Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spring‑Ford board pauses vote on opening‑exercises policy after legal review; refers matter to policy committee
Summary
Trustees removed a proposed revision to the district's opening‑exercises policy after staff and the solicitor said part of the Pennsylvania School Code language had been found unconstitutional by a federal appeals court; the board agreed to send the policy back to the policy committee for review and public discussion.
The Spring‑Ford Area SD Board of School Directors on April 22 paused formal approval of a revision to the district's opening‑exercises policy after district counsel and staff presented legal research showing a portion of the relevant state school‑code language had been declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.
The issue surfaced after a community member questioned why certain lines had been removed from the draft policy. Board policy language under review concerned the pledge of allegiance, displaying the flag and a newly proposed "moment of silence" addition. The policy committee had recommended updates and the administration had placed the item on the agenda for first reading; following public questions and a solicitor review, trustees agreed to return the matter to the policy committee for further consideration.
Board discussion and legal context: Mrs. Goldsmith, chair of the policy committee, said the committee had reviewed policies and sought solicitor input; she and other trustees noted that some older policy language reflected statutory provisions enacted in the early 2000s and that case law since then had changed legal obligations. "If we have this conversation in May, it doesn't mean that we have to go back to first and second read," Goldsmith said, describing options for the board to either approve an updated policy or rescind the older language.
Board counsel, Mr. Fitzgerald, told trustees that the contested provision still appears in the Pennsylvania School Code but that a Third Circuit decision from 2004 had held that portion unconstitutional. He summarized the court's holding as finding the statutory provision to be impermissible viewpoint discrimination when it required parental notification or other sanctions for students who declined to recite the pledge. "That section has been found by the Third Circuit to be unconstitutional," Fitzgerald said.
Superintendent staff and policy chair explained that the district's ESSA (state) report cards remain publicly available on the district website and that rescinding a duplicative policy would not remove legal obligations under state or federal law. "If you dig a little deeper ... the law is what it is," Fitzgerald added. Policymakers repeatedly said the board must not include policy language that conflicts with controlling court decisions.
Public comment and concerns: Several community members raised questions. Roland Olsen, a resident, said the district should retain parental notification when a student declines to participate in the pledge and asked why other display language had been altered. "I do not support the removal of parental notification when my child does not participate in the opening exercises," Olsen said during public comment. Board members responded that the policy committee will review those concerns and that the state ESSA report card remains posted online.
Board action and next steps: Trustees agreed to return the policy to the policy committee for additional review and to include solicitor guidance and public input. The policy committee is scheduled to meet May 12; the board indicated it could act on the policy in May after that committee review, either by approving the corrected language or rescinding the out‑of‑date policy without leaving district legal obligations unaddressed.
