Parents complain of secrecy after Machias Elementary disciplinary response; board points to legal limits

Three parents told the Snohomish School District Board of Directors during public comment that recent disciplinary actions and an investigation involving an off‑campus firearm at Machias Elementary have disrupted classrooms and left families anxious.

Nicole Naser, a parent and educator, said the district had not given sufficient information while the investigation was under way. “The lack of information provided to parents during this investigation of an off‑campus firearm was both alarming and unsettling,” Naser said. She told the board several fifth‑grade students have been upset and that some families have kept children home.

Mattel Vyerson, a parent who said one of their children is in the affected classroom, said the district appears to be balancing the privacy of one student against the safety and information needs of others. “There’s been this big issue of the privacy of one student and the safety of everybody else in the school,” Vyerson said, and added parents lacked basic information that would let them assess risk for their families.

Daniel Hudson, another parent, told the board the problem is primarily communication and protocol. “This is about communication,” Hudson said, arguing that silence had allowed rumor and fear to spread among families.

Board members and district staff responded that legal limits on what they can disclose constrain how much detail they may provide publicly. The board president said there is “so little that we’re allowed to say legally on this,” and an unnamed district administrator said the district had prepared “a very tailored reentry plan for this situation and a support plan” but acknowledged that level of detail may not satisfy parents.

Parents urged specific steps: clearer, faster district replies to email inquiries; stronger advocacy from building administrators; and consideration of whether a student with persistent disruptive behavior might be better served by other programs in the district. One parent asked whether the student in question had an individualized education program (IEP) for behavioral needs and suggested Emerson as a school where specialized behavioral services are available; the board said they could not discuss individual student records in public.

Speakers at the meeting cited the district disciplinary code by section number during comments; one parent referenced “section 3241p” and several speakers mentioned FERPA, the federal student privacy law, as a constraint on public disclosure. Parents also said that district‑level email inquiries had received little or only generic responses.

The board closed public comment and moved on to the published agenda; members noted that a safety and security presentation was on the agenda later in the meeting and encouraged parents to continue to use district email channels. District officials directed parents to contact building‑level staff and, if needed, the next administrative level (Sam or Sean) or the superintendent for follow‑up.