Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Instructional Materials topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District explains media-technology advisory committee process and book-reconsideration steps
Summary
District staff described the MTAC (Media Technology Advisory Committee) process for reviewing instructional materials and software, explained how parents file reconsideration requests, and said district-level submissions are redacted; the board noted HB 805's searchable catalog requirement.
District staff briefed the board on the Media Technology Advisory Committee (MTAC) process used to select and review instructional materials, library media and software. Assistant superintendent for technology and digital learning described school-level and district-level procedures for handling parent or student challenges to materials and the route for appeals.
Under the described process, a parent or student who objects to material first speaks with the classroom teacher or the school media specialist. If unresolved, the parent may file a formal request for reconsideration with the principal, who then notifies the school MTAC chair. The school MTAC reviews the material in its entirety, consults professional reviews, and reaches a majority decision (the chair abstains from the vote; in case of a tie the chair casts the deciding vote). Outcomes include: take no action, remove the material from instruction/circulation at that school, place the material at another school level, or regulate availability within the school. If either party is dissatisfied, they may request district-level review; after the district decision the losing party has 15 days to petition the board for a hearing.
District staff said they redact complainant names at the district level to protect privacy (the principal and district staff, however, must know the complainant). The district also reviewed its process for approving vendor software that requires student accounts: those products go to MTAC and to curriculum and technical review to ensure data security and content alignment; simple websites that do not require student logins are treated differently.
Board members asked whether parents can be protected from public identification and whether district-level redaction practice should be formalized in procedures; staff said they will add an explicit redaction step to written procedures. Staff also noted that House Bill 805 requires public searchable catalogs of library holdings and that district staff will add school-level catalogs and links to school pages as required by law. No formal policy changes were adopted on the spot; staff asked the policy committee to consider possible procedure updates.
