Parents at Unionville-Chadds Ford SD accuse district of administering student surveys without notice; board urges follow-up

Several parents told the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District board at its June 10 work session that a wellness presentation and associated surveys had been given to students without parental notice or consent, and they urged the board to investigate and produce records.

“Has the district produced all the records requested by Chad Williams who uncovered the unlawful surveys, including the actual survey questions?” asked Fabiana Dunn during the public-comment period. Dunn said she believed the school had “hid” a survey and conducted personal attacks on parents who inquired about it.

Chad Williams, who identified himself as a Birmingham Township parent, made extensive allegations that he said dated back three years. “After I discovered the surveys that prove that this group did in fact unlawfully discuss [explicit] content with minor children without parental notice or consent,” Williams said, “the board has refused to meet with me, won't review the evidence, and will not hold anyone accountable.” Williams said he filed a complaint under board policy 906 and asked the board to meet with him, review his evidence and engage independent legal counsel to investigate.

Eric Dietrich, another parent, said materials from a presenter — which he referred to as “materials from Planned Parenthood” — were handed out during a session he described as inappropriate for some parents. “I don't want my kid receiving Planned Parenthood information in the public school that I pay for,” Dietrich said, and he asked the board to meet with parents to discuss the issues.

Megan Davis said her ninth‑grade daughter was “mortified” after participating in the wellness class and described late-year email notices parents could easily miss. Davis said a second‑grade presentation and a survey were included in student take-home folders and that the guidance counselor and the health teacher were not aware the program had occurred.

Board members repeatedly thanked speakers for coming and said they heard their concerns. Several directors asked for offline follow-up rather than a public back-and-forth in the work session. One director noted this was not the forum for a detailed Q&A but encouraged parents to meet with administrators.

The board did not take formal action during the work session. Speakers asked whether the district would report potential legal violations to the Department of Education and whether the superintendent or others should face discipline; those questions were raised by public commentators but no investigation outcome was announced at the meeting.

Next steps: parents asked the board to (1) produce records requested in open‑records inquiries, including survey questions and approval documents; (2) meet with complainants; and (3) consider independent counsel to review the complaint filed under Policy 906. The board acknowledged those requests and offered to continue communications outside the public work session.