The Marblehead School Committee heard extended public comment and debated revisions to a proposed policy governing flags and banners on school property, agreeing to send a revised draft to counsel before the next reading.

The committee’s discussion followed a wave of public testimony from students, parents and local advocates who said the draft language is overly broad and could unintentionally restrict classroom art, staff postings and legally required workplace notices. Several speakers urged the committee to add explicit exceptions and a viewpoint-neutral standard to avoid First Amendment challenges.

Why it matters: The policy would define which flags and banners constitute the district’s government speech and which displays would require committee approval. Committee members and community commenters said unclear language has raised widespread confusion and fear that normal classroom displays or student artwork might be removed.

Public commenters said the draft was drafted too quickly and urged broader outreach. A middle-school student said removing hallway displays would make halls “bland” and urged a student poll. Parent speakers pressed the committee to remove language critics saw as limiting students’ ability to post artwork or petitions. Several legal- and civics-focused speakers asked that the policy explicitly follow the viewpoint-neutral principles courts have applied when government speech and private speech intersect.

Committee members said legal counsel drafted the current language with an eye to recent court guidance and local town policy differences. Chair Jen Schaffner emphasized the draft is intended to cover flags and banners permanently affixed to building walls and not rotating student artwork or temporary displays. Schaffner said the committee intends to send clarified language to counsel for review and bring a revised draft back for another reading.

Committee members also discussed adding explicit, non-exhaustive exceptions so community members understand what will not change: sports banners, graduation banners, student artwork on rotating displays, and positive affirmations such as “Everyone is welcome here” would not be targeted by the draft. Several committee members asked the chair to incorporate clarified language describing which displays are covered and to circulate suggested language to counsel before the next meeting.

Next steps: The committee agreed to edit the draft to make the scope explicit, circulate proposed language to legal counsel, and return the policy for another reading. Several speakers asked the district to publish clear procedures and examples showing how the policy would be operationalized by the superintendent and building administrators.

Ending note: Committee members said they would balance constitutional guidance (as discussed at the meeting) with practical assurance that ordinary classroom materials and student expression will remain allowed unless specifically listed in a final policy.