WATERTOWN — A reported mock slave auction at a city elementary school last week has drawn the attention of state Attorney General Letitia James, her office confirmed Wednesday, and the school district has defended a closed-door session held Tuesday on the matter.

A spokesperson for the attorney general said the office is seeking more information from the Watertown City School District after learning that a parent complained her son was required to act in a mock slave auction as a part of a history lesson.

Nicole Dayes, said her son, who is black, and another black classmate at North Elementary School, were instructed to stand on a table while white students bid on them in a mock slave auction May 28.

Once “bought,” Dayes said her son was told to refer to the students portraying buyers as “master” for the remainder of the lesson.

The district released a statement on May 30, saying it “received complaints from parents that a fourth-grade teacher exercised poor judgment in teaching a recent lesson. The teacher has been placed on administrative leave pending a full investigation into the matter.”

On Wednesday the board said the investigation is continuing. “The public can be assured that the Board of Education is taking all necessary and appropriate steps to remedy this matter,” the board stated. “However, the law regarding confidentiality of such matters must be followed.”

In a similar incident at a private school in Westchester County in March, the attorney general investigated the school for reported racial insensitivity.

The school had to completely revamp its diversity policies and practices, according to the New York Post.

This included the hiring of a chief diversity officer, a promise to diversify staff, increased funding to diversify the school’s student body and a pledge to tighten disciplinary procedures to avoid racially disproportionate punishments, the article stated.

The teacher responsible also was fired.

During its meeting on Tuesday night, the Watertown school board could have heard public complaints about the alleged auction in public, but chose to exercise its right to meet behind closed doors. Since the discussion pertained to a particular staff member, members were legally allowed to keep it private, according to Kristin O’Neill, assistant director of the state Committee on Open Government.

Aside from a comment from board President Beth Linderman before the executive session noting there were “community concerns” about “an individual,” the board did not acknowledge or explain the concerns, but invited those wishing to speak into the session.

“They are free to invite anyone in to executive session for additional comment if they wanted to get specific input about this possible disciplinary matter or to discuss employment,” O’Neill said.

In a statement released Wednesday evening, the district supported its reason to hold the executive session. “Since those issues involved the possible identity of the students involved in the matter and since those comments likely involved a particular staff member who may or may not have been accused of wrongdoing, the board exercised its rightful, legal option to meet with those individuals in executive session where those confidential matters could be discussed,” the board stated. “This practice is entirely consistent with the Open Meetings Law.”

Linderman said before the public comment session began Tuesday that the board policy does not permit “any discussion involving individual district personnel or students.”

O’Neill said this is typical for public bodies, and they are able to extend an executive session as long as it is motioned for and voted on by the board.

In the board’s statement Wednesday, the district stated that it is investigating the incident: “This matter continues to be thoroughly investigated by District personnel and the District’s attorneys. The matter will be dealt with in accordance with the law,” the statement said. “The Board of Education wants to assure the public that it has in place very strong and effective policies that prohibit discrimination in the workplace and in the schoolhouse. District staff and students are trained in those policies.”