(This article first appeared in Broad + Liberty.)
The Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) is investigating Dr. John Sanville, superintendent of the Unionville Chadds Ford School District (UCFSD) based on a complaint filed by a parent in the district alleging misconduct. Chad Williams, an attorney who is pursuing this in his personal capacity as a father, is also pushing back on PDE’s assertion that the allegations and process must remain confidential. Additionally, he questions the timing of PDE’s response which occurred on the same day he alerted the media of the complaint.
If Williams is correct in his interpretation of investigative confidentiality, it could change the way in which PDE manages the process. Allegations and evidence would be able to be shared publicly if the person making the complaint chooses to publicize the information.
Williams filed an Educator Misconduct Complaint with PDE on April 24, 2024. He makes multiple allegations including the superintendent’s refusal to meet with him regarding policy violations, failure to fulfill Right to Know requests consistent with the law, acting in bad faith by withholding documents, and discriminating against him as a result of denying him his right to due process.
The allegations date back to 2022 and include the enforcement of unlawful policies during Covid and more recent issues regarding withholding public documents. Williams claims that the district, and specifically Dr. Sanville, committed multiple violations of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment and perjury.
He asked the school board to investigate, which he says they are required to do under Pennsylvania law, and they failed to do so. “That is why I had to file the educator misconduct complaint.”
Williams provided Broad + Liberty the entire complaint with redactions of personal information, despite the fact that PDE instructed him that the complaint itself and the fact that he filed it are supposed to be confidential. On page five of the complaint, the PDE form reads, “the education misconduct complaint process is confidential and any unauthorized release of confidential information is a misdemeanor of the third degree.”
Williams crossed out that language and added a note: “Judge Karen Marston of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently held that the enforcement of the above cited provision is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. I do not agree to keep the fact that I have submitted this complaint, or any of the facts underlying my allegations herein, confidential.”
Williams references the John Doe v. Jennifer Schorn case decided earlier this year declaring the confidentiality clause unconstitutional. “The confidentiality provision of the Educator Discipline Act was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge, precluding criminal charges against a complainant who wished to publish the contents of an educator misconduct complaint and comment on its disposition.”
He believes the Schorn case is applicable to this situation, despite the fact that the ruling was based on a slightly different situation where the complaint was dismissed. Williams said, “specifically, the court held that the confidentiality provision cannot withstand strict scrutiny because it is content-based and overbroad. That case was not overturned on appeal and the General Assembly has not amended the provision to cure the unconstitutionality. Therefore, I am relying on that holding in disclosing the fact that I filed the complaint.”
The district appears to be relying on the guidance from PDE regarding confidentiality. The Director of Communications and Community Relations for the district, Nikki Laroya, responded to a request for comment. “The District does not and cannot comment on a matter that is extremely confidential as mandated by law.”
Despite filing the complaint on April 24, 2024, the investigation process only recently commenced. PDE acknowledged receipt of the complaint the same day and responded that someone would reach out to him via mail in two to four weeks. Subsequently, Williams emailed PDE multiple times, including on May 31, July 16, and July 19, asking for a status update since the projected two to four weeks had long passed.
In the July 19 email, Williams copied various news outlets, Broad + Liberty included, and PDE sent a letter later that day notifying him that the department was initiating an investigation.
“We have determined that the allegations set forth in the complaint, if found to be true, are sufficient to warrant discipline and we will now conduct a preliminary investigation.”
Williams believes that this is a parental rights and civil liberties issue.
He said, “when a parent of children who attend Pennsylvania public schools informs school officials that the enforcement of certain policies is causing actual harm to children and demands to know the source of the authority the government is relying on to enforce policies that are causing harm, that parent is entitled to a response setting forth the exact source of legal authority. I never got that response and, instead, I was treated like a pariah for asking. Then, when the Supreme Court declared that Pennsylvania schools never had the legal authority to enforce those policies, district policy 906 and the RTKL give me the right to figure out why my concerns were ignored and to ensure that it never happens again. Instead of granting me the transparency and accountability I am entitled to under the law, Dr. Sanville, the school board, and its solicitor (government actors) are denying my right to due process and equal protection under the law.”
Williams said that like many parents, he started paying closer attention during the extended school closures and that is how he uncovered unlawful surveys administered in the school which the district eventually acknowledged a year after he raised the issue.
It remains to be seen whether the PDE investigation will determine that the allegations are true and whether disciplinary action will be taken or is warranted. Williams, however, is committed to holding the superintendent and district accountable for their actions. In addition to the educator misconduct complaint, he has filed complaints with the United States Department of Education for the pupil privacy violations and the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General for civil rights violations. Finally, he has a petition pending before the Chester County Court of Common Pleas regarding the district’s alleged bad faith abuse of the Right to Know Law.
