Cheltenham parents demand answers after district notice about football Title IX and hazing probe

Dozens of parents at a Cheltenham School District board meeting on Nov. 11 pressed the district to explain why a community notice identifying an active Title IX and hazing investigation was worded so broadly that it, parents said, effectively labeled more than 100 student-athletes.

Parents described what they called lasting reputational harm and poor communication. Tony Ezzo, who said he has three children in the district, asked the board: “Why is transparency so highly valued that we would neglect the safety, the reputation of each of these athletes based on information that was not completely flushed out?” He added that students have faced social-media assaults and dropped recruiting interest as a result of the district’s message.

Several speakers described similar harms. Naim Ferguson said his son, a quarterback, has been called names and has lost recruiting momentum; he asked whether the district had followed appropriate procedures before publicizing the situation. Yvonne Montgomery called the district’s Oct. 17 email “reckless” and said it made it appear “like the entire 100-plus student-athletes on that team were involved in hazing.”

Speakers raised concrete questions they said remained unanswered: what safeguards exist for students who want to transfer schools; when and how players can retrieve personal belongings from the locker room; whether senior-night recognitions will be restored; and what steps the district will take to restore students’ reputations if investigations clear some or all players.

Superintendent Dr. Scriven responded near the end of public comment, saying she did care and that she had taken notes and would follow up with parents once the investigations concluded. “I will be following up with the parents that I met with earlier once the investigation[s] have concluded,” she said, adding that she was limited in what she could say while investigations remain active.

The board did not announce disciplinary outcomes or a timetable for public findings during the meeting. Board members and speakers repeatedly urged patience for investigative due process while parents urged faster, clearer communication and more support for students who say they were not involved.

The meeting record shows multiple parent speakers asked the district to explain both procedural safeguards and the timeline of district actions following an incident they said occurred Sept. 3. The superintendent told the board earlier in the meeting that the district had engaged the Center for Safe Schools to perform safety and culture assessments starting with the high school in December; she said two investigations (a Title IX matter and an alleged hazing investigation) were active.

Next steps: Dr. Scriven said the district will reach back out to parents after the investigations conclude; no public investigation report or schedule was presented at the Nov. 11 meeting.