Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents urge stricter discipline after middle‑school assault; others call for Pride recognition
Summary
A parent described a May 5 assault at Avon Grove Middle School that left her son concussed and criticized the district’s disciplinary response; other public commenters urged district recognition of Pride Month and expressed concern about tax increases.
During the public‑comment portion of the Avon Grove School District board meeting on May 22, multiple residents raised safety, equity and fiscal concerns.
Katie Caudill described an incident on May 5 in which two older students entered a middle‑school bathroom and attacked her sixth‑grade son, she said. According to Caudill, the boys forced her son toward a toilet, then assaulted him; she said he was later diagnosed with a concussion and has experienced headaches, sensitivity to light and other ongoing symptoms. Caudill told the board she was dissatisfied with what she called minimal suspension for the alleged attackers and urged the district to enforce stricter consequences, including expulsion for students who severely injure peers.
The commenter said school staff informed the family the students faced consequences under the code of conduct and that the school did not immediately contact police; Caudill said her son has missed activities, is anxious, and the family has incurred medical appointments and lost work time. The board’s presiding officer cautioned the speaker about naming students in public comment to protect privacy; Caudill continued without identifying others by name.
Another speaker, Anita Lisonbee (identified in the record), urged the district to acknowledge Pride Month and praised staff who support LGBTQ students, describing personal family experience with gender‑affirming care and the importance of affirming supports for students.
A third commenter, Gary Dabrowski, questioned the recent tax increase and requested the names of board members who voted for it; he referenced an email from a local group and criticized spending he described as benefiting nonresident children.
No formal board action on the assault allegation was recorded in the public portion of the meeting; Caudill’s remarks were accepted as public comment. Board counsel and the presiding officer reminded speakers of the board’s public‑comment rules and student‑privacy constraints.
The district has not recorded a public response at the meeting that altered the discipline status described by the parent; any investigatory or disciplinary records would be handled according to the district’s procedures and privacy rules.
