Parents, students say district failed to protect student after violent hallway assault

Parents and students told the Northern Burlington County Regional School District Board of Education on Jan. 6 that the district did not adequately protect a student after a violent hallway assault on Dec. 16, 2024.

The most detailed account came from Tara Cline, who said her daughter was “violently assaulted” in a 400-level hallway around 1 p.m. and that the attack was “unprovoked and premeditated.” Cline urged the board to “please obtain a video of this attack and watch it so that you can understand the severity of the attack.” She said the administration initially refused to provide school records and video, citing FERPA, but that she and her husband were later allowed to view the video in a face-to-face meeting with Superintendent Dr. Zuckerman.

The parents and students described the assault in graphic terms. Amanda Klein, the student who was attacked, told the board the assailant “mounted my daughter and began striking her in the face over and over” and that she counted “at least 17 strikes to the head and face.” Amanda said she sustained a concussion, has missed school, and is “afraid to enter the school and fears her safety.” Her father, Lou Klein, said viewing the footage “brought [him] and [his wife] to tears.”

Board members and district leaders listened during the public comment period but gave no immediate, detailed safety plan in public. Dr. Zuckerman told the Kleins the district would follow up: “I will be back in touch with you,” board chair (during the reorganization) or the superintendent's liaison said after public comment.

Several speakers said they or friends have been attacked previously and described a broader problem with student safety and responses to incidents. Samantha Colletti, a 2024 graduate, said she and others have “experienced attacks in the school, and none of us feel like school handled it properly.” Diane Colletti said the attacks have harmed students’ ability to learn and warned that students are “constantly look[ing] over their shoulder.”

Board members acknowledged the comments and discussed possible responses. Board member (Mr.) Zimmer suggested conducting a school climate survey of students and staff to gather broader data on safety and psychological climate; another board member said the board must provide the superintendent whatever resources are needed to ensure day-to-day safety. Several board members explicitly said they wanted to see the footage; Lou Klein publicly authorized the board to view the video, saying, “As a parent, if it's my daughter's record, I'm saying publicly, I authorize you to see that video.”

The board then voted to move into executive session later in the meeting. The motion to enter executive session was made and seconded and was approved by voice vote.

Why it matters: Parents described a serious physical assault that has left a student injured and traumatized and said the district’s publicly described return-to-school plan lacked concrete safety protections. Board members did not adopt a public, written safety plan during the meeting; they signaled follow-up and directed the matter into executive session for private discussion.

The board heard the public comments during the public-comment period and explicitly stated that matters involving students or personnel would be handled outside public discussion. Several speakers asked for specific written assurances — for example, whether the attacker would remain in shared classes, dining areas, or bus lines — and said current communications have been too general. The district’s written return-to-school plan provided to the family (as described by speakers) emphasized counseling touchpoints and tutoring but did not detail physical-safety measures.

What the speakers asked for and what the board said: - Requests from family and students: written, specific safety measures; confirmation whether the attacker will be in shared classes or common spaces; clear procedures to prevent future contact. Lou Klein publicly authorized the board to view the recording. - Superintendent/administration response (as reported in public comment): arranged a face-to-face showing of the video to the family; offered a plan focused on counseling check-ins and academic supports; said some disciplinary or attendance details for other students could not be publicly shared.

Next steps noted in the meeting: board members pledged follow-up with the family; one board member proposed a school climate survey of students and staff to inform longer-term strategies; the board moved the matter into executive session for private discussion of personnel/student confidentiality and next steps.

Ending: The district’s publicly posted communications about the incident remained general at the end of the meeting; parents and students asked the board to return with specific, written safety measures and to confirm who, if anyone, will be shifted in schedules or supervised to prevent further contact. The board indicated it would follow up after executive session.