Klamath County school board upholds trespass order after parent confronted IEP coordinator

The Klamath County School District board voted to accept the superintendent's recommendation and uphold a trespass notice issued May 22, 2025, after a parent approached a teacher at Henley Middle School to discuss her child's individualized education program (IEP).

The hearing, opened by the board's hearing facilitator, was to decide whether the trespass order should be upheld, modified or rescinded. The board heard five-minute presentations from the appellant and from district staff, followed by questions and short rebuttals before making a motion and vote.

The appellant, identified in the record as Miss Ames, told the board she went to the school to support her daughter's request to add phone-based text-to-speech to an IEP accommodation after the district removed laptops from student use. Ames said the teacher declined to discuss the matter in front of students only at the end of the exchange and that she believed an appointment was not required earlier that day. "I did everything that I thought I was supposed to do, and because the teacher didn't speak up when I prefaced why we were there, I'm now trespassed because I tried to facilitate conversation between my daughter and her IEP coordinator," Ames said during her remarks.

Kathleen Todd, principal at Henley Middle School, told the board her priority is supporting teachers and students and said the teacher and students were upset by the encounter. Todd read from the district's notice and district policies that prohibit disruptions to the educational program. "My main goal is to support my students, staff, teachers, and make sure that they have a safe learning environment," Todd said.

District documents submitted to the board include the written trespass notice dated May 22, 2025, a superintendent-level hearing summary dated June 18, and emails and letters from school staff and the appellant. The trespass notice states it remains in effect "until canceled in writing." A district employee told the board that trespass orders in the Klamath County School District vary in length and are sometimes rescinded after resolution; one participant said local practice is often two years, though the principal said lengths vary by case.

Board members questioned whether the parent had been told, prior to the incident, that appointments were required to speak with staff. The appellant said she had been told at the start of the year such appointments were not required and that, on the day in question, school staff did not tell her an appointment was needed until the teacher explicitly declined to speak in front of students. The principal and other staff said the teacher repeatedly indicated she did not want to discuss private IEP-related information in front of students and that the encounter disrupted classroom activity.

Board members also discussed a superintendent-proposed modification presented at the June 18 meeting that would have allowed the appellant to be on campus only by appointment and only after explaining the purpose and time to building administration. The appellant declined that modification at the superintendent-level hearing because she said it would not be feasible given another child of hers who has unpredictable behavioral needs and because a written modification was needed to avoid legal or employment risk.

After deliberation in open session, a board member moved to accept "the same modification/offer made with the superintendent on 06/18/2025" (motion text recorded in the hearing record). The motion was seconded; the board voted in favor, and the chair cast an affirmative vote. The motion passed.

The board did not provide a detailed, itemized timeline for when any written rescission would be issued; the district documents state the notice remains effective until it is canceled in writing. The board record shows the action taken was to accept the superintendent-level offer as presented on June 18, 2025.

The hearing record contains several clarifications requested by board members about IEP procedural authority. A board member noted that formal IEP decisions must be made by the designated IEP team in scheduled meetings and are not changed by the board in an ad-hoc hearing.

The appellant said she planned to avoid further verbal confrontations with teachers and instead communicate by email going forward. The board emphasized that parents are encouraged to be involved in their children's education but that contact must occur at appropriate times and in appropriate settings to protect students and staff.

Copies of the trespass notice, letters from staff, and the superintendent-level hearing summary were entered into the record. The board asked district staff to continue following district policy on visitor conduct and to ensure any future modifications or rescissions to trespass notices are documented in writing.

The board adjourned the hearing after voting; no additional disciplinary or criminal actions were recorded in the hearing minutes.