Parents press Florence Unified board over alleged cheer-team bullying; supporters defend coaches

At the March 11, 2025 Florence Unified Governing Board meeting, several parents raised concerns about alleged bullying and inconsistent discipline in the Florence High School varsity cheer program, while other community members spoke in defense of the coaches and the program.

The comments came during the board's open call to the public. Amanda Reyes, a parent, said she has been pursuing the matter for weeks and urged clearer, consistent consequences after she said a teammate sent a death threat by text message and was suspended from school but not removed from the squad. “A death threat should not be brushed off or minimized, and yet that’s exactly what happened in this case,” Reyes said, adding she had “been fighting for fairness for 47 days.” She told the board she had documented the incidents and planned to provide a packet of evidence after the meeting.

Other parents praised the cheer program and its coaches. Nicole Veil, a parent, described the program’s role in her child’s development and credited coaches with teaching accountability and resilience. “This cheer program has taught her how to be a winner … The most important lesson she has been learning this year is to be humble, take accountability for your mistakes, apologize, and face the consequences you deserve,” Veil said.

Janine Candelaria, a longtime Florence resident and former educator, urged precision in labeling behaviors, distinguishing bullying from rudeness or conflict and supporting “coach Ellie and coach Jenna” for restoring the program after a prior coach’s departure. “Bullying is a repeated intentional act designed to harm, intimidate, or control another person,” Candelaria said. She said mislabeling ordinary conflict as bullying diminishes serious cases and increases division.

Lindsay Anderson, who identified herself as a parent, thanked the board and staff for recent policy changes and described positive outcomes for her children in FUSD programs.

No formal disciplinary action was taken at the meeting. Reyes said the superintendent had told her a death threat “wasn’t addressed in the athletic handbook,” and she questioned how the district applies multiple handbooks and the cheer contract consistently. A principal present told Reyes that at least one student had been placed on a no-violence contract with her child; the meeting record shows no board vote or directive to change discipline policy during the session.

Board procedure language was read for the public-comment period noting that board members may not discuss or act on matters raised during public comment except in limited circumstances, such as asking staff to review a matter or placing an item on a future agenda.

The public-comment exchange centered on alleged student conduct, the district’s use of multiple handbooks and the cheer contract, and calls for clearer, consistent discipline and protections for students. Several parents urged the district to apply standards equally; others urged community support for coaches who they said rebuilt the program.

Members of the audience and speakers provided anecdotal details about removal from teams for vaping, school suspensions, social-media posts, a March 8 cheer banquet speech, and the timing of district responses. Those details were presented by speakers and were not the subject of a formal board action during the meeting.

The board did not vote on discipline policy or on any item arising directly from the public comments at this meeting. Reyes told the board she would provide a packet of documentation to district staff after the meeting.