Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Library Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews draft library materials policy; member seeks addition barring sexually explicit content
Summary
In a first read of a new IJL policy to align Garrett County schools with Maryland law on library materials, a board member asked the superintendent to add language barring "explicit content" from school library materials; the item will return for board consideration next month.
The Garrett County Board of Education reviewed a first draft of a new policy (IJL) and revised procedure to govern the selection and review of school library media materials and objections to them.
The policy was introduced as aligning local practice with the Freedom to Read Act and provisions of the Annotated Code of Maryland (Education Article 4-142 and related COMAR language) that require procedures for handling objections while protecting against content removal based solely on ideology or political viewpoint. The presenter told the board the law was enacted as House Bill 785 / Senate Bill 738 and signed by Governor Wes Moore in April 2024.
During discussion a board member objected to perceived gaps and asked that the draft include explicit language stating that materials provided in the school library "shall not contain sexually explicit content." The member said the proposed language would be narrowly targeted and not based on religion, ideology or partisanship; they suggested a definition modeled after another Maryland county that would describe sexually explicit content as "describing, depicting, showing or writing about certain sexual acts." The board member said they had discussed the wording with the superintendent and legal counsel.
Board members and the superintendent responded that current practice emphasizes ensuring age appropriateness and that library media staff are trained in making those determinations. The superintendent said the suggested wording would be included in the revised draft if the proposer submits the language formally; otherwise, a board member indicated they would prepare an amendment at the next meeting. The policy was a first read; the board did not vote to adopt it at this meeting.
The item will return for action at a future meeting; the board directed staff to include the most recent legal alignment language and to circulate any proposed amendment language in advance.
