-
Superintendent assures parents of safety plan, cites legal restrictions on sharing details
-
Parents and students voice concerns about security and mental health at board meeting
-
District stands firm on privacy laws amid calls for greater transparency on safety measures
GUILDERLAND — “Shame on you,” screamed one parent before walking out of the Guilderland Central Board of Education meeting following a heated public comment session featuring angry parents who said they were not informed that a previously suspended student who composed a “kill list” was returning to school.
Superintendent Marie Wiles attempted to address the issue with an opening statement on Tuesday, Sept. 10, emphasizing the district’s commitment to student safety and compliance with privacy laws.
“We highly value the trust families place in us to ensure their children can learn safely and productively while they are in our care,” Wiles said. “We are committed to upholding this vital responsibility and will continue to collaborate with our stakeholders, including law enforcement, to provide a safe learning experience for all.”
In her statement, Wiles assured attendees that a detailed safety plan is in place to protect all students and staff, including increased supervision for the returning student. However, she noted that specific details of the plan cannot be disclosed due to legal constraints, particularly under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which mandates the confidentiality of student records.
Wiles stressed that maintaining this confidentiality is an essential component of the district’s safety protocols.
During the public comment session, several parents, including those whose children were named on the list, expressed their concerns about the returning student’s presence at the high school. William, a parent of a student at the school, questioned why the district did not notify the broader school community about the student’s return. He raised concerns about the mental health impact on students who were listed or aware of the list, highlighting the anxiety and fear his daughter now experiences.
“My daughter comes to school every day worried, asking, ‘Dad, what if?’ and I’m supposed to tell her she’s protected and safe,” William said. “You’re taking one student’s rights over the well-being of many others.”
Amber Wagner, whose son was named on the list, echoed similar concerns, stating that parents should have been informed about the student’s return. “It’s not right that he’s allowed back in this school without notifying the parents or the students affected,” she said. “There are other schooling options that should have been considered.”
Community member Rosemary Harrigan, who has extensive experience in secondary education, expressed her trust in the district’s judgment but questioned whether the safety plan is robust enough to prevent any potential threats. “I depend upon you, and I would like to ask if each of you believes in your heart that the school safety plan you have put together will keep all of our children safe from this particular threat,” Harrigan said.
The meeting also included comments from Cameron, a student named on the list, who shared his unease about the returning student’s presence despite the increased supervision. “I still don’t trust the safety plan at all,” Cameron stated. “Even with adults supervising, it feels like he could just slip away.”
In response to these concerns, the district’s legal counsel reiterated that the Board and administration are bound by federal and state laws to maintain confidentiality regarding student information. The counsel emphasized that the district is fully aware of the situation and is taking necessary measures to ensure safety, but specific details cannot be shared publicly.
The district continues to face calls for more transparency and communication from concerned parents who seek reassurance about the measures in place to protect their children. The Board reaffirmed its commitment to student safety and pledged to uphold the privacy and legal rights of all students involved.
Petition
A petition initiated by Deanna Cornelius, a parent of two children in the district, is calling for full disclosure of the safety measures in place.
Cornelius, whose son is an incoming freshman at Guilderland High School, expressed alarm after learning the unnamed student was returning to school after a student-guided tour for incoming freshmen on Aug. 27.
Cornelius stated that she had not received any updates regarding the student’s return and had reached out to school officials, including the high school principal, the district superintendent, and the local police department. While officials confirmed the student’s return, they cited privacy concerns that limited the information they could provide about any safety plans.
Cornelius, seeking reassurance for the safety of her son, other students, and staff, has contacted local and state officials, including her assembly member’s office, the governor’s office, and the state Department of Student Services.
She was informed that the matter remains under the jurisdiction of the school district.
Cornelius also reached out to the school board and local media, but says she has not received a response.
In her petition, Cornelius acknowledged that the returning student is entitled to a public education and hopes that the student has received and continues to receive the necessary support. However, she expressed concern that the student’s presence at the high school could cause distress among peers who were impacted by the earlier incident. Cornelius is advocating for transparency regarding the safety measures being implemented to ensure a secure environment for all students and staff.
“The district is apparently keeping their lips sealed and it certainly feels like they are doing this to sweep an issue under the rug. We deserve to be in the know,” Cornelius stated in her petition. “What measures are being taken? There has to be an obvious plan in place, and that extra reassurance would be valuable to us and our children.”
