Parents tell Chandler Unified board they were ignored after reporting alleged student abuse; speakers call for accountability

At the public-comment portion of the Chandler Unified School District Governing Board meeting on Wednesday, two speakers made sustained, detailed accusations that district leadership had not adequately responded to reports of student harm.

Katie McPherson, who identified herself as a parent and long-time campus staffer, told the board she reported alleged abuse in March 2022 and said only a small subset of the affected students were interviewed by investigators. "Listen to our children. Act boldly and swiftly when they report harm by peers or adults," McPherson said. She said five female students were interviewed at the time and that only one student had been interviewed by a forensic detective; she added that other students "were left to wonder if you even cared." McPherson said she was asking Superintendent Narducci "to be an upstander, not a bystander" in the remainder of his tenure.

Bridget Vega, a second commenter, told the board it had chosen the district's image and power over student safety. "When it mattered most, you protected your image and power instead," Vega said, adding that students had reported spiraling mental-health effects and threats and that families had been met with resistance when they sought help. Vega criticized the district's prior handling of alleged incidents she described and urged the board to pursue transparency, courage, and accountability.

Neither speaker presented new board action items; both called for the district to consult outside experts, to ensure investigations are conducted by appropriate authorities, and to be transparent with parents about investigations and outcomes. President Serrano and other board members acknowledged the comments but did not take immediate action at the meeting; the board later proceeded with its published agenda.

Context and clarifications

- Allegations and public comments: McPherson described events she said occurred in March 2022 and November 2024 at multiple district campuses; she said some parents were offered nondisclosure agreements after raising concerns. Vega named several incidents and contended the district had failed to act. These comments were made during the public-comment period; they represent allegations by members of the public and were not presented at the meeting as findings by the district.

- District policy on immigration and student privacy: Earlier in the meeting, Superintendent Narducci reminded attendees that district staff do not ask about immigration status and that student records and information are confidential; he said staff would not release student information to third parties and that discrimination is prohibited.

- Board and staff responsibilities: The board may request staff to review matters raised during public comment and may ask for items to be placed on a future agenda, but state open-meeting law generally prohibits the board from discussing or taking legal action on matters not on the posted agenda at the same meeting, except in narrow circumstances (district staff read the statutory admonition at the start of the public-comment period citing the public-meeting statute). The admonition read at the start of public comment referenced ARS 38-431.01(h), describing the rules governing public comment and when the board may respond.

What speakers requested and what the board can do next

Both McPherson and Vega urged the district and board to hire or consult outside experts on investigations and Title IX/mandatory-reporting requirements, to avoid reliance on legal defenses that might silence survivors, and to be more transparent with affected families. Board members may choose to take the requests under advisement, ask staff to prepare a future agenda item addressing policies and response procedures for handling allegations, or request a staff report on past complaints and investigations consistent with state law and student-privacy protections.

Ending

The board did not take immediate action at the meeting to investigate the allegations raised by public commenters; those comments will appear in the official minutes. The district did not present new investigative findings during the meeting. Members of the public who made allegations urged the board to act swiftly and to prioritize student safety.