Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent alleges school mishandled assault and special‑education needs, asks board for outside review
Summary
A Pittsford parent told the board his daughter was choked by another student and asked the district to order an outside evaluation after administrators said the incident was not captured on security camera video.
PITTSFORD, N.Y. — During public comment at the May 13 Pittsford Central School District Board of Education meeting, a parent, identified in the meeting as Michael Passalacqua, alleged his daughter was choked by an eleventh‑grade student and said district administrators did not substantiate the complaint because “the alleged incident was not captured on security camera video.”
Passalacqua told the board he and his wife interviewed a witness who gave a statement consistent with their daughter’s account. He said the school’s response—described in emails from building administrators—relied on lack of camera footage and rejected the family’s request for disciplinary action. He asked the board to commission an outside evaluation of the incident rather than have the review handled solely by district administration.
Why it matters: The comments raise questions about how the district investigates alleged student assaults, the evidentiary standards used in discipline decisions and supports for students with mental‑health needs and special‑education services.
Allegations and requested remedies Passalacqua described a longer history of disputes with district special‑education decision making. He said the district previously resisted a smaller classroom placement for his daughter and at least once recommended an outside placement; he said the family hired an advocate and appealed to the Committee on Special Education (CSC). He said his daughter improved academically after moving to a smaller setting and that the family has repeatedly faced “battles” with the district over mental‑health supports. He told the board: “I’m requesting an outside evaluation of the assault on my daughter by someone other than the Pittsford administration.”
Board response and next steps The public‑comment period is not a forum for board action; the transcript records the parent’s remarks and the board’s request to observe the three‑minute speaker limit. The meeting record does not show the board taking a formal vote or issuing a public response to the parent’s requests during the session. No formal investigation outcome or personnel action was announced on the record at that time.
Context from the transcript Passalacqua cited specific administrative communications to describe how school leaders characterized the incident and said a witness’s statement was not accepted as sufficient to substantiate the claim. He also said advocacy and civil‑service contacts he used previously produced stronger outcomes when they resulted in smaller classroom placements for his daughter. He recommended expanded mental‑health training for teachers and more transparent handling of investigations involving students with special‑needs.
What was not established in the meeting The board did not vote to authorize an external review during the meeting, nor did administrators present findings on the specific incident. The transcript reflects allegations and the parent’s request; it does not, on its face, establish disciplinary outcomes, investigative records beyond the family’s account or corrective actions by the district.
Ending — how to follow up Parents and community members seeking information on the district’s investigative and discipline processes should contact the district clerk or the superintendent’s office for the formal complaint and grievance procedures. The board may consider the public comment and could refer the matter to staff for follow up in an executive session or via the district’s published complaint process.
