Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Board Affirms Local Decision in Dallas Center–Grimes Curriculum Appeal
Summary
The Iowa State Board of Education affirmed an administrative law judge's proposed decision that the Dallas Center'Grimes Community School District did not abuse its discretion in its reconsideration of select English II instructional materials.
The Iowa State Board of Education on voice vote affirmed an administrative law judge's proposed decision that found no abuse of discretion by the Dallas Center'Grimes Community School District in how it reviewed contested English II instructional materials. The board's action leaves intact the local process that limited the formal reconsideration to three core novels designated as instructional materials.
Why this matters: The case centers on what counts as "instructional material" under recently enacted state law and how local districts must review classroom materials when parents object — a question that affects how districts nationwide respond to book and curriculum challenges.
The appeal was brought by parent Shelly Lockhart, who sought a full review of English II units 2 and 3, arguing the district's reconsideration improperly excluded numerous supplemental items (poems, articles, songs, videos) that she said collectively advanced a single viewpoint about race and social justice. Lockhart told the board she had "hundreds of hours" of research and asked the board to vacate the district decision and remand for a full review of all materials.
Representing the district, attorney Jasmine Holt argued the appeal was about process, not the merits of particular texts. Holt said Iowa law and the district's policies create two distinct paths for parents: one to request removal of a specific educational material and another to request curricular review limited to core instructional texts. Holt said the parent requested curricular review under the statutory subsection that applies to core instructional materials; therefore, the district lawfully limited its review to the three core textbooks and followed the reconsideration process in policy 605.3.
Administrative Law Judge Rachel Morgan had issued a proposed decision concluding there was no abuse of discretion. The board debated whether the record supported the appellant's claim that supplemental materials were effectively part of the challenged units. Several board members said they understood the parent's concerns but found the administrative record did not show the district had acted improperly. Members suggested the Legislature clarify statutory language if the intent was to require a broader "balance" review.
The board moved to affirm the ALJ proposal; the motion was made by Board Member Brian (mover) and seconded by Abe (second). The board carried the motion on a voice vote and affirmed the decision.
What the board did not do: The state board's action was an administrative review of the district's process and did not itself order removal of materials, change the district's curriculum, or impose any remedy beyond the affirmation of the ALJ decision. Several members said the facts in the record did not show demonstrable harm to students or a clear statutory violation.
Context and next steps: Several board members and both parties suggested that the legislative language creating the reconsideration procedures is new and ambiguous in places; they recommended lawmakers revisit the statute if the Legislature intended a broader curricular-balance requirement. Lockhart was told judicial review options remain available if she chooses to pursue them.
