Both Superintendent Alex Marrero and board President Xóchitl Gaytán accuse director Monica Hunter of calling fellow director Amy Klein Molk a “Zionist bitch,” according to written statements they provided to Denver Public Schools’ Board of Education.

But neither Marrero nor Gaytán informed Klein Molk of the remarks until at least August, according to the documents.

“I was disappointed that this was known by district leadership for months before it was disclosed to me,” Klein Molk said in her own statement to the board, provided to The Post via the Colorado Open Records Act.

Hunter has denied the allegations against her, saying on Tuesday that she believed the accusations — which were first made by Gaytán earlier this month — were in retaliation for her efforts earlier this year to “hold (Marrero) accountable.”

“(Gaytán) and (Marrero) have come up with these false allegations without any evidence and they’re baseless claims,” Hunter said.

Marrero and Gaytán both declined to comment for this story. Klein Molk did not return a message seeking comment.

The documents detailing the allegations of antisemitism made against Hunter are part of a trove of evidence Gaytán gathered and sent to her colleagues on Monday, ahead of a board meeting scheduled for Thursday. During that meeting, directors are expected to discuss and potentially take action against Hunter and a second board member — Donald “D.J.” Torres — accused of violating numerous board policies.

Gaytán accused Hunter and Torres earlier this month of not fulfilling their duties as elected board members. She said Torres repeatedly missed meetings and she levied numerous allegations at Hunter, including that she advocated on behalf of a parent on enrollment matters and on the potential transfer of her own son to a different school.

Torres has denied the allegations.

The board will vote on whether to initiate a third-party investigation into the allegations made by Gaytán, according to an email the board president sent on Monday.

“My goal is to ensure that each director has an opportunity to review the relevant information and that the board can approach this discussion thoughtfully, fairly, and in accordance with our adopted governance policies, while also providing our community an appropriate opportunity to be heard,” she wrote.

Documents detail antisemitic allegations

In her statement to the board, Gaytán detailed two interactions with Hunter in which the latter allegedly made antisemitic comments about Klein Molk. The first involved a December phone call in which Hunter — now the board’s vice president — said she would not vote to place Klein Molk into an officer position because she’s a Zionist.��

“I remember this conversation because Director Hunter appeared to be communicating to me, as future board president, that her position regarding (Klein Molk’s) potential consideration for a board officer position was based specifically on what she said (Klein Molk) had expressed about being a Zionist,” Gaytán wrote in her statement.

Zionism is the belief that Jewish statehood belongs in Israel. The Anti-Defamation League, which tracks antisemitism, states that anti-Zionism is antisemitic when it is used to target, vilify or punish Jews who feel a connection to Israel, according to the

Gaytán alleged that during a second interaction with Hunter in December, Hunter called Klein Molk a “racist Zionist bitch.” Her account is similar to the one described by Marrero in his statement to the school board.��

Marrero wrote that he had a conversation with Hunter in January, during which she referred to Klein Molk as a “white Zionist bitch” and said she didn’t want to sit beside her during meetings. The superintendent told Klein Molk of this conversation on Aug. 21, according to Klein Molk’s statement.

“Dr. Marrero appeared surprised by my lack of visible reaction to this disclosure — nearly seven months after the remark was made,” Klein Molk wrote. “I was not surprised given my past personal experience but was obviously very upset and became more so over time.”

A meeting after last’s election

The new documents, along with statements from board members, showed that conflict between directors began shortly after the 2025 election and boiled over this summer after Marrero accused board members of meddling in the day-to-day operations of the district.��

At the time she first made the accusations, Gaytán wrote that she had received reports that Hunter allegedly made an antisemitic comment about a fellow board member, but the board president did not detail what was said or who the remark was directed toward, beyond saying that the reference was related to a board colleague not receiving an officer position.

Hunter, in a statement she issued Tuesday, said the discussion of officer positions occurred during a meeting at mayoral candidate Lisa Calderón’s house after the election between the new board members and Gaytán, who was re-elected.

Hunter alleged that Klein Molk didn’t attend the meeting because she didn’t feel safe in Calderón’s home because she believed she didn’t win an endorsement from the Working Families Party because she was a Zionist. Calderón served as grassroots co-chair of the state committee for the Working Families Party.

“The allegation now being made suggests that I opposed Amy for an officer position because she was a Zionist,” Hunter wrote. “That is not my recollection of what happened.”

Hunter alleged that Calderón and Gaytán said during the meeting that they preferred people of color to serve as board officers and questioned whether Klein Molk represented the community. “They also characterized her conduct as demonstrating what they described as white fragility and racism,” Hunter alleged.

Calderón denied Hunter’s allegations in an interview Tuesday.

The newly elected board members met late last year at her house because the — which had backed the directors who won the election — asked her to hold a training on ethical communication, Calderón said.

The new board members were struggling to work together even before they were sworn in — in part because Hunter had expressed concerns about Klein Molk being a Zionist, Calderón said.

“The meeting was to bring together the progressive slate and talk through how they would work together through a productive way,” she said. “(Klein Molk) chose not to come, and that was unfortunate because we really wanted her to be there, and there were several conversations to welcome her. I absolutely refute (Hunter’s) characterization.”

Updated 9:25 a.m. Sept. 16, 2026: This story was updated to correct the date Superintendent Alex Marrero informed board member Amy Klein Molk about director Monica Hunter’s comments.

The Denver Board of Education is asking voters to increase their property taxes in Denver by a collective $44 million a year to help fund $1,750 raises for all district employees, increased mental health support and programs for career technology students.

We are certainly not opposed to giving Denver Public Schools employees raises – many positions are underpaid and underappreciated – but this money would come on top of raises already promised to teachers and other professionals through their union contracts. In addition, Denver Public Schools pay is competitive in the state and for highly-qualified teachers with experience and master’s degrees, compensation is at the very top. This mill levy override is not urgent or essential.

Voters should say “no” now and wait for a functioning school board to bring the proposal forward again in future years.

Denver Public Schools has seen an increase in its revenue over the past five years.

The school district collected $1.01 billion in property taxes from 48 mills in 2020, according to Denver County’s abstract of assessment. Last year, the district collected $1.41 billion from 52 mills. Those mills cover the district����ap operating costs, its bond issues for building and maintenance, and the previous mill levy overrides approved by voters.

Meanwhile, the state’s contribution to Denver has increased as well — despite declining enrollment. In the last seven years, the state increased its per-pupil allotment and completely overhauled the funding formula for school districts. Denver Public Schools received $239 million from the state in the 2019-2020 school year and $265 million in the 2025-26 school year, according to data on the Colorado Department of Education’s website.

We do not mean to suggest that the district has everything it needs. Inflation is high and hitting school budgets just like home budgets. Denver Public Schools has had to make budget cuts to stay within its means, but this money will not help backfill the projected budget shortfall in coming years. We find supporting one-time raises a difficult prospect when the district may have to cut $28 million from its budget between the 2027-28 and 2030-31 fiscal years. A future mill levy override may be needed just to keep the status quo in terms of operations. More low-enrollment schools will have to be closed.

Schools in Colorado are funded at about the national average. While our state spending on schools is lower than the national average, our local share of funding for schools brings us up to the average per-pupil spending rate. We have hope that the state will continue to invest in schools by increasing per-pupil funding annually to take Colorado’s education system from the middle of the pack to the very best in the nation.

Meanwhile, the elected school board members who are bringing this to voters are mired in scandals, controversy and feuds. The directors for the Denver Board of Education have repeatedly wasted time and money investigating one another. Board members have proposed spending a million dollars to fire a perfectly good superintendent, and are themselves so dysfunctional that despite an 8-hour retreat to try and calm tensions, days later drama spilled back into the public.

We no longer care about who is right or wrong, and we certainly don’t care who violated the arbitrary rules laid out in the district����ap governance model. The board members – every single one of them, as we exclude no one from this criticism — need to stop this behavior and focus on education.

We are sick of the bickering and personal conflicts. We want the board to get the message loud and clear that they must focus exclusively on their jobs – operating one of the state’s largest school districts.

Denver voters can send that message by defeating this proposed increase in property taxes. Then, when the board members collectively start acting like elected officials instead of children, voters can approve a mill levy override as a reward for good governance, and perhaps it will come just in time to save the district from drastic cuts to services for students.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The request by Hunter, the board’s vice president, and Torres, the board’s treasurer, comes after the Denver Public Schools Board of Education met earlier this week to discuss the allegations made by board President Xóchitl Gaytán, which included the charge that neither is fulfilling their duties as directors.

The board will again discuss the allegations at a meeting next week, during which directors may also take action against Hunter and Torres. The meeting, which will be held Thursday, will also allow community members to weigh in on the issue during public comment, according to the board’s agenda.

In their email, the pair asked their colleagues on the board to halt any action they plan to take in response to the accusations — including marking public comments or taking a potential censure vote — until a third-party investigation is complete.

“The board cannot credibly investigate whether disputed allegations are true while simultaneously taking action that assumes they are true,” Hunter and Torres wrote in Friday’s email. “Nor can questions about the process be credibly resolved solely by individuals whose conduct or participation may themselves be relevant to those questions.”

Gaytán could not immediately be reached for comment Friday.

The two DPS directors made several other demands in their email, including:

• That any outside investigation look at the allegations made by Gaytán and whether she followed proper procedures in raising the accusations to Hunter and Torres individually and the entire board collectively
• That the investigation look into whether Gaytán had majority support to present her allegations to the board earlier this week and how that majority was formed
• That the investigation examine the role of DPS staffers in “gathering, developing, substantiating or communicating the allegations and determine whether staff were asked, directed, encouraged or otherwise used by individual board members to develop them…”

Gaytán sent emails to Torres and Hunter last week detailing numerous policy violations, including that Torres has missed several recent meetings. She also accused Hunter of contacting DPS staff on enrollment matters on behalf of a parent and regarding the potential transfer of her own son to a different school.

Gaytán has not detailed the allegation that Hunter made an antisemitic comment, nor has she said who the remark was directed toward.

The board president did say in her email to Hunter last week that the language was used “in connection with (Hunter’s) stated opposition to supporting the board colleague for an officer position and your stated refusal to sit next to that colleague on the board dais.”

Amy Klein Molk, who is Jewish, is the only new member of the board who did not receive an officer title after being elected last year. Klein Molk has not publicly addressed the allegation.

The accusations are the latest dispute between DPS school board members who are struggling to work together because of differing views on how to operate under the board’s governance model. Hunter and Torres have also been at odds with Superintendent Alex Marrero, who has accused school board members of involving themselves in the day-to-day operations of the district.

In their email, Torres and Hunter echoed an argument they made earlier this week: They said Gaytán did not follow proper procedure by addressing the alleged policy violations privately with them before taking them to the full board. Gaytán previously said she tried to talk with the pair about the accusations, but they rebuffed her.

Hunter and Torres questioned whether Gaytán, in her role as board president, has the authority to “collect and weigh evidence against colleagues, determine disputed facts or establish that another independently elected director violated board policy,” according to the email.

“We believe the process used to develop, characterize and advance these allegations raises serious questions under board policy. Those questions should themselves be part of the independent investigation,” Torres and Hunter wrote. “…President Gaytán, you are the president of the board. You are not the board’s investigator.”

At least two other board members — John Youngquist and Kimberlee Sia — have expressed interest in an investigation into the allegation that Hunter made an antisemitic comment.

“I remain supportive of the hire of an independent investigator,” Youngquist said in a statement Friday. “There is not another way that I, as a board member, am able to gain an understanding of the facts related to the accusations that have been made.�� I need to have access to substantiated, factual information that is provided in response to an objective and unbiased investigation in order to make a significant decision relating to a board colleague’s actions or behaviors. “

Long-simmering disagreements among members of DPS’s Board of Education were on display during the meeting as directors fought over whether board President Xóchitl Gaytán followed proper procedures in deciding to present policy violations she levied against directors Monica Hunter and Donald “D.J.” Torres to the entire board.

Denver school board president accuses fellow director of making antisemitic comment

But when it came to talking about the specific allegations made by Gaytán — including accusing Hunter of making an antisemitic remark — the school board’s conversation remained at surface level. Directors talked about their need to have healthy disagreements and to set a better example for students without getting into the nitty-gritty of the allegations.

Nor did the directors delve into the heart of their disagreements by coming to a consensus on what their role should be as the elected board governing Colorado’s largest school district -- marking the third time in recent months they've shied away from publicly working through their disputes despite scheduling meetings to do so.

Superintendent Alex Marrero commended board members for talking with each other Wednesday in an attempt to resolve their disagreements, while acknowledging the need for more conversation.

“I know this is very difficult for all of us, but I do feel like this is the conversation that needs to happen,” he said during the meeting. “Staff (and) myself are in the middle of what is happening here and it is untenable. We are in a no-win situation. I encourage more of this dialogue.”

Board members John Youngquist and Kimberlee Sia said they wanted more information about Gaytán’s most serious allegation — the antisemitic comment — and to see an investigation into the claim.

Hunter, the board's vice president, said she welcomed such a move.

“It is very tough for me to hear about some of the allegations,” Sia said. “(The allegation of antisemitism) is very serious and I would like to have more information and be able to dig into that a little further.”

In the end, the board didn’t announce an investigation into the matter, nor did members direct staff to take such a step.

Gaytán has not revealed who Hunter made the alleged comment about nor revealed the phrase she deemed antisemitic.

The board president did say in an email to Hunter on Friday that the language was used “in connection with (Hunter’s) stated opposition to supporting the board colleague for an officer position and your stated refusal to sit next to that colleague on the board dais.”

Amy Klein Molk, who is Jewish, is the only new member of the board who did not receive an officer title after being elected last year.

Klein Molk herself did not directly address the allegation of antisemitism in her comments to the board Wednesday. “We have a responsibility to act in a certain way,” she said.

Hunter also did not specifically address the accusation, but called all of the allegations made by Gaytán “baseless.”

Gaytán sent emails to Hunter and Torres on Friday accusing both of not fulfilling their duties as elected officials. The allegations range from Torres’ absence from recent meetings to the accusation that Hunter contacted DPS staffers to discuss the potential transfer of her own son to a different school.

“Continuing to attack the only Black member of the board does not feel good,” Hunter said. “... I refuse to spend time continuing to perpetuate conflicts when our focus needs to be on students.”

In their response to Gaytan’s presentation, Hunter and Torres both pointed out that previous attempts by the board to work through disagreements, including at a recent retreat, have done little to resolve the conflicts and mistrust that pervade the board.��DPS has spent at least $30,000, they both said, on mediation efforts.

“We continue to spend time talking about ourselves,” Hunter said.

Board members are struggling to work together because of their different views on how to work under the school district����ap governance model. Marrero, who has also found himself at odds with the board, has accused members of meddling in the day-to-day operations of the district.

Torres said he heard that Gaytán and DPS staffers had been looking into his behavior on “a hunt to find violations.”

“Scheduling changes are not policy violations,” he said. “…Your interpretation of my responsibilities are not a policy violation.”

On Wednesday, the board’s conversation devolved into squabbling before Gaytán could even present her allegations to the directors.

Hunter, Torres and Youngquist argued that Gaytán had not followed procedure by addressing the alleged policy violations privately with her colleagues before bringing them to the full board.��Torres repeatedly interrupted Gaytán while she was speaking.

“One very lengthy email does not do that,” Torres said.

But Gaytán argued that the individual allegations are part of a bigger problem that needed to be addressed.

The board president said she tried to address the alleged policy violations individually with Hunter and Torres before making them public, but directors rebuffed her efforts.

“You said I ignored you and that is not true,” Hunter said.

“That is very much true,” Gaytán responded.

Gaytán sent the emails to Hunter and Torres on Friday, accusing them of numerous policy violations, and marking the latest escalation in a conflict that has plagued the governing body of Colorado’s largest K-12 district in recent months.

The emails, obtained by The Denver Post under the Colorado Open Records Act, showed that Gaytán’s allegations ranged from Hunter’s use of an unspecified antisemitic term to Torres’ absence from recent meetings. The school board is expected to discuss the allegations during a Wednesday morning meeting.

Hunter called Gaytán’s allegations “baseless” in a statement to The Post on Tuesday.

“I unapologetically believe in the dignity, respect and safety of all people, and that no one should face discrimination because of their identity,” Hunter said. “Accusations of this nature carry serious historical weight and should not be made lightly.”

In her emails to the board members, Gaytán alleged Torres and Hunter refused to communicate with her directly.

“Your reported refusal to engage directly with the board president and a board colleague, including declining reasonable requests for telephone communication, raises serious concerns regarding your fulfillment of your duties and responsibilities as an elected official,” Gaytán told Hunter in an email.

She levied more allegations of policy violations against Hunter than Torres. District staff and community members have accused Hunter, the board vice president, of using a derogatory term to refer to a colleague’s “Jewish identity and/or perceived political identity,” Gaytán wrote.

“I have been informed that the antisemitic language was used in connection with your stated opposition to supporting the board colleague for an officer position and your stated refusal to sit next to that colleague on the board dais,” she wrote.

Gaytán did not name the colleague who Hunter allegedly referenced nor reveal the phrase she deemed antisemitic. The only new member of the board who did not receive an officer title when they were elected last year was Amy Klein Molk, who is Jewish.

Gaytán declined to discuss the matter with The Post. Klein Molk could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Director John Youngquist said he was previously unaware of the allegation that Hunter made an antisemitic remark. But, he said, the accusation needs to be investigated by a third party since it appears to have been initially made by someone other than Gaytán.

“I would want that to happen if it was me,” Youngquist said.

Board members are struggling to work together —��as well as with DPS Superintendent Alex Marrero — because of their different views on how to work under the school district����ap governance model. Marrero has accused board members of wading into the day-to-day operations of the district.

Hunter and Torres both tried to schedule a meeting last month to discuss and possibly take action on Marrero’s employment, but failed to gain enough board support to do so. The directors said two of their colleagues backed out of calling for a meeting after initially supporting the move.

The board has held at least two meetings during which members were expected to discuss and work on their relationships with each other and the superintendent. But during both meetings, including a retreat last month, directors shied away from directly addressing their infighting.

“I am not surprised that we are here,” Torres said in a statement. “After a summer in which VP Hunter and I repeatedly advocated for meaningful conversations and board action, only to have meeting requests blocked, ignored or delayed, we are now facing false accusations about our own conduct. I view this timing and escalation as retaliatory in response to my advocacy and willingness to challenge how this board operates.”

Wednesday’s virtual meeting is expected to address the new allegations made against Hunter and Torres.

Hunter also faces allegations that she contacted two DPS staffers in order to advocate on behalf of a parent in an enrollment and school choice matter as well as to discuss the potential transfer of her own son to a different school. Hunter should have addressed such concerns with Marrero instead, Gaytán said.

Gaytán made other allegations against Hunter, including that she criticized other board members on social media and has made legal threats when dealing with colleagues.

Hunter’s employment with the has been called a conflict of interest by district staff — concerns echoed by Gaytán in her email. The board president wrote that Hunter’s employment itself isn’t an issue, but when combined with her board duties — such as a recent vote on a collective bargaining issue — there could be a conflict of interest, so the situation should be reviewed by an attorney to determine whether Hunter should recuse herself from such votes.

Gaytán primarily accused Torres of violating board policy by not regularly attending meetings and carrying out his role as treasurer. Torres has missed a regular meeting, several work sessions, and meetings of the finance and audit committee — and canceled or failed to attend virtual meetings with district employees, she wrote in her email.

“Further, repeated cancellations or failures to attend scheduled 1:1 meetings with me as board president and with the superintendent raise concerns regarding your ability to consistently fulfill your governance responsibilities and maintain the communication necessary for the effective functioning of the board,” Gaytán wrote.

Torres pushed back on Gaytán’s allegations that he has violated board policies.

“A changed calendar is not evidence that I am disengaged or unwilling to govern,” Torres wrote in his statement. “In many cases, it is evidence that I was governing somewhere else. Turning those scheduling decisions into allegations of misconduct is precisely the kind of exaggeration I am concerned about.”

Gaytán accused Torres of failing to attend meetings with the Latino Education Advisory Committee despite being assigned such a role by the board. She said in her email that he has only provided one treasurer’s report in the nine months he has been on the board, and has “canceled, failed to attend, or arrived late to Finance and Audit Committee meetings with limited advance notice…”

In June, Torres backed out of attending a conference in Canada at the last minute despite DPS already paying for his travel, including registration, airfare and hotel, Gaytán alleged.

Torres said he didn’t attend the conference in Canada because his childcare was canceled.

“We paid every single fee back out of our own personal dollars and I have no outstanding debt with the Canada trip,” he said. “This includes transportation and hotel. The conference fee was non-refundable, but I have access to the conference materials, so I consider that a cost I will still utilize in my board service.”

Students’ social lives, and their mistakes, continue to play out across evenings and weekends via the many social media platforms that now give school administrators a lens into their pupils’ lives — and the ability to police their speech and behavior off campus.

Hubbard’s client, who The Denver Post is not identifying because he was a minor at the time, was no exception. As a 16-year-old, he had posted an antisemitic comment on Snapchat while out with friends one night in 2019.

Despite the app’s disappearing messages, the post still made its way to administrators within days and they expelled the teen.

“Kids have a right to go to public school and they have a right to hold opinions about things that their classmate might not like,” Hubbard told jurors, according to the trial’s transcript. “You can’t allow schools to suspend and expel someone who holds an opinion that might offend their classmate. The First Amendment doesn’t allow for that.”

Colorado school administrators are watching and disciplining students for what they post on social media, a precaution district leaders say is necessary because what happens online — bullying, fighting, other potential threats — can spill into their hallways the next day.��Yet school systems across metro Denver don’t have clear and consistent guidelines regarding students’ social media use, leaving teenagers in the dark about the risks they take when they post online outside of school, a Post investigation found.

It����ap unclear how frequently schools discipline students for something they post on social media, as the doesn’t track when their misbehavior takes place online or elsewhere off campus.��But The Post identified more than half a dozen teenagers who were either suspended or expelled in the past seven years over social media posts.��

Attorneys and advocates argue that school districts violate students’ First Amendment right to free speech when they remove kids from the classroom over something they wrote or shared online. The suspensions and expulsions also highlight the authority Colorado gives K-12 districts to discipline students for their behavior outside of school, an ability advocates say has only expanded with the rise of social media.

Districts in Colorado can discipline students’ off-campus behavior as long as there is what’s called a “nexus” to campus, a term so loosely defined that both district leaders and student advocates say the decision to suspend or expel a student for misbehavior outside of school is a judgment call. Educators said their decision-making has become even more difficult due to deepening political divisions and the fact that adolescents are increasingly exposed to racism and extremism online.

“It can feel fairly subjective at times as a building administrator to make the right decision,” said��Bret Heller, superintendent of the in Loveland. “…It often feels like a no-win situation.”

Schools’ authority to discipline students for online speech and misbehavior off campus matters because suspensions and expulsions can hurt a teenager’s ability to go to college or negatively affect their sense of belonging, a key factor in preventing suicide and violence among adolescents, according to mental health experts and student advocates.

“I can’t recall a time where we went to an expulsion hearing where a social media post wasn’t discussed,” said Elie Zwiebel, a juvenile rights attorney in Denver. “It is absurd that a social media post could be grounds to sever a student from their education.”

But a lawyer for Cherry Creek Schools argued in that 2023 trial that the district has a duty to more than just a single student. K-12 systems must have the ability to protect all who make up a school community and, sometimes, that means expelling a student, attorney Jonathan Fero said during what is believed to be one of the first jury trials involving K-12 students and online speech in the U.S.��

“Harm can come from many directions,” he told the jury. “As this case demonstrates, social media can invade schools.”

Most districts lack standalone social media policies

School districts across Colorado have sought to curb teenagers’ social media use in recent years.

�ճ���’v�� sued the companies that run platforms, including Snapchat and Instagram, alleging the apps hurt students’ mental health. They banned cellphones in class or school buildings entirely. Most districts also crafted standalone social media policies for their employees.

But K-12 leaders who spoke to The Post said creating districtwide social media policies for students wades into the murky area of regulating their rights, personal values and politics.

“Everybody has First Amendment and free speech protections,” said former Deputy Superintendent Tony Smith. “They’re kids. They’re sometimes making ill-informed decisions. They’re expressing themselves. They’re not at school and school doesn’t replace the parent.”

The Post reviewed student handbooks, codes of conduct, discipline matrices and other policies for the 15 public school systems in metro Denver to understand how districts regulate online speech.

Among the findings:

• Only two districts — and the — had standalone policies regarding students’ social media use. The districts didn’t address off-campus speech beyond Sheridan’s warning to students: “Don’t post anything you wouldn’t want your grandmother to see.”
• Districts mostly relied on a broader set of policies, such as those for student newspapers, cellphones and cyberbullying, to limit student speech. Until revisions for the 2026-27 school year, some of these policies were so outdated they still referenced beepers, PDAs (personal digital assistants) and Zunes (a portable music player discontinued 15 years ago), rather than social media platforms — Instagram and TikTok — more commonly used by teens today.
• Districts’ policies on violent and aggressive behavior occasionally mentioned social media as it related to verbal threats.
• Three districts — DPS, and — were the most explicit in stating pupils can be suspended or expelled for online speech in their discipline matrices, but none had a standalone social media policy.
• All 15 systems mentioned in their policies that students can be punished for off-campus behavior if there is a “nexus” to the school or district, but they rarely defined the term.

Several K-12 officials said their districts lacked standalone social media policies for students because the platforms used by teenagers change rapidly and, ultimately, when school officials discipline students, they are doing so because their online behavior violated another code of conduct, such as bullying.

“We’d probably change policies every week if we tried to stay on top of every platform,” Sheridan Superintendent Gionni Thompson said.

But students who spoke to The Post said they hadn’t realized principals, school resource officers and other district administrators were paying attention to what they shared online.

One student said it����ap common for teenagers to post on social media about where they are, what they are doing and “a lot of the problems being a teen.”

He didn’t realize a video he posted on Instagram of himself vaping marijuana off-campus would lead to his expulsion from a metro Denver district in 2024. The Post is not identifying students in this story who are either still minors or were at the time they were disciplined for sharing something online.

“For kids in my generation, there’s no problems at school,” the now-18-year-old said. “It����ap outside of school.”

‘It cost me years of education’

Attorney Chris Sponheimer’s stepson was a sophomore when he was suspended for two days from Loveland High School in 2024 after texting a meme with a racist slur to his friends on the cross-country team.

The text was sent during a team dinner at a friend’s house, but it wasn’t a school-sanctioned event, Sponheimer said. Students, he said, just wanted to hang out before a meet.

Sponheimer’s stepson later told him he shared the meme in an attempt to be funny and didn’t understand why the school suspended him.

“It’s a stupid word. He shouldn’t have said it,” Sponheimer said. “…He’s a good student by all means. It wasn’t like he was a troublemaker. This was a first time for him.”

Heller, the superintendent of Loveland’s Thompson School District, declined to comment on the case involving Sponheimer’s stepson, citing student privacy laws.��But he acknowledged the district doesn’t have a social media policy for students.

“There is an element of telling kids what they can and cannot post,” Heller said about the lack of a policy. “There is some element of free speech. Our focus is more on the impact of the behavior rather than the platform or mechanism of the behavior.”

A metro Denver district expelled a teenager in 2023 after he posted videos of himself in off-campus fights and of guns.

“It cost me years of education,” said the student, who was expelled because of the fight videos. The 17-year-old said he was kicked out of his home and fell into what he called “street life” after he was removed from school for behavior that took place off-campus.

“I don’t think it’s fair at all,” he said.

Colorado school districts write their own discipline policies. Some, such as DPS and Westminster, have matrices, which are guidelines school leaders use to determine appropriate disciplinary action for different misbehaviors.

Under Westminster’s discipline matrix, students can get in trouble for social media posts by violating the district����ap policy on inappropriate materials.��A student who violates the policy by posting on social media can get the same punishment — being removed from school for at least half a day or expulsion — as a student who carries out a first-degree assault or rape, or brings a weapon to campus, according to the matrix.

“The level reflects the severity of the conduct, whether it is repeated, whether it involves threats or intimidation, and the degree of impact on the school community,” Westminster spokesman Ryan McCoy said. “Not every social media incident results in removal from school; many are addressed through restorative practices, safety planning, parent engagement and education around digital citizenship.”

The Post����ap analysis of discipline policies found that almost all metro-area districts mention free speech in their policies and place limits on speech, such as prohibiting student newspapers from publishing obscene or libelous material.

When it comes to student speech outside of student publications or fliers and posters, districts’ policies state that students can be disciplined for speech that veers into verbal abuse, cyberbullying, harassment or threats.

District policies don’t specifically address student speech that is deemed offensive, such as the posts made by the students at Cherry Creek Schools and Loveland High School.

When asked by The Post whether they would discipline a student for racist or otherwise offensive speech, district leaders’ answers boiled down to: it depends.

There has to be a nexus — or connection — to school, they said, for administrators to suspend or expel a student for misbehavior outside of school.

But even then, the answer can be ambiguous.��If a student makes a comment on social media that is derogatory toward a group of people — say, immigrants or Jews — does the fact that a school has immigrant or Jewish students enough to create a nexus?

“People can argue either way,” Heller said.

Cherry Creek Schools argued in court that it did.

A high-profile case

Cherry Creek High School in Greenwood Village is the flagship of Colorado’s fourth-largest district. Roughly 3,760 students attend the school, most of them affluent and white.

Cherry Creek struggled with antisemitism among students before Hubbard’s client posted to Snapchat on a Friday night in 2019, and parents were frustrated by the district����ap lack of action, the attorney told the jury four years later.

The then-16-year-old was out with friends at a thrift shop when he posted a photo on Snapchat with an antisemitic phrase. One of the student����ap followers saw the photo, took a screenshot and shared it with her father. The post made its way to school administrators before classes resumed the following Monday.

Cherry Creek High suspended the student, then expelled him for three months.

“It was a Friday night,” Hubbard told the jury in 2023. “He posted the picture to his private social media Snapchat story not using any school equipment. He didn’t tag the school in the post. Nothing to do with the school.”

The most severe punishment districts can give students is an expulsion, which removes them from school for a longer period than an out-of-school suspension. , schools can expel students for as long as an entire year, but only suspend them for up to 10 days and, in certain extreme cases, 25 days.

The former Cherry Creek student declined an interview request. The newspaper reviewed court documents related to his case, including transcripts of the trial.

The district declined to make someone available for an interview. Instead, Cherry Creek Schools provided a statement that said the district “cannot restrict the First Amendment rights of students; however, we reserve the right to discipline students if their behavior, either in-person or online, is disruptive to a school environment and/or is considered harassment under state and federal law.”

In its response to The Post, Cherry Creek Schools also pointed to a ruling in February by the Colorado Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district����ap decision to expel another high schooler because of a social media post.��In that case, Cherry Creek High expelled a freshman in 2024 after she posted on social media that she planned to “shoot up the school,” starting with her math teacher.

Suspensions in Colorado schools jump 25% as districts struggle to staff since pandemic

The district also disciplined at least two other students for something they posted online, according to court records.

The district suspended a 17-year-old girl in 2019 after she posted a photo on Snapchat of her and her brother, a military veteran, wearing shemaghs -- head coverings worn in the Middle East — and holding guns before going to a firing range.

Cherry Creek also suspended a 14-year-old for two months and initiated expulsion proceedings after she recorded a video during Thanksgiving break in 2023 that featured two classmates who were intoxicated and used racist slurs.

The then-eighth-grader did not make racist comments in the video herself, according to a lawsuit filed against Cherry Creek Schools in May.��The video was shared with a student not at the gathering during a later school day, and that student's sister posted the video to Snapchat, the lawsuit states.

says there must be a nexus to a school or district, and a student����ap conduct has to be “detrimental to the welfare or safety of other pupils or of the school personnel,” for a school to have the authority to discipline a student for off-campus behavior.��K-12 administrators who spoke to The Post acknowledged the definition of nexus is up for interpretation and can put students at a disadvantage.

DPS, the state’s largest district, offers the most detailed explanation of a nexus in its discipline policies compared to other districts in metro Denver.

“We got courageous,” said Jane Lineman, the district����ap student safety coordinator.

The district defines a nexus as this: An incident that happens near a school campus, or one that required school resources to respond to, or when speech dovetails into bullying, harassment or threats.��A nexus can also be found if a “substantial disruption” is caused via speech, including on social media, according to DPS’s discipline matrix.

School administrators might become aware of off-campus situations involving students, but not every case has a connection to school and, in theory, shouldn’t trigger a disciplinary action, Lineman said.

For example, a nexus can be determined when a student posts a photo of a gun to their social media account, and the image shows the firearm was on campus, Lineman said. But if the gun wasn’t on campus, then there is no nexus and staff shouldn’t punish the student, she said.

Like online speech, disciplining someone for having a gun outside of school can veer into violating a student����ap constitutional right to bear arms, Lineman said.

“People have a right to bear arms,” she said. “What you’re responsible for as kind of a school employee who’s supporting a family is making sure they’re knowledgeable around safe storage, supervision and some of the laws that could impact their child if they’re not kind of complying with what those regulations are.”

When it comes to on-campus speech, schools must reach a high threshold to discipline a student. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in ��that students keep their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression when they enter a school building.��The 1969 decision, made after a school suspended students for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, set a precedent that school officials cannot censor student speech unless it disrupts the education process.

More recently, in 2021, the Supreme Court ruled a Pennsylvania school district by suspending her for a social media message sent while off school grounds, but the court stopped short of barring schools from disciplining students for off-campus speech entirely.

Such lawsuits are rare as parents either don’t have the financial means to challenge disciplinary action in court or lack the appetite for such a measure as it can thrust their child -- and their alleged misbehavior — into public view, education attorneys said.

But Ian Prior, an attorney representing the 14-year-old in her recent lawsuit against Cherry Creek, said schools are “daring students and parents to take them to court” by continuing to discipline students for their online speech.

“(Schools) will look at case law and rulings coming from the Supreme Court and rulings from the Court of Appeals and they will essentially ignore them and do what they are going to do and hope they don’t get sued,” said Prior, who is with the conservative group.

‘Hurt feelings’ or a threat?

Hubbard had selected the jury with care when the Cherry Creek Schools trial began on Dec. 4, 2023 -- more so than normal. Twenty-nine people showed up for jury duty that morning, and she wanted to make sure that the eight individuals selected to hear the case could be fair to her client after the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel two months earlier.

At the time, members of Congress were heavily criticizing American universities for their response -- or lack thereof — to pro-Palestinian protests and student speech on campus in the wake of the attacks.��In fact, that same week, as Hubbard argued Cherry Creek violated her client����ap First Amendment right to free speech by expelling him, three university presidents were more than 1,600 miles away about whether they discipline students calling for the genocide of Jews.

“This is a hard time to be trying this case,” Hubbard later recalled thinking.

In the courtroom, Cherry Creek’s attorney argued the presence of the expelled student in class risked disrupting the learning environment of the high school after his antisemitic Snapchat post circulated over the weekend.

“Free speech is an important right, to be sure, but as you’ve been instructed, the school environment is special,” Fero, the district's attorney, told the jury. “There the government has an interest in protecting the educational mission of schools, ensuring student safety and preserving a learning environment free of discrimination.”

Hubbard disagreed.

“Hurt feelings are not enough,” she told the jury. “Someone being offended does not allow you to overcome First Amendment protected speech. The First Amendment explicitly allows you to offend other people.”

So much of the act of disciplining students for off-campus misbehavior lives in a gray space, and the challenge of determining when school administrators should take action is made much harder when online speech is involved because of the deep divisions that pervade today’s political climate, district officials said.

Schools increasingly face pressure from parents and community organizations to take action when a student makes a comment online that expresses views they dislike. Schoolhouses have become flashpoints for such debates as the Trump administration has threatened to pull education funding from universities that failed to quell pro-Palestinian protests and from K-12 districts with policies supporting transgender students.

At the collegiate level, the initiated discipline proceedings against a different client of Hubbard’s a year after the Cherry Creek trial. In that case, the student, Kristina Brunner, was accused of being antisemitic by a Jewish student after she called him a Zionist during the pro-Palestinian protests and encampments that took place on DU's campus.

Brunner, who was a law student at the time, said she was targeted by parent groups on Facebook that disagreed with the pro-Palestinian protests, which made her feel unsafe on campus and led to panic attacks.

“I felt chilled in the sense that I didn’t participate in the encampment,” she said.

In the end, DU did not discipline Brunner, but she still had to report the investigation to the after she graduated from the university in May.

Attorneys argue that students' First Amendment rights allow them to say things that others disagree with -- even when their comments are offensive and racist. When government entities like schools start policing such speech, then people start losing what was once a wide-reaching right bit by bit, Hubbard said.

“Even when we can all objectively agree that what is said is wildly offensive and something that I wish nobody ever said, I think it����ap really important to push back and protect the boundaries of our First Amendment right because we don’t always know who’s setting those boundaries,” she said.

District officials said offensive speech turns into a potential threat when both the physical and psychological well-being of students are at risk. This includes when students skip school because they no longer feel safe because of what their classmate wrote online, said Lineman, DPS' student safety coordinator.

Social media platforms themselves also present a challenge for schools when students post offensive speech.

Students have always fought and they’ve always said things they shouldn’t. But harmful words that used to be shared in a note stuck inside someone’s locker are now broadcast beyond school walls via group chats, memes and social media apps.

“So the impact of my action to another person then becomes the impact on the entire social group,” said Robbyn Fernandez, former assistant superintendent of schools for the . “…It influences the ability to resolve or not resolve that issue."

The jury's verdict

The Denver-area teen who posted a video of himself vaping marijuana was expelled after he returned to school in 2023 following a stint in jail.��Back in school, the now-18-year-old said he felt like he was being watched by school administrators.

Once, he said, there was a fight at school. He recorded it and posted the video online. School administrators found out about the post and told him to stop.

The day after he posted the video of him vaping off-campus, a resource officer told him at school that police had a warrant for his arrest. He went to jail again and was expelled in 2024.��In jail, the student said he began losing sleep. He felt anxious and claustrophobic.

He has now changed how he uses social media.

“I don’t post no pictures of my face,” he said.

Teenagers naturally seek out social connection, and with social media they have a tool that satisfies that need, but their brains aren’t developed enough to navigate social media responsibly, and they overestimate the anonymity given to them online, mental health experts say.

When students are suspended or expelled, that disciplinary action can lead to more problematic behavior in school. Students are less likely to engage in the classroom and to trust adults. They can become angry and lose their sense of belonging, said Lauren Henry, a psychologist at .

“If we just punish the behavior, we often aren’t teaching our child,” she said.

Hubbard argued in court that the former Cherry Creek student's expulsion severely impacted his mental health. He struggled with depression and began vaping marijuana after he was expelled.

Before the expulsion, she told the jury, “He was not locked in his bedroom. He was not using so much marijuana that he couldn’t feel emotions. He was close with his family before, and totally disengaged after."

Hubbard and Cherry Creek Schools’ attorneys finished their closing arguments, leaving the decision in the jury’s hands. The eight jurors began deliberating after noon and returned to the courtroom at 2:32 p.m.

Their verdict: Cherry Creek Schools violated the student����ap First Amendment rights and his due process rights by suspending and then expelling him over the antisemetic comment on Snapchat.

The jury awarded the teen $135,500.

Jessica Seaman completed this story as part of the , which provided funds, training and mentorship in data and engagement journalism.

The Thornton-based district revealed the plan to the school board Thursday. The board is expected to vote on the proposal during a public meeting on Oct. 7.

“I recognize the significance of this announcement, especially for the students, staff, families and alumni connected to the schools included,” Superintendent Chris Gdowski said in a letter to families and employees. “A school is far more than a building. It holds relationships, traditions, memories and a deep sense of community.”

The schools recommended for closure are:

• North Mor Elementary in Northglenn will close, and its students will move to either Hillcrest or Westview elementary schools.
• Rocky Mountain Elementary in Westminster will close, and its students will transition to Cotton Creek, Federal Heights or North Star elementaries.
• Centennial Elementary in Broomfield will close, and its students will go to Arapahoe Ridge Elementary.
• Cherry Drive Elementary in Thornton will close, and its students will move to Riverdale Elementary.
• The Studio School in Northglenn will close, and its students can opt into their neighborhood school or another via the state’s choice system.
• Shadow Ridge Middle School in Thornton will close, and its students will move to Century or Rocky Top middle schools.

If approved, the schools would close after the end of the 2026-27 academic year.

More than 1,500 students and 340 employees would be impacted by the closures, according to the district’s news announcement. Adams 12 said it will work to retain staff despite the recommendation.

Adams 12 also wants to change the boundaries for two middle schools.

Hulstrom K-8, a gifted magnet school in Northglenn, would also move locations so that it can expand to include preschoolers. If the move happens, then enrollment at Hulstrom is expected to increase from 690 students to 950 pupils, according to the district.

Adams 12 also wants to open a new K-8 magnet school with an arts emphasis in Hulstrom’s current building.

Districts across the state are closing schools as K-12 enrollment falls as fewer Coloradans have children. Other districts that have shuttered schools in recent years include Jeffco Public Schools, Denver Public Schools and the Douglas County School District.

The Boulder Valley School District is currently as well.

The “ICE Out” protest is being organized by several advocacy groups, including the and 50501 Colorado.

“Students across Colorado are standing together and walking out to demand that our communities are treated with dignity, safety, and respect,” Colorado Youth Coalition organizers wrote on Instagram. “This isn’t just one school. It����ap students from across the state coming together and saying ENOUGH.”

In Denver, protesters are set to gather at La Alma-Lincoln Park, 1265 Mariposa St., at noon.

Organizers on Wednesday said students at schools in Adams, Arapahoe, Alamosa, Boulder, Broomfield, Mesa, Morgan, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Garfield, Jefferson, Larimer, Montrose, Montezuma, Pueblo, Teller and Weld counties have signed up to participate in the walkout.

Mountain Vista High School senior Braeden Kieffer, 17, said he and his classmates in Douglas County also are protesting the use of Flock cameras in the community.

“Kids know what’s going on, but we have very few ways of demonstrating about it. So one of the few things we can do is protest, to show up and show out,” Kieffer said.

The walk out is not about trying to get out of class, he said, and it feels deeply personal, especially for students who are immigrants or whose parents are immigrants.

“From nationwide to the local level, we’re seeing people’s civil rights come under attack and seeing that the adults in power don’t seem very focused on resolving those issues,” he said. “It’s in the hands of us as kids and our very limited ability to make our voices heard.”

Denver and Jefferson County school districts did not respond to requests for comment about the walkouts. Friday is a vacation day on the Aurora Public Schools calendar, and there are no classes scheduled.

Cherry Creek School District officials sent a message to middle and high school families on Thursday afternoon about the walk outs, including a statement that the district does not endorse walkouts but does support students’ First Amendment rights.

Spokesperson Randy Barber said the Boulder Valley School District is preparing for the likelihood of protests and walkouts at high schools. BVSD supports students’ right to free expression as well as those students who don’t want to participate, he said. During demonstrations, school workers focus on student safety and supervision along with minimizing disruption to normal school operations.

A similar ICE Out protest in January resulted in thousands of Colorado students and community members joining protests, and schools in Denver, Aurora, Commerce City and Glenwood Springs canceled or delayed classes because of a wave of teachers who called out of work.

Denver Public Schools previously challenged federal immigration policy when the district sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in February 2025 to keep immigration agents from arresting people in school buildings after the Trump administration rescinded a 2011 policy that prevented arrests in schools, churches and other places.

But Homeland Security later said its policy about sensitive locations had not fundamentally changed, and it published another policy on “” where immigration enforcement will generally not happen, including schools, hospitals, churches, community gathering and social service locations. DPS dropped the lawsuit in June 2025.

under the policy boosted their state ratings, saving them from a closure recommendation, according to preliminary data released Monday by the Colorado Department of Education. The ratings are largely based on .

The higher ratings are a boon for those schools. They may also be a positive sign for Superintendent Alex Marrero’s carrots-and-sticks strategy of providing extra support to a cohort of struggling schools but threatening closure if they don’t improve.

“Yes, the threat prompted a response,” Marrero said in an interview. “But I wouldn’t say the threat by itself is the reason.”

Rather, he attributed the progress to how the threat mobilized the community to get involved and the district to deploy “the who’s who” of leaders to help the schools.

Only one of the four schools, Oakland Elementary, was part of last year’s extra-support cohort, called the . Oakland improved its rating from orange, the third-highest of four ratings, to yellow, the second-highest, preliminary data shows.

The largest of the four schools, John F. Kennedy High, increased its rating from orange to green, which is the highest possible rating. Kennedy wasn’t part of the Elevate Schools Network, but its leaders participated in another district improvement strategy .

Two independently run Denver charter schools were also facing a possible closure recommendation. Rocky Mountain Prep Noel boosted its rating from orange to yellow. Academy 360 earned a green rating for the second year in a row. Because Academy 360 has , it could have been at risk for closure if its rating had dipped.

Marrero introduced the School Transformation Process last year as a way to beat what����ap known as , which ticks toward intervention. After five years of low ratings, the State Board of Education can order an intervention.

Marrero doesn’t want the state to step in. Instead, his policy calls for Denver Public Schools to take action after four years of low ratings, preempting any state orders.

Although the four schools are safe for now, three of them — John F. Kennedy High, Oakland Elementary, and Rocky Mountain Prep Noel — could be at risk for intervention next fall if their ratings were to backslide to orange or red, which is the lowest.

The preliminary ratings show another three schools could be at risk next fall, too: Ashley Elementary, Cheltenham Elementary, and Traylor Academy. All three earned preliminary orange ratings this year, marking their third year of low ratings.

Schools can appeal their preliminary ratings to the state by presenting additional academic data. The state will finalize the ratings later this fall.

But if those orange ratings stick, and if the three schools earn orange or red ratings next fall, they could be subject to closure under the School Transformation Process.

Under the policy, a school with one to three years of low ratings could be “renewed” or “reconfigured,” which means the principal could be fired, the teachers could have to reapply for their jobs, or the district could cut some grade levels from the school.

After four years of low ratings, a school could be “reimagined,” a euphemism for closure. The school could be permanently closed or replaced with another school.

This story was , a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. Sign up for their newsletters at

More than 50 schools exited what Colorado calls , so named because it ticks toward state intervention. They include Abraham Lincoln High in Denver, Highland Park Elementary in Pueblo, and the Aurora Central Campus.

Nearly two-thirds of Colorado’s more than 1,700 schools earned a green rating — the highest — this year, which is slightly fewer than last year. About 55% of the state’s 184 school districts and co-ops earned a high rating, which is the same as last year.

Colorado’s largest school district, Denver Public Schools, earned a green rating for the second year in a row. The second-largest district, Jeffco Public Schools, was also green. Twelve districts, including Boulder Valley and Littleton, earned top-tier blue ratings.

The ratings are largely based on , and they matter because the State Board of Education can order schools and districts with five or more years of low ratings to undergo changes to improve student performance. Those changes could be as drastic as closing a school, although the State Board .

Schools and districts can appeal their preliminary ratings by presenting additional academic data. After considering appeals, the state will finalize the ratings later this fall.

“It is encouraging to see that most Colorado schools are meeting or exceeding state expectations and that fewer schools are on the Accountability Clock,” Colorado Education Commissioner Susana Córdova said in a statement.

“At the same time, we know that too many students are still attending schools that are struggling to meet their needs,” she said. “Our job is to learn from what is working, strengthen instruction where it matters most and partner with local leaders to provide the support schools need so that every student has access to a high-quality education.”

Only one district and 30 schools earned the lowest rating this year, signified by the color red. That����ap fewer than last year. The district, the tiny Deer Trail 26J located 60 miles east of Denver, had its preliminary rating downgraded due to low participation on state tests.

The 30 red schools include two in Denver Public Schools (Joe Shoemaker and Kaiser Elementary), one in Jeffco Public Schools (Swanson Elementary), and two in Adams 12 Five Star Schools (Leroy Elementary and Northglenn Middle).

A Denver official said Monday that the district related to student enrollment for some of its schools, including Joe Shoemaker, that erroneously lowered those schools’ ratings.

Twelve districts are on the accountability clock this year, which is less than last year. The Fort Morgan, East Otero, and Las Animas districts were among those that exited.

The Adams 14 district in Commerce City has spent 13 years on the clock, the longest of any district. The State Board of Education in 2022 but later . Adams 14 earned an orange rating this year, which is the second lowest on a five-color scale. But two of its schools, Alsup Elementary and Central Elementary, showed enough improvement to exit the clock.

The number of schools on the accountability clock based on their preliminary ratings fell from 176 to 148 this year. The number of schools that have been on the clock the longest, for six years or more, also decreased from 10 to four. Among the four that remain are two in Aurora Public Schools: Gateway High and North Middle.

This story was , a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. Sign up for their newsletters at