Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Teacher Misconduct topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent alleges Lakeland High teacher condoned violence; district says investigation limits public disclosure
Summary
A Lakeland High parent told the board a teacher told students that a public figure "deserved to be shot." The parent said school administrators limited what they could disclose while investigating and has filed an ethics complaint with the state.
Nathaniel Gowing, a Lakeland District parent who introduced himself to the board as "Bowie," used the public-comment period to say a teacher at Lakeland High School told students that conservative commentator Charlie Kirk "deserved to be shot," and that the teacher's response at school amounted to a brief apology email for students.
"My daughter, she's a sophomore at Lakeland High School," Gowing said. "She came home, October or September 10, the day that Charlie Kirk was, shot and, was pretty upset about, some stuff that she heard from, players from her teammates...that a teacher saying that Charlie Kirk was, deserved to be to be shot." Gowing characterized the remark as "a big red flag" and "disgusting."
Gowing said he contacted the high school principal, "Jimmy," and another administrator, "Rusty," and that both acknowledged receipt of his emails but could not provide details because of an ongoing investigation. "He told me thanks for reaching out, but he couldn't give me any information," Gowing said. He also said his daughter told him the only school response she received was an email requiring her to apologize, and that she was told administrators could not remove the teacher due to staffing constraints.
Gowing said he spoke with State Representative Jordan Redmond and later submitted an ethics complaint to the state; he said an October 22 ruling on that complaint is expected. He asked the board to take "stronger punishment" than the apology he described.
Board members did not discuss or disclose any investigative findings, and the board did not take action on the complaint during the public meeting. The assertions in Gowing's comments were presented as his account of events and have not been confirmed in the meeting transcript by school administrators.
Gowing's remarks came during the board's public-comment period after trustees opened the meeting's public input slot. The board accepted the comment and then moved into an executive session later in the meeting; the transcript does not link the public comment directly to the later personnel action.
