Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent tells Dallas SD 2 board her 5-year-old was touched in school, urges stronger protections
Summary
A public commenter at the Dallas SD 2 school board meeting described repeated safety incidents involving her 5-year-old at Lyle Elementary, said she will not return the child to district schools, and urged the board to adopt stronger protective measures; the board did not make a decision during public comment.
An unidentified parent told the Dallas SD 2 school board on the district’s public-comment period that her 5-year-old daughter had been the target of repeated incidents at Lyle Elementary, including unwanted touching and an episode in a bathroom stall.
“I have a bright, beautiful 5 year old daughter who attends Lyle Elementary,” the commenter said, adding that she had been given “a list of why you can’t do better” and that the district’s responses have been excuses rather than solutions. “My daughter will not be returning to Dallas schools next year. I have also encouraged other families to look elsewhere.”
The speaker said she had raised concerns with district administrators and been told the law limits what the board can do; she responded that state law does not remove the district’s responsibility to protect students and urged the board to use professional-development days, new strategies and policy changes to improve safety.
Board members did not provide an immediate response during the public-comment period; the meeting proceeded to announcements and regular agenda items. The board’s procedural reminder at the start of public comment noted the board’s role is to listen and that the chair and superintendent can direct staff to follow up when appropriate, but that the board cannot hear complaints about specific personnel or students in open session.
The meeting’s public record does not show a formal staff report or board motion tied to the specific incidents the commenter described during the session. The commenter identified the school (Lyle Elementary) and described what she said were ongoing failures to protect students; the transcript records no on-the-spot rebuttal or factual clarification from district staff during that public-comment slot.
The board later moved into routine business including reports on attendance and interventions; any follow-up the board directs to the superintendent would be recorded in subsequent meeting minutes or staff reports.
What happens next: The transcript indicates the board will direct the superintendent for necessary follow-up when appropriate but contains no record of a specific directive tied to this commenter’s remarks from the meeting itself.
