The incident was overseen by then Director of Safety and Security, Shawn Pratt.
Mr. Pratt was almost immediately promoted to Superintendent.

Shawn Pratt

"Our number one priority is the safety and security of our students," quoted from McKinney's Safety & Security web page at the time. https://www.mckinneyisd.net/safety-security/

Despite the claim of "number one priority", during the hijacking under Mr. Pratt's management:
- The District allowed an unknown individual to drive away with a bus of school children.
- The District failed to contact McKinney Police Department.
- The District was unable or refused to identify the hijacker.
- The District allowed the hijacker to escape.

Thirteen parents then sued the District.

HOW TO BEAT A HIJACKING RAP
The District now under Superintendent Pratt filed a claim for dismissal citing public school "immunity". From the filing:

    p.6 line 6
"School Districts are Immune from Suit and Liability Unless Waived"

    Jun 26, 2023 attachment p. 3 line 10
"The TTCA's [Texas Tort Claims Act] waiver of immunity specifically excludes claims 'arising out of assault, battery, false improsionment, or any other [INTENTIONAL] tort.' "
Download All 62 pages of The Motion

In plain language, "We can do anything we want, and nobody can touch us.". Parents then dismissed their case while under threat of a financial penalty.

THE REST OF THE STORY
A parent had taken the hijacker's photo.

The ORP's AI facial recognition matched the photo of the hijacker with mugshots of an Hispanic female with four aliases, multiple arrests, and six outstanding warrants. Race to the High Five

McKinney ISD's Board President Philip Hassler bragged about his commitment to transparency but still kept the hijacker's identity a secret from parents and taxpayers. He needn't worry. Mr. Hassler is also protected by public school immunity.

McKinney ISD Board President Philip Hassler

THE MUCH LARGER DANGER THAN HIJACKERS
McKinney parents are concerned about criminals hijacking a school bus, but their greatest fear is protecting their children from the controversial Sexual Grooming by librarians using visual aids. Librarians could report parents to CPS for being non-Affirming and could have the child confiscated.

The potential scenario could happen as follows:
1. A librarian grooms a child using sexual visual aids. "Let this be our little secret."
2. The parent discovers the secret grooming and complains to the librarian and the police department.
3. The librarian in secret contacts Child Protective Service and PD and claims the parent is a danger to the child by "failing to affirm their true sexual identity".
4. CPS in secret removes the child from the school and places it in a "safe" transexual or other sexually "affirming" foster home.
5. All of this takes place in secret under the watchful eyes of the Superintendent.

Every taxpayer funded individual in that transaction would have immunity under Texas law.
- The librarian would have immunity.
- The police officers would have immunity.
- CPS social workers would have immunity.
- The Superintendent of course would have immunity.

Everyone paid by the taxpayer would be protected by immunity.

On the other hand, the taxpaying parent and child are absolutely defenseless. That potential scenario for Texas described above is already a reality across the country.

Indiana Child Placed in Gender Affirming Foster Home

Illinois Bill Defines Child Abuse as "Failure to Affirm"

Montana Removed Girl Whose Parents Failed to Affirm

Virginia CPS Removed Girl from a Non-affirming Family, Placed in Affirming Foster Home Where Traded to Pedophiles Across Three States for Sex

It's quite likely already going on in Texas. It's just kept a secret and protected by immunity...just like the McKinney hijacker.

The only defense is to leave.

WHISTLEBLOWER@openrecords.org.