Sylvania Schools outlines formal process for high‑school ELA book lists as state law reshapes review

Sylvania Board of Education members on May 12 heard a presentation on the district’s effort to standardize high‑school English‑language arts reading lists and prepare those lists for formal board approval under state law.

Andrea Johnson, the district’s director of secondary teaching and learning, told the board the review began last fall and that high‑school ELA teachers have worked across buildings to update curriculum maps, pacing guides and draft book lists for Northview and Southview. She said the work was prompted in part by the board’s responsibility under Ohio Revised Code 3313.21 and by recent state legislation increasing parental review rights.

The issue matters because the board is the legal authority to approve textbooks and required instructional materials, Johnson said, and the district must communicate materials choices to families. “We are responsible for updating the lists you have before you and preparing them for your approval,” she said, describing teacher collaboration, regional guidance and the district’s use of review tools such as Common Sense Media.

Teachers in public comment urged the board not to conflate transparency with censorship. Kirsten Long, a third‑grade teacher at Central Trail, said the move toward formal book lists risks a more restrictive environment if it becomes a rigid, once‑a‑year approval process. “Diverse books are not political. They are powerful tools for connection, growth, and learning,” Long said.

Board members and staff acknowledged those concerns and discussed options to protect teacher flexibility. One board member asked whether a teacher who finds a new book midyear would have to wait until the next annual approval; administrators replied that the district intends to build a formal textbook committee and to define a process for adding materials during the school year. A board member suggested, subject to legal advice, delegating provisional midyear approvals to the superintendent to avoid forcing teachers to wait.

Board members also clarified existing policy channels for handling parent objections. Meeting comments referenced existing board guidance requiring an alternative assignment when a parent objects and pointed to district policies that outline complaint and instructional‑material procedures. Johnson said elementary grades K–5 already use the adopted Wit and Wisdom curriculum, so the immediate draft list under review applies to secondary ELA; junior high staff are following a similar review on a different timeline.

Speakers described the district’s timeline and supports: teacher department meetings, two professional development days devoted to high‑school departments, an April release day for English staff, regional curriculum collaboration and reliance on department chairs to communicate needs. Johnson said the board’s draft book list is intended as a communication tool and that the district is awaiting further guidance from the Ohio Department of Education and from district legal counsel about implementing provisions of House Bill 8.

No formal motion to approve or adopt the book lists was taken at the May 12 meeting. Instead, the board discussed creating a formal textbook committee and clarifying procedures that preserve teacher autonomy while complying with state law and board policy. Administrators committed to return with a refined process that includes how midyear additions would be handled and how parents would be given notice and alternatives.

The district did not set a date for final board approval of the high‑school lists; junior high timelines will follow on a separate schedule.