Parents and board clash after Shrewsbury artist-in-residence is denied; parent describes racial slur against student

Shrewsbury parents pressed the Southern York County School District Board of Education on March 20 after the district removed an artist-in-residence from a planned program at Shrewsbury Elementary and a parent described a recent racial-slur incident at school.

Sharon Leach of Shrewsbury Borough told the board the artist-in-residence program has partnered with the Shrewsbury PTO and the York County Cultural Alliance for 17 years and that the Cultural Alliance and PTO had been willing to alter the curriculum. Leach said the Cultural Alliance received only a partial explanation and a single-board-member response when it asked why the artist, who describes herself as a chemist and who also speaks about her experience as a member of underrepresented groups in STEAM, was not approved.

Board President Jennifer Henkel, who serves as the board’s education chair, said the district follows a vetting process that requires signatures from the staff member proposing a speaker, the principal, the director of curriculum, the assistant superintendent and the education chair. Henkel said the speaker’s vetting form was incomplete because not all five signatures were present and that the agenda item announcing the speaker was therefore incorrect. Henkel and other board members emphasized that the vetting step does not require a full board vote when a speaker costs the district nothing.

At the same meeting, Natalie Borer of New Freedom described a sequence of racially derogatory comments directed at her son, including repeated stereotypical remarks and a written racial slur. Borer said her son reported the incident to school administration and urged the board to adopt a “zero tolerance” policy that would remove students who use racial slurs from extracurricular activities and impose suspension or expulsion for such conduct.

Board members said they take reports of racial incidents seriously and that the district has existing policies addressing racial slurs and student discipline. Several directors said they could not comment on the specifics of an ongoing investigation but that administrators would follow established procedures. One director noted that many past artist-in-residence presenters have been members of marginalized communities and called for improved timing in the vetting process so potential speakers can be reviewed earlier.

Why it matters: The public comments brought two related issues into the boardroom — the school’s process for vetting outside speakers and community concerns about racial incidents and equity in schools. Both topics affect how students experience curriculum and school climate and prompted the board to restate its procedures and to encourage communication between the PTO, Cultural Alliance and district staff.

What the board and community asked for: Parents and PTO leaders asked for a clearer explanation of why the particular speaker was not approved and requested more transparent communication from the district. The Cultural Alliance has submitted a written request for the board to explain the denial, and a PTO officer said the group is pursuing a Freedom of Information Act request for more information. Community speakers asked the board to reconsider the decision; board members replied that they were open to further discussion and that earlier routing of vetting materials would reduce last-minute denials.

Clarifying details from the meeting: The district’s speaker vetting form includes the question, “Have you read, viewed, or listened to the presenter’s materials in its entirety?” The board said that question – and incomplete responses to it – contributed to the vetting outcome in this case. The board chair and administrators said they would work with the Cultural Alliance and PTO to improve timing so that vetting can be completed before the agenda is published. A FOIA request from the Cultural Alliance was acknowledged by district staff as pending.

What’s next: Board members invited further dialogue and said the vetting process can be adjusted administratively. School administrators confirmed they will continue any disciplinary or investigative steps related to the student incident and will follow district policy for racial incidents.