KIPP Texas board hears expulsion appeal for Jonathan Mitchell; moves to private deliberation

The KIPP Texas board of directors met in closed session on May 7, 2026, to hear an expulsion appeal for student Jonathan Mitchell. Advocate Saketa Light asked the board to reverse the district’s disciplinary decision, saying KIPP did not fairly consider the context of the January 8 episode and had previously agreed to counseling after a TEA complaint.

"KIPP should not now use those same prior behaviors against the student as if the district had no responsibility to correct the situation," advocate Saketa Light said, asking the board to remove disciplinary consequences from Mitchell’s record and require corrective relief.

District officials, represented in the hearing by regional superintendent Frank Kush and chief of schools Dan Caesar, told the board the January 8 incident involved an escalation that included threats and physical aggression. "He used repeated profanity and verbal threats toward the principal, including threatening to hit her and kill her," Kush said, adding the student threw objects that struck an assistant principal and damaged school property. Kush said the school contacted law enforcement and suspended Mitchell for two days before recommending expulsion.

Kush and Caesar also described a pattern of prior incidents during the school year that the administration said supported the expulsion recommendation: multiple police notifications (described in the record as five occasions), three out-of-school suspensions totaling five days, stay-away agreements, behavior intervention plans and offers of counseling or outside evaluation that the family declined or did not fully engage with.

Light rebutted during the allotted closing time, saying the district had a prior TEA noncompliance finding related to the earlier behaviors and asking the board to hear an audio recording she said captured the student’s distress and allegations of being touched by staff. The chair and hearing officer said the recording did not appear in the appeal packet and Light’s rebuttal time was limited.

Board members asked clarifying questions about whether the January 8 event alone would have justified dismissal. Administration replied that the culminating event was sufficient to support expulsion but that they reviewed the student’s broader pattern of behavior to confirm the recommendation.

After presentations and a brief question-and-answer period, the board adjourned to a private deliberation link to consult with counsel. No final vote was taken during the closed session; any final action, if forthcoming, will be taken in the open session according to the hearing officer.

The hearing record and the materials reviewed by the board were those provided to both parties in advance; the board was asked to consider whether procedural errors occurred and whether the expulsion determination should be upheld.