Listing concerns

Amanda Jones received simultaneous text and voicemail messages last Wednesday (May 8) from her son’s school, Chico Junior High, alerting families to a letter that explained that two students had made a “poor decision” by creating a list of classmates they “liked and did not like.”

The letter, which was signed by Chico Junior’s principal, Pedro Caldera, went on to state that the list was both offensive and had caused fear in light of “current tension across our nation regarding school violence.”

According to the correspondence, Chico police had been notified and the students suspected of writing the list were questioned and admitted their involvement.

After reading the message, Jones, whose name has been changed to protect the privacy and safety of her child, still had questions. She spoke to her son about what he knew and also began piecing together information found online.

The list, she found out, may have been more nefarious than school officials had let on. The words “kill list” were being used by other parents, and Jones heard her son’s name may have been on it. The episode began Wednesday morning, when police responded to Chico Junior to investigate the report of a troubling list that allegedly had been compiled by two 11-year-old students.

In interviews with the CN&R, neither police nor school officials described the document in detail, but said it included names. Caldera, the principal, said the list was essentially divided into categories indicating people who were safe and people who were unsafe. Chico police Cmdr. Ted McKinnon said the list contained the word “kill.”

Police quickly determined that the students behind the list did not pose a credible threat. Investigators, McKinnon said, came to their conclusion after speaking with the students involved, conducting a “limited” search of their homes and consulting with their parents.

The intent behind the list, the police commander said, was not to cause physical harm but to note people who were liked or disliked. “In short, I would say that the two 11-year-olds went through quite a learning lesson,” he said.

But while police deemed the potential threat as not credible, some parents have criticized the school for not fully explaining the nature of list, leaving questions regarding student safety up in the air at a time when schools have been all-too-common stages for violence across the country.

Jones told the CN&R that she felt the school had been vague in describing the incident. She also questioned whether school officials had done enough to ensure student safety on campus.

“They should have been completely transparent instead of saying it was just … a list of people [the students] don’t like,” Jones said. “That’s different than the word ‘kill.’ ‘Kill’ is definitely a threat, right? Don’t sugarcoat it for us. Be honest with us. These are our children and we have a right to know.”

The omission of facts in the school’s messaging, she continued, was “upsetting.”

“When you don’t give the full story and sugarcoat things, it’s kind of like you’re sweeping it under the rug. Are you ensuring that it’s not going to happen again? Are you ensuring that my child is going to be safe? Are you taking care of it?”

Jones, believing her son had been on the list, also wondered why she had not been contacted further to explain what had happened. She said the school owed calls to the parents of students who were named in the document.

Caldera said the school did personally contact the parents of students whose names were on the list. Rumors, however, spread on and off campus the morning it was discovered. And some students, he said, told their classmates that they were on the list when, in fact, they were not.

Speaking to the school’s messaging, Caldera said officials must follow federal and state laws regarding student information. There are certain specifics, he said, that cannot be shared because officials are bound by the Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act and state Education Code. It’s a balancing act between privacy and transparency, he said, adding that he understands some people will be upset when faced with limited information.

“We’re not allowed to give out specific details because then they can tie it to kids,” he explained. “If something happens … [to the] kids that did what they did, now we can be held accountable if something happens to them. That is the fine line that we have to balance to keep all our kids safe … and that’s what’s so hard.”

Jay Marchant, director of secondary and alternative education at Chico Unified School District, echoed Caldera. In this case, he said, “we wanted to let parents know that if their kids went home and said there was a list that said ‘kill or not kill’ kind of thing, that we knew … what is on it or not.”

Marchant added that officials did their best to communicate that they were investigating a potential threat, had involved the police, and that student safety was a priority.

School officials would not confirm whether disciplinary action was taken.

McKinnon said school officials acted appropriately by reporting the threat to the authorities, and Chico Police Chief Mike O’Brien told the CN&R that officers take every potential threat seriously.

“Obviously, it is on the forefront of our minds, being that we’re seeing so many different active shooter-type scenarios play out,” O’Brien said. “Not just in the schools, but in our houses of worship, everywhere, right? You have to take every threat seriously.”