate legal or ethical obligations to protect individuals' privacy. The District’s priority is to handle the situation with sensitivity, ensuring a thorough and impartial investigation while maintaining a safe and supportive environment for all students and staff. In many cases, only those directly involved or in a position of authority are informed, with the broader school community generally being updated when appropriate once the matter has been resolved. 

Why was the consultant not placed on administrative leave during the investigation of the allegation?

The consultant was not placed on administrative leave because the investigation was able to be conducted without the consultant creating a disruption in the school environment. Additionally, administrative leave suggests to some that the person who is the subject of the investigation is guilty until proven innocent. Administrative leave also may prematurely escalate the matter based on an allegation. The initial investigation was brief, protective measures were put in place, and the consultant’s presence did not pose a risk to other students or the investigation.

What are the Title IX implications?

The Board has adopted a comprehensive set of policies, exhibits, and regulations that pertain to these kinds of allegations, including AC-Nondiscrimination/Equal Opportunity; Guidelines Regarding the Support of Students and Staff Who are Transgender and Gender Nonconforming; Harassment and Discrimination Investigation Procedures for Students; Harassment and Discrimination Investigation Procedures for Staff; and Sex-based Harassment Investigation Procedures (Title IX). All Board of Education policies, exhibits, and regulations are posted on the District website.  These policies guide the District in determining whether Title IX has been implicated and, if so, how the investigation process should proceed. 

As Superintendent, it is my role to implement and carry out these policies.  So, as mentioned above, when the serious allegation was reported, school officials initiated a thorough personnel investigation aligned with AC-R-3 Sex-based Harassment Investigation Procedures (Title IX) into the matter. The Gilpin County Sheriff initiated a separate investigation. 

What are the pre-hiring processes, including a background check, and qualification requirements?

The consultant did disclose all criminal charges to the District prior to being hired as an independent consultant/contractor. Only convictions of certain serious crimes disqualify an individual from being retained by a school district as an employee, consultant, or authorized as a volunteer. These are outlined in C.R.S. § 22-32-109.8(6.5)(a)(I). The consultant’s criminal history did not meet the criteria of conviction of serious crimes and did not disqualify the consultant from being hired.

The consultant completed an application, submitted fingerprints, and the District also received a criminal background check from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The consultant's criminal background disclosure matched the CBI/FBI criminal background report. 

All school district employees and volunteers are screened and assessed for pre-hiring/per-volunteering by the aforementioned process.

Qualifications for school employment positions vary and are dependent on the position to be filled. The consultant’s qualifications to provide the Peer Purposes Mentorship Program curriculum to students in grades 6-12 were founded in life experience. Adults share their life experiences with students in schools through a variety of methods designed to enhance learning and provide real-world perspectives. They often participate as guest speakers, mentors, or workshop leaders, offering valuable insights on careers, challenges, and personal growth. Adults may also integrate their own stories into lessons, making learning more relatable and engaging. 

In extracurricular activities or coaching roles, adults guide students by sharing experiences that teach life skills like teamwork and leadership. Additionally, adults may model behaviors and attitudes that encourage students to develop resilience and problem-solving abilities. Overall, adults use these interactions to enrich students' education and offer practical wisdom that complements academic knowledge.

What was the Peer Purposes Mentorship Program’s intent and execution?

Gilpin County Secondary School had contracted with a consultant to address students’ need for mental health services for student coaching and deliver a grades 6-12 curriculum to develop resilient students. The consultant provided a kick-off assembly for all secondary students and staff. A community meeting was also held allowing parents and members of our community to learn about the program and ask the consultant any specific questions. The consultant was on campus twice a month and taught students lessons in grade level groups. The consultant met with students in small groups as well as provided one-to-one student meetings with coaching. The curriculum is divided into four sections: Student Identity, Self-Esteem Recovery, Emotional Awareness, and Relationships. Students were permitted to opt-out of the program upon request. 

A more detailed description was posted on the District’s website, which has since been taken down. In retrospect, leadership may have sent an introductory letter about the Program to students, parents, and staff at the beginning of school in August. The consultant had been delivering the first year of the Program during the 2023/2024 school year at the secondary school. The Program was already in place and its intent and execution could have been communicated better to students, parents, and staff last year by the secondary school. 

Qualitative data from student testimonials and frequency counts of students who participated in small group and one-on-one meetings is anecdotal and minimal, trends cannot be identified. Because the program ended sooner than expected, quantitative data to indicate the Program impact on students was not compiled. 

How and why was the student’s identity revealed?

As stated above, the initial report was an anonymous Safe2Tell. The allegation was immediately investigated separately by school officials and by the Gilpin County Sheriff. Safe2Tell reports often contain inaccurate information and sometimes the Safe2Tell reports are unfounded. It is also common that a third party reports to Safe2Tell on someone else’s behalf. The Safe2Tell report appeared to have been submitted by a third party. Through the course of the investigation, an alleged victim was identified and interviewed. The alleged victim disclosed that they had submitted the Safe2Tell report. The student self-identified to school officials. School officials have never disclosed the student’s identity. Facebook postings by others and student to student communication have identified the anonymous reporter. 

Were male students allegedly given messaging that could undermine an understanding of accountability and responsibility under Title IX?

At this writing, there have not been any reports made to address this allegation. Students or parents who may have information on this allegation should report that information to Secondary Principal Sara Reich.  

What is the independent consulting/contractor agreement and what oversight exists regarding external programs?

The independent consulting/contractor agreement provides both the consultant and the District with assurances that the services are delivered as agreed upon. The agreement can be terminated with 30 days’ notice by either party. The consultant gave 30 days’ notice to the District that services would no longer be provided.

Curricular and extracurricular program oversight is the principal’s purview and supervisory responsibility. In this case, the secondary principal had been evaluating the Program intent and execution periodically and consistently. 

How are District staff trained to be mandatory reporters in situations such as this?

All District personnel, including teachers, administrators, and support staff, are required to complete training annually each August before school begins on how to recognize and report suspected child abuse or neglect. This training covers the legal obligations of mandatory reporters, the signs of different forms of abuse, and the proper steps to take when a concern arises. The training emphasizes confidentiality, understanding the reporting process, and collaborating with the Department of Human Services and law enforcement to ensure student safety. 

Have District educators and students been trained in restorative justice principles and protocols?

Restorative justice training for teachers and administrators began in the 2023/2024 school year and have continued in the 2024/2025 school year. Restorative justice focuses on teaching educators and students alternative methods of addressing conflict and wrongdoing, and, emphasizing repair of harm over traditional punitive measures. The training encourages building a culture of respect, accountability, and empathy within the school community. It introduces strategies like restorative circles, where individuals affected by an incident, for example, bullying, vandalism, or other disruptive behaviors, come together to discuss the impact of their actions and collaborate on solutions. The aim is to foster understanding, promote personal responsibility, and restore relationships, rather than relying solely on suspensions or expulsions. By integrating restorative justice principles, schools aim to reduce recidivism, enhance social-emotional learning, and create a more inclusive environment that nurtures positive student behavior and long-term community building.

Why doesn’t the Board of Education conduct a meeting with parents about these concerns?

In Colorado, local Board of Education meetings are governed by open meeting laws, specifically the Colorado Open Meetings Law (C.R.S. 24-6-402), which mandates that meetings of public bodies, such as school boards, be open to the public. This is to ensure transparency in government and allow the community to be informed and involved in decisions that affect public education. As a result, local school boards cannot hold private meetings with parents or other individuals outside of these public forums because doing so would violate the principle of public accountability and openness. The law requires that the public, including parents, have access to discussions and decisions made by the school board, particularly when it involves public funds, policy changes, or matters affecting the wider community. While boards can meet in private sessions for certain legal matters (such as personnel issues or legal advice), these exceptions are narrowly defined, and general discussions with parents must occur in a public setting to ensure compliance with open meeting laws.  In this case, a public meeting would not only risk disclosure of personally identifiable information, affect privacy rights, and also risk potential harm to the student. 

In conclusion, these questions and answers are provided in response to the Board of Education’s request in the interest of addressing concerns raised by email and at public meetings. I have done so while at the same time being mindful and respectful of the privacy and confidentiality protections of the students and others involved as well as the advice of legal counsel. 

Sincerely,

David S. MacKenzie, Ph.D.

Superintendent