Jason Mitchell - Middle & High School Principal

This page documents concerns regarding the actions, communications, and decision-making of Principal Jason Mitchell as they related to our daughter’s mid-year removal from school.

We share this not to speculate about intent or assign personal labels, but to examine observable conduct, timing, and leadership choices through the lens of student safeguarding, proportionality, due process, and Christian educational leadership.

Scope of Review

This assessment is based on:

• Written communications from Mr. Mitchell
• Decisions communicated and enforced under his authority
• Actions taken or declined in response to parental concerns
• The absence of documented student misconduct
• The handling of safeguarding concerns raised by parents
• The sequence and timing of administrative decisions

At no point did Mr. Mitchell accuse our daughter of misconduct, dishonesty, or violation of school rules.

1. Decision-Making Without Student Attribution

Observed Conduct

Mr. Mitchell communicated the decision to withdraw our daughter from enrollment on Sunday morning, prior to church services. In written explanations, he did not cite:

• Any misconduct by our daughter
• Any disciplinary violation
• Any dishonesty or disrespect by the student

Instead, the decision was framed around:

• Parental trust
• Partnership “misalignment”
• Administrative discretion

Assessment

Removing a student without identifying the student as the cause raises fundamental concerns about child-centered decision-making. When a child bears the consequence of adult disagreement, leadership must demonstrate heightened care, transparency, and proportionality.

2. Absence of Safeguarding Inquiry

Observed Conduct

Mr. Mitchell was informed that our daughter had:

• Been isolated in a classroom by Mrs. Lisa Walker
• Repeatedly asked to leave as many as 15 times
• Repeatedly requested that a parent be present

An audio recording of this interaction was offered for review. Mr. Mitchell did not request to listen to the recording prior to issuing a final enrollment decision.

No written communication reflects inquiry into:

• The student’s emotional state
• The appropriateness of the adult interaction
• Whether safeguarding protocols were implicated

Assessment

When safeguarding concerns are raised, best practice requires pause, inquiry, and review before irreversible action. Declining to review available evidence offered in good faith undermines confidence that the student’s welfare was fully considered.

3. Tone: Finality Over Dialogue

Observed Conduct

Communications from Mr. Mitchell emphasized finality early in the process. Language focused on “reflection” and future learning rather than collaborative problem-solving.

No communication reflected questions such as:

• “Help me understand what happened.”
• “How is the student doing?”
• “What would support her right now?”

Assessment

In Christian school leadership, tone is pastoral. A declarative or corrective tone in the presence of student distress can feel administrative rather than shepherding—particularly when dialogue has not been exhausted.

4. Escalation Without Progressive Intervention

Observed Conduct

• No probationary plan was offered
• No corrective or restorative pathway was proposed
• No temporary accommodations or transitional options were presented
• The decision moved directly to withdrawal

Assessment

Immediate withdrawal is among the most severe actions a school can take. When no student misconduct is alleged, best practices typically require progressive intervention. Skipping restorative steps raises concerns regarding proportionality and fairness.

5. Reframing Advocacy as a Trust Deficit

Observed Conduct

Parental questions and advocacy were later characterized as:

• A lack of trust
• Misalignment with school values

Concerns raised about adult conduct were not documented as investigated prior to withdrawal.

Assessment

Healthy safeguarding cultures depend on parents being able to raise concerns without fear of reprisal. Reframing advocacy as a character or partnership issue risks discouraging reporting and undermining trust between families and leadership.

6. Timing of Rationale

Observed Conduct

Several rationales offered to justify withdrawal surfaced after the decision had already been communicated. These included references to:

• Historical disclosures accepted at admission
• Matters unrelated to the student’s conduct

Assessment

In ethical leadership and governance, timing matters. Reasons that emerge after an outcome risk appearing retrospective rather than determinative, even if unintended. Transparent process requires material concerns to be raised and addressed before decisions are finalized.

7. Exercise of Authority Beyond School Grounds

Observed Conduct

Mr. Mitchell acknowledged arranging for someone to locate, observe, and record our daughter at a non-school, off-campus athletic event:

• After she had resigned from the school activity at issue
• Without prior notice or parental consent
• Without explanation of policy authority or necessity

Assessment

Exercising school authority beyond campus boundaries—particularly to gather information about a minor—raises serious questions about scope, necessity, and proportionality, especially when no misconduct is alleged.  Why would a Principal want a video of our daugher at event that has nothing to do with school on a weekend?

8. Alignment With Christian Leadership Expectations

Christian school principals are often expected to model:

• Humility and listening
• Protection of the vulnerable
• De-escalation in conflict
• Restoration before removal
• Clear separation between adult conflict and child consequence

Reflection Question:

Do the actions and communications documented here reflect leadership that prioritizes pastoral care, student welfare, and restoration when a child is distressed?

Conclusion

Based on observable actions and communications, this assessment raises concerns regarding:

• Student-centered decision-making
• Safeguarding inquiry
• Proportionality of response
• Transparency of process
• Alignment between pastoral language and pastoral action

Reasonable people may disagree about outcomes. However, the process by which this decision was reached—and the limited consideration shown for the student’s welfare—warrants careful reflection and review.