Parents and teachers say DeMacy classrooms are being sacrificed for lease; literacy advocates press district for curriculum changes

At a recent Evesham Township Board of Education meeting, parents, teachers and a student spoke strongly against a proposed lease arrangement that would place out‑of‑district students into classrooms at DeMacy Elementary, a move they said would displace DeMacy fourth‑ and fifth‑grade classes and force teachers to give up dedicated classroom space.

The dispute was one of two major themes in public comment. Amanda Gaunt, representing Parents for Improved Literacy Outcomes, also urged the district to adopt proven, research‑based literacy curriculum and pointed to state law and available grant funds as reasons to act. "These aren't just numbers. They represent real students, real children who deserve better," Gaunt said. "Improve curriculum, improve instruction, and improve outcomes, because our children cannot afford to wait." She said the advocacy group has grown to about 500 members and cited district performance and resource concerns.

Why it matters: parents and staff said the planned classroom reassignments would reduce instructional quality, remove students from the pod environment designed into DeMacy, and force teachers to operate without permanent classroom space. The literacy advocates framed their call as tied to state requirements and available state grant funding.

Parents and staff described the specifics and immediate effects. Emily Gervasi, a DeMacy parent, said the classrooms proposed to be leased "were not empty classrooms," and said two fifth‑grade classes and one fourth‑grade class would be moved into smaller, windowless rooms. "Before the pending legal review is finalized, I would like the board to question why the situation is here," Gervasi said, recounting that an earlier plan to house the program in a middle‑school pod fell through. Teacher Maureen Holbrook said the complaint was not about inclusion but about the loss of classroom space: "There is no space. If a dozen teachers have to relocate or worse lose their classrooms altogether, which is what is happening." She said she had previously had to teach from a cart and did not want to return to that setup.

A fifth‑grader, Matthew Broadbent, also addressed the board, urging that his teachers and bus driver be preserved. "Both my fifth grade teacher and my math teacher will likely be people moving out of the fifth grade pod to make room for the Yale students. I absolutely love both of my teachers," he said, adding a plea to keep his regular bus driver, "Miss Pam."

Superintendent Dr. Smith responded earlier in the meeting by highlighting the night’s student recognitions and district programs; he did not announce a final decision on the lease during public comment. A district representative later told the board that attorneys for the outside program had provided final approval of suggested contract changes mid‑afternoon on the day of the meeting, but the board proceeded to a roll call on the finance items and carried the finance package with exceptions (see votes below).

On literacy, Gaunt cited statistics and a recent law: she said the district was awarded a NJ Department of Education focus grant and asked for collaborative work with the curriculum office. "We hope this grant will help support the curriculum department in taking a proactive road toward improving literacy instruction and outcomes for all students," one speaker said, noting the board agenda included a grant application for $17,960 to NJDOE tied to PL 2024 c.52.

Board action and next steps: the board approved multiple administrative, curriculum and personnel packages during the meeting. The finance and operations package was carried with the exception of one item (10.16), which the board withheld pending additional negotiations; the meeting record shows the motion carried "with the exception of 10.16." Several residents asked the board to reconsider the lease and to consult more broadly with teachers and parents before finalizing classroom assignments. Several speakers asked the district to provide clearer, public explanations of where displaced services (art, computer labs, specials) would be housed.

The board did not take a separate, recorded motion at the meeting explicitly approving or rejecting the DeMacy lease in isolation; public commenters urged the board to vote against any contract that displaces existing students and teachers. The district indicated legal review had been completed for suggested changes to the contract, and the board included the finance items on the agenda; parents asked that the board delay any final action that would displace DeMacy students until alternative options had been examined and staff input had been fully considered.

Community context: speakers repeatedly told the board that DeMacy students and families expect to move into the established fifth‑grade pod as a tradition and that moving the students out of that pod damages the school experience. Multiple commenters said they welcomed inclusion for the out‑of‑district students but not at the expense of the district’s home students or teachers. Several speakers also raised concerns about how specials (art, computer) would be delivered if dedicated rooms were reassigned.

Ending: Board members and staff said they would continue committee work and that the district had applied for and discussed the focus grant within curriculum committee meetings; parents asked the board to schedule collaborative meetings between the curriculum office and parent advocacy groups. Residents who asked for follow‑up requested clearer communications about room assignments and a public explanation of any final lease language before implementation.

Votes at a glance (selected agenda packages mentioned during public comment and in the meeting record): The board recorded roll‑call votes on multiple agenda blocks during the meeting. The minutes show the following outcomes: administrative/appointments (items 6.1–6.2) — approved; approval of minutes (items 7.1–7.2) — approved; superintendent/administrative items (8.1–8.6) — approved; curriculum and instruction block (items 9.1–9.5) — approved (agenda included a grant application to NJDOE for $17,960); finance and operations (items 10.1–10.17) — approved with the exception of item 10.16, which the board declined to approve pending further negotiations; personnel (item 11) — approved. The meeting record lists individual board members' recorded yes/no votes during roll‑call; the finance package passed overall except for 10.16.

Direct quotes included in the text are taken from speakers who identified themselves at the public meeting and are attributed in the article only to those speakers.