The Questions That Finally Had to Be Asked: A Different Kind of School Board Meeting at Governor Mifflin

Commentary on Governor Mifflin’s September 14 school board meeting: family concerns about track, academic performance, security, employee departures, and administrative accountability.

By Lazaro L. Castellon — The Mifflin Report Meeting image supplied to The Mifflin Report. There are school board meetings where presentations are made, motions are passed and everyone goes home. Then there are meetings where parents come to the microphone, students speak about their experiences, community members challenge the district on academics, and board members begin asking questions that demand real answers. The September 14 Governor Mifflin School Board meeting was one of those nights. And for anyone watching, the change in the room was noticeable. Parents came forward with serious concerns. A student spoke about her experience. Zac Baker challenged the district over academic performance. And board members JANEMARIE McKAY and Laurie Miller pressed administration with questions about security, employee departures and student support. For a community that has been asking questions about accountability, the evening was significant. Parents Come Forward After Seven Months The most emotional portion of the meeting involved concerns raised by families and a student regarding the treatment of female track athletes. Marcella Schweiger told the board that her family had spent approximately seven months trying to get answers concerning the treatment of her daughter and other female athletes. According to her account, the concerns were first brought to the athletic director in February. She said the family later learned of similar concerns involving the same coach in another district and said the athletic director acknowledged knowing about prior allegations before the coach was hired. Marcella said the family contacted the school board and Dr. Hess in June, met with Hess in July, and later met with Human Resources. At the time of the meeting, she said there still had not been a resolution. She questioned why an additional coaching position would be provided for spring track but not winter track when the coach, athletes and underlying concerns remained substantially the same. She also raised potential Title IX implications and asked what the district would do to ensure female athletes had an appropriate coaching environment throughout the year. These are allegations and concerns raised publicly by the family, not findings independently established by the board or the meeting report. But they are questions that deserve answers. Drew Schweiger: "Where Do Parents Go?" Drew Schweiger , the student's father, followed with another issue that should concern every parent. He said the family had gone through the athletic director, Dr. Hess and Human Resources, yet still wasn't sure what the proper process was for resolving a complaint involving a coach. Drew said the family had received a tri-fold document from the athletic director but did not believe it provided a clear path for escalating a concern involving a coach. His question was bigger than his own family: Where are parents supposed to go when approaching the coach directly isn't appropriate? He asked for a published conflict-resolution process and emphasized that the issue involved more than one student. He said girls should be able to participate in an environment where they feel protected, heard and understood. Parents shouldn't have to spend months trying to figure out where to take a legitimate concern. The process should be clear. Lance and Molly Wardwork Speak Up Lance Wardwork also addressed the board concerning his daughter, Molly Wardwork , who participated in cross-country and indoor and outdoor track. Lance said he could not understand how people could know about concerns involving the girls and fail to follow through to help them. Molly's mother also spoke about the family's efforts to resolve the situation without having to come before the board. She described the team as a small group of athletes who trained together throughout the year and supported one another. She said the family believed the major change between seasons was the coaching. She described a June meeting with the athletic director and coach that left the family feeling dismissed. The family later met with Human Resources and eventually received word that an additional coach would be added in the spring — but not during winter track. Her argument was that the athletes needed consistent coaching, leadership and support throughout the year. Then a Student Spoke The student statement may have been the most difficult part of the evening to hear. Melissa Schweiger , identified in the report as a senior and lifelong district student, described running as a source of happiness, confidence and future ambition. She said that over time she lost confidence and stopped enjoying the sport. She questioned why an additional coaching position would be provided for spring track but not winter track when the same coach and same girls were involved. And then came the question that should stay with the district: How many students would have to speak up before they were believed? She said students are taught to report problems and trust adults, but after seven months she did not feel protected. Whatever one's position on the underlying allegations, a student standing before her school board and saying she no longer felt protected should never be treated as just another item on an agenda. Zac Baker: Stop Talking Around the Numbers Then came Zac Baker . Baker began by recognizing the work of teachers, principals and staff. He specifically said he was not questioning their effort and acknowledged that students receiving awards had worked hard. But he then challenged the district to confront its academic results. Baker questioned whether the district can continue introducing programs and professional development while students continue struggling with fundamental reading, writing and mathematics skills. He also questioned spending priorities, including athletic facilities, while academic concerns remain. His message was that taxpayers and parents deserve measurable improvement — not simply presentations and promises. The specific figures Baker cited should be independently verified before publication as official district-wide statistics, because the meeting report notes that his figures were not reconciled during the meeting with the high school's Keystone presentation. But the larger question remains: Are students actually improving enough? That is a question the district should be able to answer with clear, consistent data. JANEMARIE McKAY and Laurie Miller Ask the Questions Two board members stood out during the questioning: JANEMARIE McKAY and Laurie Miller . JANEMARIE McKAY pressed administration on security. The board discussed the fact that the previous security provider, M&G Security, had been bought out by KRE Security Companies. The question wasn't simply whether the August football game had security. The question was: Why wasn't the board informed earlier about the change in the district's security arrangement? Board members also questioned police coverage at the football game, the number of officers involved and whether armed security should be considered. Those questions put something important on the public record: Who is responsible for making sure the elected board knows about significant changes involving district operations and contracted services? Laurie Miller Questions Employee Departures Laurie Miller focused on another issue that shouldn't be brushed aside — employees leaving the district. Stephanie Seifrit, Director of Human Resources, explained that departing employees are offered either a face-to-face exit interview or an online survey. Participation is voluntary. But the district did not have the participation rate or the number of departures over recent years available during the discussion. The board requested that information. Members also discussed whether building-level conversations before an employee leaves could provide additional insight. Again, the question is simple: If employees are leaving, does the district know why? And if it knows why, what is it doing about it? Those answers should come with numbers, documentation and follow-up — not assumptions. And Then There Was the Math Question The academic discussion also produced another moment worth noting. A board member asked whether the district had ever hired a dedicated math specialist. The answer was no. The district does have a math instructional coach who works with teachers, but the discussion distinguished that position from a student-facing math specialist or interventionist who would work directly with students. The board member explained that, based on her own experience with her daughter, she believed early intervention in mathematics could help prevent students from falling further behind as they move into the upper grades. The question wasn't about blaming teachers. It was about whether the district has the right resources in place early enough to help struggling students. That's exactly the kind of question a school board should be asking. Another Question the District Needs to Answer: T.J. Miller and Football There is another matter that deserves a closer look, and it should be handled carefully: the role of high school principal T.J. Miller in the Governor Mifflin football program. Pennsylvania High School Principals: PIAA Responsibilities As a first-year head principal, T.J. Miller carries responsibilities that extend beyond academics and beyond any one team. Under the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association’s rules, the principal is directly responsible to PIAA for the school’s interscholastic athletic relations across its athletic program. Article X, Section 1 of the 2026–27 PIAA Constitution states: “The Principal of each school, in all matters pertaining to the interscholastic athletic relations of the Principal’s school, is responsible to PIAA.” It also makes clear that delegating powers does not relieve the principal of responsibility for the school’s violations of PIAA rules. Section 2 lists duties that include: Controlling the school’s interscholastic athletic relations and sanctioning its contests. Certifying student-athlete eligibility in writing. Providing reasonable protection for officials and visitors at home contests. Ensuring written contest contracts, arranging appropriate PIAA-registered officials, and having the principal or an authorized representative accompany teams to contests. These duties do not, by themselves, prohibit a principal from volunteering with a team. But they make the oversight question more important: How will Miller balance his first-year principal responsibilities with football volunteering while maintaining clear, impartial oversight across the school’s athletic program? The board should ask the district to explain the division of duties, the safeguards, and the accountability that remains with the principal. Source: PIAA 2026–27 Constitution, Article X, Sections 1–2, printed page 7 (PDF page 10). According to the meeting report, the subject came up during the board's discussion, where it was questioned whether someone other than Miller should be volunteering with football, given that he was new to the principal position and already carried substantial responsibilities. Administration responded that several volunteers were involved with the football program. A board member also noted that volunteer responsibilities should not take place during the principal's workday. Those points are documented in the report. What follows are not findings, but questions the public has raised and that the district has not yet answered on the record. A concern has been raised publicly that Miller's son is a quarterback on the same football team. The report does not confirm that, and this article does not treat it as established fact. If it is accurate — and the district should say plainly whether it is — then a reasonable question follows: what safeguards are in place to prevent even the appearance of preferential treatment or a conflict of interest? To be clear, no one is accusing Miller of wrongdoing here. There is no documented finding of misconduct, and nothing in the meeting report suggests one. The point is narrower and more practical. When a district is already facing questions from parents about coaching, complaint procedures, employee accountability and administrative oversight, avoiding even the appearance of a conflict becomes especially important. Public confidence is built on transparency, not on assumptions in either direction. If the arrangement is entirely appropriate, the district should have no difficulty explaining the safeguards to the public. And if there are policies governing this situation, taxpayers and parents should be able to see them. And Then Comes the Bigger Question: Accountability at the Top This is where the conversation has to become bigger than one coach, one security contract or one set of test scores. The district's superintendent is Dr. Lisa Hess . As the district's top administrator, Hess and her administration are responsible for the day-to-day management of the district and for bringing important information forward to the school board. That does not mean every problem is personally caused by the superintendent. It does mean that when the same categories of concern continue to surface — academics, student complaints, employee retention, communication and operational oversight — the public is entitled to ask whether the administration's systems and leadership are producing the results the community expects. That is accountability. And accountability cannot stop with the person standing at a microphone. It has to reach the top of the organizational structure. The meeting itself did not establish that Dr. Hess personally caused every problem discussed that night. But it did put several unresolved issues on the record that fall within the broader responsibility of district administration. That is where the school board's oversight role becomes critical. Four Years of Questions? For years, the community has heard about initiatives, programs, plans and efforts to improve the district. Yet parents are still coming forward with unresolved concerns. Academic performance remains a major topic. The board is still asking questions about employee departures. The district is still working through security and communication questions. And parents are still asking what the complaint process actually is when they believe something has gone wrong. That raises a legitimate public question: At what point does the board stop simply asking what the administration is doing and begin demanding measurable accountability for the results? That question applies to every superintendent and every administration. No employee should be above accountability. At the same time, accountability should be based on documented performance, established responsibilities and evidence — not simply frustration. And there is a related question that community members have raised, which deserves the same straightforward treatment. The concern, as it has been put publicly, is this: in past situations, administrators in comparable positions left or resigned from their previous roles. If that is accurate, then the fair question is not an accusation — it is a request for consistency. Why would this situation be handled any differently? This article does not assert that any particular past administrator resigned, and it is not calling for anyone's resignation now. Those claims are unconfirmed and were not established in the meeting report. But the underlying question is legitimate and remains unanswered on the record: what standards, policies and precedents does the district apply when questions arise about an administrator's role, and are those standards applied the same way every time? A district that can answer that question clearly — with policies, not adjectives — protects its employees, its students and its credibility all at once. A district that can't will keep hearing the question. Watching the Reaction Was Priceless For me, one of the most memorable parts of the meeting was watching what happened when the questions became more direct. The atmosphere around the table changed. Parents were watching. Community members were watching. And the board was asking questions that required administration to respond. There was no need for theatrics. The questions themselves were enough. And yes, for those of us watching, the reaction around the table was priceless. But the real story isn't anyone's facial expression. The real story is whether those questions produce answers. The Questions Are Now on the Record The September 14 meeting did not solve everything. There was no formal resolution recorded on the female-athlete concerns during public comment. The meeting report also identifies follow-up regarding employee departures and exit interviews, consideration of student-facing mathematics support, and continued academic improvement work. Now comes the part that matters most. Follow-through. Will parents receive a clear complaint and conflict-resolution process? Will the district address the concerns raised about winter track? Will the board receive the employee-retention information it requested? Will the district determine whether additional student-facing math intervention is necessary? Will the district publicly explain the safeguards governing an administrator's volunteer role in a program a family member participates in? Will academic performance be measured consistently and publicly? And will the administration be held accountable for producing results? Those questions belong to the entire community. Because a school board meeting should not be where questions go to die. It should be where questions begin. The Mifflin Report will continue watching. Sources Google Drive folder — source material supplied for this article