Prince William County School Board member’s son charged with malicious wounding

Mason William Tredinnick, 18, was charged with malicious wounding following an altercation at a local church. The incident occurred on the evening of May 2 at the Chapel Springs Assembly of God Church in Bristow.

According to police reports, officers were called to the scene at 11:44 p.m. after receiving reports of an assault. The investigation revealed that the confrontation began as a verbal altercation during a sports activity, which quickly escalated. Mason Tredinnick, identified as the accused, grabbed the 17-year-old victim scratched his neck, and initially separated. However, the dispute continued, resulting in Tredinnick re-engaging and striking the victim multiple times in the face, police reports state. The victim, whose identity has not been disclosed due to his age, received treatment at an area hospital for non-life-threatening injuries.

Tredinnick was arrested on May 3 and is currently held on a secured bond of $3,000. His court date is pending. Mason’s mother, Erica Tredinnick, a Prince William County School Board member, declined to comment on her son’s arrest.

Sources within the school division have indicated that Mason will not be allowed to participate in his upcoming high school graduation high school ceremony due to the incident.

The arrest comes just a week after the Prince William County School Board discussed updates to the county’s Code of Behavior. This code is a key component of the conduct policy enforced across all district schools.

Denise Huebner, Associate Superintendent for Student Services and Post-Secondary Success, detailed the proposed revisions to the Code of Behavior aimed at standardizing disciplinary practices and enhancing the overall educational environment within the district.

Huebner outlined the revised Code of Behavior, which is aligned with the district’s strategic plan. The updates aim to establish a clear, consistent set of expectations for student and staff behavior, thereby enhancing the educational climate. “Our main objective with these revisions is to ensure uniformity and consistency across all schools,” Huebner explained. She emphasized the tailored approach to discipline that considers individual circumstances and the need for flexibility to address the specific needs of different schools within the district.

However, School Board member Tredinnick raised significant concerns about the practical application of these policies. She questioned the consistency with which the code is implemented across different classrooms and schools, pointing out that the current approach allows for a high degree of variability that can lead to perceptions of unfairness and confusion. “How one teacher or administrator responds to behavior can differ greatly from another, which isn’t conducive to a fair educational environment,” Tredinnick said.

Tredinnick also highlighted issues with how the school system involves parents and the broader community in shaping these policies. She stressed the need for a more transparent and inclusive process that actively seeks and incorporates feedback from all stakeholders to ensure the code reflects community values and effectively addresses behavioral issues. “We need mechanisms that not only gather feedback more effectively but also ensure that it influences the policy in meaningful ways,” she said.

The board member also expressed concern about the anonymity and effectiveness of surveys used to gather feedback on the code. She suggested that identifying respondents by school level could potentially deter honest feedback and proposed that the survey process be reviewed to enhance participant anonymity and response rates.

Tredinnick underscored the importance of clear guidelines and definitions within the code to prevent arbitrary enforcement and ensure that all students are treated equitably. She called for detailed, concrete guidelines that would help teachers and administrators apply disciplinary measures consistently and fairly.