Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent alleges Franklin High mishandled son's discipline, calls for policy review
Summary
A parent said district leaders treated a caffeine pouch as a nicotine look‑alike and imposed disproportionate discipline on his son; the board heard the statement during community comment and the parent said some disciplinary language was later revised and an expungement offered.
A parent raised allegations during community comment at the Franklin Public Schools Board of Education meeting on May 27, saying his son was wrongly disciplined after staff treated a caffeine pouch as a nicotine “look‑alike.” The statement was read aloud on behalf of Dr. Aranda, who said the incident led to reputational and psychological harm for his son, identified in the statement as Ali Aranda.
The commenter said Franklin High School administrators initially applied disciplinary language associated with possession and distribution of nicotine‑related substances and that references to distribution and drug/alcohol were later removed after appeal. "Rather than critically evaluating whether the original response was proportionate, fair and ethically sound, district leaders repeatedly chose to defend and reinforce a false process rooted in vague policy interpretation and excessive administrative discretion," the statement read.
The statement said athletic consequences were modified after appeal and that an expungement of the student record was ultimately offered, but that district leadership continued to deny that harm occurred. The parent also alleged racial profiling in how disciplinary decisions were applied; the commenter said the other student identified in the same incident did not face similar action.
Board members did not discuss the specifics of the complaint during the public‑comment period; the meeting proceeded to the consent agenda and other business. The board had earlier read its community comment policy, which requires speakers to be district residents or parents/guardians, to state a full name and address for the record and to limit remarks to three minutes.
The statement asked the board to examine the district’s policies and the use of administrative discretion in student discipline. The board did not announce any formal follow‑up on the record at the meeting. The district may address personnel or student‑privacy matters in closed session in other agenda items; this public comment was recorded in the meeting minutes.
