Alumna urges OPRF to publish suspension‑review process after data she says shows racial disparity; parent warns of foul‑ball injuries

Megan Hanley Jackson, an OPRF alumna from the class of 2005, used the public-comment period to press the board for a written, publicly accessible suspension-review process and a transparent audit of out‑of‑school suspensions. Jackson said her requests made at the Culture, Climate and Behavior (CCB) committee last month went unanswered and that the committee meeting was canceled; she urged the board to ensure Black students and other most-impacted communities are represented on CCB.

Jackson cited district data in the 2025 school year, saying "19 out of 19 were Black students" and adding that 18 of the 19 had individualized education programs (IEPs). She said the district has not produced a written document explaining how suspension review works, who acts as the impartial hearing officer, what the timeline is, or how families access review. "When a process is undefined or undisclosed, it is not neutral," Jackson said, and she urged a public process, a transparent audit and Black-student representation on the committee.

Board members and staff did not produce a response on the record in the public-comment period; the transcript records interruptions from meeting staff enforcing the three‑minute public‑comment time limit. Jackson framed the request as a compliance and equity issue, referencing district policy and the Behavioral Education Plan (BEP) that require documented, consistent disciplinary procedures.

Separately, community member and parent Tori Redmond described persistent foul‑ball hazards affecting a nearby residential block. Redmond said her management company had reported 17 incidents by June of last year, and that as recently as April 11 a nine‑year‑old neighbor was struck and taken to the ER; she said the family filed a report with the district. Redmond urged earlier-season mitigation (canopies, tree planting or vendor solutions) so neighbors are not at risk again this season.

The public-comment period ended without formal board action on either request; the speakers asked the board to follow up with written processes (for suspension review) and with safety mitigation or earlier-season communication (for foul balls). The transcript shows board staff indicated response timelines for public‑comment questions could be up to two weeks.