I tend to agree that the victim should not HAVE to be displaced. However, if the culture at the school is that the student feels that reporting a crime makes them a "snitch" and something less than a person of value and worth, then to heck with the school. I strongly suspect that the perception may be stronger in the student/victim's mind than in the minds of others if he was truly a victim.You added to your previous post the part I have quoted above. I agree that a CPO or TRO are good options to consider.
I have some problem with victims of crimes having to change their lives because of acts committed against them. In other words, I do not think the student-victim should feel the need to change schools. The offenders should have their lives altered by being placed in a foreign environment.
However, it is not always possible to move a student to another location. And, too often, such a move is temporary. A CPO or TRO can have an impact on these moves, however, and can sometimes compel a school to act in a situation they might not otherwise be inclined or legally able to.
It is also important to note that districts often have their own interpretation of the legality of their responses to threats, fights, suspensions, etc. The responses are hardly uniform between districts, and often vary with changes of administrations. I've been at the forefront of these issues since the late 90s as an officer and academy instructor as well as a teacher, and there is a lot of ground that still must be covered. The bottom line is often that the schools here tend not to be all that up on the legalities involved in every situation, and responses vary. There are good administrators with very keen legal advisors, and there are those that are not so up on these issues ... or, operate from a softer mindset than they probably should.