Public commenters urge board to restore arts display funding, preserve Reading Corps supports and weigh federal policy impacts

Multiple community members used the meeting’s Communications, Delegations and Petitions period to press the board on several substantive issues, including an arts partnership at Andover High School, the district’s use of Reading Corps tutors and internal coaching, and potential impacts from recent federal directives on gender policies.

A parent and taxpayer who identified herself as Pan Curry G. said she was “extremely disappointed” that the board could not reach a unified decision to accept an arts award that would have allowed Andover High School students to exhibit their work in school hallways; she framed the decision as creating unequal recognition between arts and other extracurricular fields. Angela Nelson, who identified herself as an educator and parent, said the joint powers agreement for the Andover art program was removed from agendas after objections to diversity, equity and inclusion language on a related website. Nelson said the grant would have bought display cases so students in level-1 art could exhibit three-dimensional work and that the program included guest-artist pathways to careers.

Several speakers urged the district to maintain supports that they said bolster early reading outcomes. Paula Moore, who identified herself as a Reading Corps tutor, described the program’s role in supporting kindergarten through third-grade students who read below grade level and said Reading Corps has provided more than 5,000 students support in the district over more than a decade. Moore said she was “concerned” about a decision to eliminate the district’s internal Reading Corps coach position and asked the board to reconsider.

Other public speakers raised broader policy concerns. Erin Peterson warned that recent federal executive orders on gender policies — described in her remarks as limiting bathroom access and sports participation to biological sex — could place about $14 million of federal funding at risk if the district did not implement changes she said the orders require. Peterson framed the choice as one between preserving funding or maintaining current district practices; she acknowledged her dollar estimate was approximate.

Several other speakers used the public-comment period to defend the district’s curriculum or urge transparency: a community member identified in the record as Rod (last name partially redacted in the transcript) criticized what he described as insufficient public defense of curriculum materials related to race and history and referenced a pending state bill (H.F. 29) discussed in public testimony.

The board’s public-comment rules were reiterated before the speakers; the chair reminded speakers not to use student names and said the chair would interrupt comments that violated privacy or due-process protections. The board did not take immediate action on the topics raised during public comment; items raised were discussed later in the meeting or will be handled through follow-up by staff as appropriate.