Parents, witnesses and a board member accused school staff of physically and emotionally mistreating a nonverbal student in a Jamison Elementary special-education classroom during public comment at the Central Bucks School District board meeting on Jan. 16.

The district said it opened an internal investigation and filed a ChildLine report; Warwick Township police also investigated and concluded their criminal inquiry with no findings of abuse. Parents and whistleblowers told the board the internal review and police outcome do not reflect multiple eyewitness accounts of incidents they say included forcing a child to walk barefoot on hot blacktop and wood chips, prolonged restraints, removal of a communication device and other degrading treatment.

Why it matters: The allegations involve a medically vulnerable, nonverbal student and touch on district reporting and response protocols for suspected abuse. Several speakers said the district’s handling harmed parents’ trust and asked the board to pursue further accountability or resignations; the district said it is cooperating with authorities and that safety remains a priority.

The parents’ account and whistleblower reports

At the meeting Deborah Cannon (public commenter) described allegations she said were raised by a whistleblower and summarized them in stark terms: “What if I told you a child in your district was subjected to treatment so burdensome it was criminal? What if I told you a child was forced to walk barefoot on hot asphalt and wood chips as punishment, left naked in his classroom, left naked on a bathroom floor, deprived of water, and mocked by adults charged with his care?” (Deborah Cannon, public comment.)

Multiple other speakers, including Vana Diermon and Jana Rotunno, recounted a timeline they said began with a whistleblower complaint submitted to Human Resources in mid-November and the district filing a ChildLine report on Nov. 20. They said the district’s internal investigation and an initial police review labeled the matter a personality conflict or “instructional concerns” and found no evidence of criminal abuse, but that later police follow-up corroborated eyewitness accounts and prompted requests to reopen the investigation.

Board member and parent Jim Pepper described the effect on his family during lengthy public remarks. “My son was treated like an animal...worse than an animal,” Pepper said. He told the board he and his wife were told by district officials that they had “no right whatsoever to know what happened to our son.” Pepper and other speakers urged the board to hold administration staff accountable; Pepper also called for the resignation of several district officials in his remarks.

District and police statements

Howard Schargel read a Jan. 5 email from Superintendent Dr. Steven Yanni to the board explaining the district’s actions: the district opened an internal investigation conducted by Human Resources and school administrators, filed a ChildLine report, and cooperated with the Warwick Township Police Department. The email said, in part, “there have been no findings of any abuse of any child in the district and that the safety of our students is and always will be our top priority.” (read publicly at the Jan. 16 meeting.)

A Warwick Township police report included at the meeting summarized law enforcement’s contact with district officials. The detective’s report states that after interviewing staff and reviewing the district’s investigation, the detective believed the district handled its internal inquiry appropriately and recommended closing the criminal investigation.

What the district said about its process

According to statements read at the meeting, the district’s internal review involved Human Resources director Rob Freeling (named in the police report), an HR manager and staff support from Nadine Garvin. Multiple commenters and parents criticized what they described as selective reporting to ChildLine and to parents — saying some allegations gathered by the whistleblower were not shared with ChildLine, parents, or publicly — and called that omission unacceptable.

Board response and next steps

Board members and district officials repeatedly told the meeting they could not discuss personnel details in public comment but said they were taking the complaints seriously. The district said it would continue cooperating with law enforcement and children-and-youth authorities.

Public speakers pressed for additional transparency and accountability; several urged the board to review reporting practices for alleged abuse and to ensure mandatory reporter responsibilities are enforced. The meeting did not produce a publicly recorded new formal action or vote on additional investigation steps; speakers said they expect follow-up from the board and administration.

Ending

The parents and several whistleblowers demanded further action and oversight; district leaders reiterated their position that prior investigatory steps were completed and that the police had closed their criminal inquiry without finding evidence of abuse. The board did not announce an immediate new, public fact-finding process at the meeting; several speakers said they would seek media coverage and continued legal or administrative review.