Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum Content topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and a student say inappropriate images reached Watertown classrooms; ask board for transparency and system fixes
Summary
At a Watertown City School District board meeting, parent Stephanie Volansky and 11‑year‑old student Ethan Boyanski said inappropriate images appeared in a classroom earlier this year and urged the board to investigate systemwide failures — not only disciplinary action against a teacher. The board also limited public comment on UPK citing pending litigation.
Stephanie Volansky, a parent, told the Watertown City School District board that inappropriate images reached a classroom earlier this year and that the teacher who faced public scrutiny became a "fall person" for what she called broader administrative failures.
"She was placed on paid leave, publicly scrutinized, and ultimately pressured to resign while those responsible for approving the curriculum, reviewing materials, and ensuring content filters were functioning have faced no public accountability whatsoever," Volansky said during the meeting. She urged the board to explain "who approved the curriculum and why the filters failed" before returning the teacher to the same group of students.
Eleven‑year‑old Ethan Boyanski, who said he saw the images in class, described anxiety and fear after the incident. "I felt scared and confused," Boyanski said. "I don't blame the teacher. She didn't want those images to show up. Wasn't her fault that the school's filters didn't work." He asked the board to take responsibility and to address the emotional impact on students.
The parent and student comments came during the board's public comment period. Later, at the start of the second public comment session, the presiding board official said the board would not accept comments on the UPK (universal prekindergarten) program because of pending litigation and on advice of the district's lawyers. Multiple attendees objected to that restriction, calling it censorial and saying stakeholders deserve a forum to discuss UPK even if litigation exists.
Other members of the public joined Volansky in pressing for transparency. One commenter said district content‑blocking safeguards had failed and called for "system accountability" rather than seeing the teacher as the only person held to account. Several speakers also raised related concerns about agenda timing and public access: they urged the board to publish agendas on a reliable schedule, continue streaming public comments, and avoid policies that could bar people from speaking.
Board members acknowledged parents' and students' concerns and said the district will continue to work with legal counsel to determine what can be discussed in public sessions without exposing the district to liability. The board did not announce a further investigation or a specific timetable for addressing the questions raised at the meeting.
The meeting record shows the board accepted public comment, heard the student and parent accounts, and signaled a continuing conversation with legal counsel about boundaries for public discussion while noting the district's stated need to avoid litigation risk.
