Wissahickon board declines MCIU virtual academy renewal after disputed Israel lesson

Wissahickon School Board members voted 8–1 on June 2 to reject approval of the district's blanket agreement with the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit (MCIU) for virtual academy services after a review unearthed a contentious lesson on the creation of the state of Israel.

Board members and public commenters said they were not prepared to sign off on a multi-course virtual provider while that lesson remains under review and urged the MCIU to remove or revise specific material and report back. The district signaled it will seek a written response from the MCIU and may call a special meeting this summer to decide whether a corrected agreement can be approved before the fall semester.

The decision followed public comments from parents and community members who said the disputed lesson had already been used in the MCIU's honors world-studies offering and asked the district to take steps to correct misinformation and to notify or re-educate students who had access to the material. Rachel Granger, a parent and a member of the Wissahickon Jewish Family Association, told the board, "This is about the safety of our children and the integrity of their education. We do not correct falsehoods." Mark Kamen, a resident of Woodpean Township, urged the board to "vote no on renewing the virtual academy program until" the district could confirm the material had been removed, all virtual academy materials were reviewed for similar issues, and students exposed were educated on corrected content.

During a lengthy board discussion, Board member Marshall said he had reviewed the lesson closely and concluded, "I do not believe that the information contained within the lesson is acceptable for our district," citing concerns about factual accuracy and the risk that unchecked material could contribute to an unsafe learning environment. Other board members said they share the concern but also expressed urgency about maintaining a virtual option for students who rely on remote learning, including immunocompromised students and others for whom in-person attendance is not possible.

Superintendent-level staff and other board members described the practical constraints of replacing a vendor on short notice: the district currently participates in a countywide MCIU arrangement that provides consortium pricing and access to multiple courses. The board discussed alternatives including: 1) asking the MCIU for a prompt investigation and written remediation plan; 2) carving specific courses out of the agreement (refusing only the problematic course while retaining others); or 3) pursuing a different vendor, a process several board members warned would take substantial time and could delay fall offerings.

At roll call, board members registered eight "no" votes and one "yes". Doctor Morris was recorded as the sole "yes" vote; other roll-call names recorded in the transcript were Mister Badger, Mister Bleefeld, Miss Kavachi, Mister Gholson, Carrie Nikas, Mister Walker, and Ginsburg, who voted no. The motion failed and the district will seek further information from the MCIU before reconsidering approval.

Next steps the board identified during the meeting included requesting a written report from the MCIU on the disputed lesson and the vendor's catalog, exploring whether the MCIU could supply an alternative vendor or reconvene member districts to address the issue, and calling a special summer meeting if the MCIU response arrives in time to affect fall planning. Board members said they prefer a path that preserves a virtual option for students but only with vetted, factually accurate material.

The board did not adopt any policy change at the meeting; it left the agreement unresolved pending the MCIU's response.

What happens next: the district will request the MCIU's investigation results and may hold a special meeting before the August board session to determine whether the agreement can be approved with corrections, whether the district should exclude the specific course, or whether the district must secure an alternative provider for any courses deemed unacceptable.