Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Personnel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, students press Russell County school board to keep Castlewood guidance counselor amid dispute over discipline and services
Summary
Several parents, students and family members urged the Russell County School Board to keep a popular guidance counselor at Castlewood, alleging failures in special‑education services and criticizing administration; the board said it could not discuss personnel matters publicly and a board attorney cited legal limits on on‑campus protests.
At a Russell County School Board meeting, parents, students and relatives urged the board to retain Castlewood Elementary and Middle School guidance counselor Miss Cassidy and criticized district administration for what they described as poor communication and failures to provide services.
Ashley Osborne, who identified herself as a parent and wartime veteran, told the board her child went nine months without speech services and said ‘‘administration action was not taken’’ until a staff member intervened. Osborne also said students who planned a silent prayer at the flagpole were ‘‘intimidated and threatened with suspension,’’ and she asked the board to reconsider moving the counselor.
The matter drew multiple personal accounts. Sandra Gomez told the board Miss Cassidy ‘‘built this program from the ground up’’ and supervises more than 100 children; Sharon Jackson said the community has ‘‘always got the short end of the stick’’ and pleaded that Castlewood not lose the counselor. Student Edwin Jackson described Miss Cassidy as ‘‘the only person that ever did anything’’ for him in elementary school, and Judy Jordan, who identified herself as the counselor’s mother, said students routinely seek the counselor out and ‘‘they light up’’ when they see her.
The board did not debate personnel at the meeting. A board legal representative explained the district’s legal obligations and limits on student protests in school settings, saying schools can regulate on‑campus speech that substantially interferes with instruction and citing a 2024 Virginia Court of Appeals decision referenced during the meeting. The attorney also said safety and supervision concerns factor into whether students may leave school property during the day.
Board members repeatedly told speakers that personnel actions could not be discussed in open session. Several speakers said they had attempted to contact district administration and received no response. Audience members who came to speak repeatedly urged the board to ‘‘look at the administration’’ and to leave the counselor in place.
The public comment portion ended without a public vote on staffing or reassignment. The board went on to consider routine business and action items later in the agenda. The district did not announce any immediate change of assignment at the meeting.
The board is required by law to withhold discussion of certain personnel matters from open session; those limits were cited at the meeting. Next procedural steps were not announced publicly during the meeting; the board recorded the comments as part of the public‑comment record and continued with the posted agenda.
