Several parents and a student told the Russell County Public Schools Board at its public-comment period that persistent bullying across the district is harming children and that school staff have not consistently notified families or taken effective disciplinary action.

Andrea Hale, a parent whose children attend Conaker Elementary School, said her 10-year-old has been “both verbally and physically abused” by the same classmate and that “the teachers have reported to the office multiple times a week, and I as his parents are never notified.” Hale said the principal told her the only punishment given was “a signed pizza lunch” and that the bully remained in the same classroom. “A child who physically and intentionally hurts another child should be sent home immediately,” Hale said. “A child who threatens to inflict bodily harm or death or tell a child to commit suicide should be suspended and permanently removed from that classroom.”

McKenna, a Kean University student who identified herself as the sister of a middle‑school student, said the district’s failure to respond sets a dangerous precedent. “When adults in positions of authority refuse to take action, the message is clear,” she said. “The bully’s behavior is acceptable, and the victim’s pain is not worth addressing.”

Angela Ellis, who said her tenth‑grade, highly ADHD autistic child has been bullied across multiple schools, described repeated reporting to principals and bus personnel with little change. “You have resource officers that are sitting there telling children that you can’t defend yourself because if you hit back, you’re gonna be charged,” Ellis said. “That is not right.”

Several other commenters raised similar concerns about students with disabilities and special‑education placements, including Deborah Dye, who said staff had placed her six‑year‑old autistic, nonverbal son in a seclusion class and removed his recess time after he showed repetitive behaviors in class. Dye said she was told her son was “defiant” and that she asked the school for explanations and a call back; she said she did not receive adequate answers.

During the public‑comment exchange, the board and district staff urged parents to use established complaint channels and said staff would follow up directly with families who left contact information. At one point, a staff member identified as Mr. Kimpton read the district policy cited by administrators. “This is policy JFC, student conduct, last revised this past July,” he said, and quoted the policy language that “whether a student acted in self defense is considered when the student's conduct is evaluated for disciplinary action.” A different administrator noted that Virginia law allows “reasonable force to repel the attack upon you,” and that schools must consider self‑defense before disciplining students.

Board members told speakers that, when cases involve individual students, portions of follow‑up may occur in closed session because the law protects student privacy and some personnel matters. Several parents disputed that approach and urged greater transparency about remedies and the district’s investigation timelines.

At the end of the public-comment block the board asked parents to provide contact information and said staff would follow up. The board did not take any formal votes on individual allegations during the meeting.

Why it matters: Parents and students described repeated incidents they said left victims unsafe and frustrated with inconsistent responses; district officials pointed to a recently revised discipline policy and Virginia law on self defense while promising follow‑up through established channels. The exchanges highlight tension between family demands for transparency and privacy rules that limit what schools can discuss in a public meeting.

Ending: District officials asked parents to submit detailed concerns through the principal or superintendent’s office so staff can investigate. Several speakers said they expected additional board engagement if families do not receive satisfactory resolutions.