Union Public Schools upholds long-term suspensions after two student brawls; board splits on modification

The Union Public Schools Board of Education on July 14 upheld long-term suspensions for two students involved in separate but related April 9 incidents, after hearing hours of testimony, video evidence and parent statements. The board voted to affirm the suspensions for both students; a motion to shorten one student’s punishment failed on a 2–2 split.

The hearing matters to families and district discipline policy because the events included an in-school assault that required staples for an injured student, a follow-up parking-lot fight and questions from parents that school staff had not intervened after repeated warnings. The board conducted the hearing in public, reviewed video in executive session because student faces could not be redacted, and then returned to open session to vote.

Administration presented a timeline and video showing that on April 9 a high-school student (referred to in hearing materials as student A) exchanged threatening texts, broke into at least two physical confrontations inside the high school and later joined a second fight outside the building. Assistant Principal Flora Stoffman and other administrators testified they warned students that morning to avoid confrontation and to get an adult within “10 steps,” and that school staff and security responded when the fights occurred.

Parent Ashley Gordon told the board she had repeatedly reported threats and bullying, provided emails and medical documentation for her son and said the family felt the district had not protected the students; she asked for reconsideration, told the board she had recordings and screenshots, and said she wanted fairness and options including online schooling for her sons. The board heard that the Office for Civil Rights had previously found violations in complaints the parent filed.

Associate Superintendent Sandy Callum (third-level appeals reviewer) testified she reviewed the record, interviewed administrators and the family and modified an initial calendar-year suspension to end at the close of the fall semester (a one-semester reduction) before the case reached the board. For student A, the board adopted findings that list fighting, disobeying an official, threats and disruption as supported by the preponderance of credible evidence and affirmed the suspension after a motion to alter the length failed 2–2. For student B (an eighth-grader), the board adopted findings including trespass, initiating a fight that damaged a parked car, battery (stomping) and disruption, and affirmed the suspension; the board altered that suspension earlier in the appeals process to end at the end of the fall semester.

Board members and administration emphasized this hearing addressed the students’ conduct on April 9 and not the family’s wider allegations, though the parent repeatedly asked the board to consider prior incidents and the district’s handling of them. The board noted parents’ rights to pursue further appeals or civil remedies; the record shows parents were told how to appeal and the timeline for appeal rights during the process.

Next steps: The board’s formal findings were adopted into the record; the family may pursue additional appeals or external remedies. The district did not announce policy changes at the hearing; several board members asked staff to confirm procedures on escorts and student safety as part of ongoing administration responsibilities.