Moore County board votes 4-3 to repeal handwritten book‑report requirement after hours of public comment

The Moore County Board of Education voted 4‑3 on Monday, June 9, to repeal the district policy that required students to submit four handwritten book reports per year, citing widespread concerns from classroom teachers and administrators about implementation and instructional time.

The vote followed more than two hours of public comment from parents, teachers and community members and extended board discussion. The policy under review was listed in meeting materials as Policy 55‑25 (reading/promotion and book‑report requirements). Superintendent W. LeRoy Locklear presented staff recommendations and the policy committee brought a recommendation to the full board to repeal and archive the rule.

Why it matters: The requirement had been a flashpoint in Moore County since its adoption, drawing strong public support from parents and boosters who said handwritten book reports build reading comprehension, attention and writing skills. Opponents—including classroom teachers surveyed by the district—said the policy had become a check‑the‑box assignment in some classrooms, pulled time away from state standards, and was not implemented with sufficient teacher input or support.

Public testimony ran the gamut. Miriam Choo told the board she was “concerned about the possible abolishment of the book report requirement, handwritten,” arguing handwritten reports protect against misuse of artificial‑intelligence tools. Medical doctor Willie Chu said: “Nothing more is more important and fundamental than reading and writing.” Retired educator Caroline Kelly warned that “up to 40% of Moore County students are not proficient in reading,” testimony the board heard alongside teachers’ written feedback arguing the mandate had practical problems in classrooms.

Board discussion split along lines of process and outcomes. Board member Steve Benway and others argued the district should keep the requirement until staff and teachers design an improved replacement; several board members said they wanted a stronger, evidence‑based writing curriculum and more teacher involvement in any future mandate. Board member Paul Hensley, who supported keeping the policy previously, said district reading scores rose after the requirement’s introduction and that the measure functions as a “capstone” assessment. Dr. Locklear and other board members noted teacher feedback reported more problems than successes in classroom implementation and recommended repeal.

Final action: The board voted 4‑3 to repeal and archive the policy. The board did not adopt a specific replacement policy at the meeting; several board members urged staff to develop alternatives, including a strengthened, district‑level approach to writing instruction and clear guidance for teachers. The vote tally was recorded as 4 yes, 3 no.

What’s next: With the policy archived, district staff said they will engage teachers, literacy leaders and the board over the summer to develop options—either a revised requirement or guidance and curricula—to support reading and writing instruction. Board members emphasized they expect a follow‑up plan and teacher involvement before any new district mandate is proposed.