Board removes reappointment line item after parents press for stronger student-safety standard

Trustees faced sustained public pressure on July 20 after families and advocates urged the District 5 Board of Trustees to take stronger steps to protect students following allegations that a classroom teacher harmed a child.

Parents and advocates used the public-participation period to recount injuries, ask for a clear timeline, and demand faster administrative action. Danielle Pike, who identified herself as a parent and caregiver of a child with autism, told the board: “There is someone's child that was harmed in our district, and y'all are allowing her to sit in her home on paid leave for due process while she technically has a job in our district.” Ashley Reeves described a son who returned home with “cuts and bruises” and said she had photographs and messages she would share with administrators. Megan Blanchette, whose family moved to the district this year, said she was “disappointed” and worried that maintaining a teachers contract while charges are pending does not prioritize childrens safety.

Disability advocate Danny Bloom, director of outreach and policy for the Arc of South Carolina, asked the board to review whether existing policies and reporting procedures were working for families of students who cannot reliably report abuse. “No family should ever have to choose between protecting their relationship with the school and protecting their child,” Bloom said, and asked the board to explain safeguards in clear, accessible language.

Superintendent Dr. Ross addressed the boards legal constraints and the districts use of administrative leave. He said the employee remains on leave while the districts investigation proceeds and cautioned trustees that state law and due-process requirements limit immediate personnel actions without presenting facts and giving employees an opportunity to be heard. “We use leave because leave allows us to have full protections of due process rights, but no employee returns from this situation until we can present that case to you all,” Dr. Ross said.

After public comment, a board member moved to withdraw approval of a specific reappointment (the line-item referenced in the March 23 packet) on the grounds that trustees were not provided pertinent information when they voted earlier in the year. Trustees debated whether the motion was procedurally proper without additional legal advice, paused briefly to consult counsel, and then reconvened to vote. The motion to remove the line item passed 5-1 with one abstention.

Board discussion afterward focused on what the removal would mean procedurally and legally. Trustees and the superintendent repeatedly emphasized that state statute governs reappointment and termination procedures and that further steps would follow the legal process. Board members asked staff to bring fuller documentation and legal guidance to the next meeting so the board can consider any additional personnel action in line with state law.

The meeting record shows the board also voted earlier in the evening to approve selected employment items presented in executive session and to approve a contractual amendment related to site preparation for a new district facility; those actions were listed separately from the reappointment debate and carried during the action agenda. The board adjourned after later routine motions.

What happens next: Trustees said they will obtain legal guidance and additional facts before pursuing further personnel action. The board scheduled follow-up and signaled it will return the reappointment matter for fuller consideration under proper notice and legal procedure.