A parent told the Orting School District Board of Directors on Wednesday that the district “catastrophically” failed to provide supports for some vulnerable students, and that the failure led to multiple assaults on students and staff.

In a 10-minute public comment, Anthony (last name not provided) said a former LEAP student who had been deprived of individualized support attacked multiple students this school year and eventually assaulted staff. He said district administrators waited to provide needed services until after staff were attacked, and that his own family had to obtain a Pierce County protection order so his daughter could safely attend school.

"I shouldn't have to go get a protection order against a 10 year old boy so my daughter can attend school safely," Anthony said. He asked the board to "look into what principals and vice principals are doing in our schools" and to hold administrators accountable for what he described as "negligence." He added that investigative reports he reviewed omitted important facts.

Bonnie, the meeting's presiding officer, responded after the comment period: "We will look into it, and we appreciate you for sending your questions. And we'll follow-up with you." The board did not take any formal vote or announce a staff investigation during the meeting.

Why it matters: Anthony alleged that the district removed or reduced supports for students who previously had one-on-one assistance and that that removal affected safety across classrooms. The allegations, if verified, would raise questions about compliance with individualized education plans (IEPs) and appropriate disciplinary and safety responses.

What was said and what remains to be done: Anthony described one student who was removed from school for a day after an incident and then returned; only after subsequent attacks on staff was a one-on-one behavioral aide assigned. He said the protection order he obtained from Pierce County Court was the only thing that kept his daughter from encountering the other student during the interim.

The board's public reply was limited to an acknowledgement and a pledge to follow up. No timeline, internal investigation notice, or staff assignment to examine the allegations was announced at the meeting.

Context: The speaker framed his concerns as system-level failures and explicitly said he was not faulting the student for the behavior, but rather district administration for how incidents and support needs were handled. He also claimed that staff reports sometimes downplayed the severity of incidents.

What to watch for next: The district has not, during the meeting, released a statement of investigation or a deadline for follow-up. Board members indicated they had received the speaker's questions and materials by e-mail; any formal inquiry, findings or remedies the board or administration pursue would be the next public milestones.