Parents, residents urge Everett School District to pause Lifewise Academy activities on campus

Speakers at the Everett School District board meeting on June 24 urged the board to pause its local arrangements with Lifewise Academy, a third‑party religious program, and to adopt clear district rules governing release of students for outside instruction. Multiple residents said Lifewise staff or buses have removed students from campus and that the district lacks a written policy to govern third‑party removal of children during the school day.

"Their ultimate goal is to terminate our US constitution's separation of church and state and to indoctrinate as many students as possible with their particular religious ideologies," said Lawrence Abb Ambiguri, a resident, who criticized Lifewise's affiliations and presence in schools. Jennifer Phillips McClellan, another resident, cited the U.S. Supreme Court case Zorach v. Clauson while arguing the decision does not require districts to permit outside religious instruction and that the district retains discretion. Dana Sanders said, "there is an organization coming on to campus and removing children," and asked the board to "stop the agreement until it is determined who or what entity has the power or control over this situation."

Other public commenters expressed related concerns. Kathleen Bergler criticized Lifewise's use of red buses and T‑shirts as creating visible division among students and asked the board to "put an immediate pause on their agreement with Lifewise until such time as they have established a clear set of policies." Janine Demery (spelled in meeting record as Demery) asked why the district allowed Lifewise to begin removing students when, she said, the district has no formal policy on releasing students to third parties and cited a district absence policy excerpt about parental request to excuse a student for religious instruction "provided the activity is not conducted on school property and provided that the student's regular educational program is not disrupted." Chris Martinez and others framed the issue as a separation‑of‑church‑and‑state concern. Carol Morgan asked whether volunteers or outside program staff who remove students are required to have background checks and whether the district could be held responsible if something happened to a child off campus.

Board President Mitchell and meeting staff reiterated procedural points for public comment: board members do not respond during the public comment period and the board will accept written statements. President Mitchell said written statements would be included in board materials and that people who requested written responses would receive them. The public record also shows the board received seven in‑person speakers and two written requests on this topic at the meeting.

There was no board motion, vote, or formal action recorded at the meeting to pause, rescind, or change district practice regarding Lifewise Academy. Several speakers explicitly asked the board to suspend any agreement with Lifewise until the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and the Everett School District craft a written policy or until the district can clarify the parameters of third‑party access to students. The board did not take new action on the request at the June 24 meeting.

Why this matters: commenters framed the issue as affecting student safety, religious freedom, and district policy clarity. They asked for clear guardrails on who may remove students during the school day, for background checks on third‑party personnel, and for transparency about any written agreements between the district and outside organizations. The board indicated it will include the written statements in meeting materials and provide responses to those who requested them.