Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Library Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent criticizes DEI training and book transparency; board member says professional development is grant‑funded
Summary
A resident criticized the district’s diversity work and transparency about library books and professional development; Committee member Spillers responded that the district typically funds professional development through grants and that library materials and review processes are open to inspection.
A resident urged the Manchester School Committee on June 9 to notify all parents about diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) work, library materials and recent professional development she called controversial and "taxpayer funded." The board heard the public comment and a committee member responded at the meeting.
Callie Rojas of 169 Pine Street addressed the board during public comment and said she has attended meetings since 2022. She criticized district DEI work and its communication with parents: "Since 2013, the students' grades and scores have declined... Why don't you all do your jobs and worry about this? Instead, you're pushing a DEI agenda..." Rojas also asked the district to publish the names of books she said had been brought up and asked the superintendent and board to email parents seeking their views.
Board response: Committee member Spillers answered during the meeting. She disputed Rojas’s statement that professional development is funded by taxpayer money, saying, "Professional development is not typically funded by taxpayer money. It is typically funded through grants, that the school district and the staff of the school district take the time to go find and provide this development for teachers and staff." Spillers added that library collections and school procedures are not secret and that families may make arrangements to view school library materials.
Why it matters: the exchange addressed concerns about district transparency and parental access to information. The board’s public response clarified funding sources for professional development (grant-funded, according to the committee member) and reiterated that procedures exist to raise concerns about literature.
Action and outcome: no formal board action followed the public comment beyond the committee member’s spoken response. The board later took routine votes on other agenda items and moved on to the business agenda.
