Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public criticizes draft policy that would give school board final authority on curriculum; committee cites MSBA model
Summary
A parent urged the Elk River School Board to remove language from draft policy 606 that would make the board the final authority on curriculum purchases; the policy committee said edits align the policy with the Minnesota School Boards Association model and Minnesota statutes, and no formal board decision was taken.
Sally Anton, who identified herself as the parent of a Rogers High School ninth grader, addressed the board during public comment on May 12 to challenge proposed language in draft policy 606 that would make the board the final authority on curriculum selections. Quoting the draft, Anton read the line that “retains final authority on these selections” and said that the board should “trust the professionals” who do curriculum review and urged the board to “send the policy back for revision, removing this dangerous new language in policy 606.”
At the meeting the policy committee reported that proposed edits to policy 606 were intended to align the district’s language with the MSBA (Minnesota School Boards Association) model policy. Committee members and district staff described the existing curriculum adoption process as robust and staff‑led, with multiple teachers and curriculum specialists involved in pilot and review cycles. Dr. Rock (identified in committee remarks) previewed the curriculum selection process for directors and described the proposed two‑sentence change as primarily inserting formal board awareness and final approval at the end of a multiyear selection process.
Committee members cited Minnesota statute 120B.11 when discussing broad representation on curriculum advisory committees and also referenced “Minnesota statute 134.51” in connection with related policy language. Policy committee members said MSBA legal counsel had given conflicting guidance about whether a separate policy for library/media materials (policy 606.5) is required by statute or could be handled as administrative procedure; the committee postponed final action on that specific item pending further legal review.
Why it matters: The draft language would explicitly assign the school board final authority to approve curriculum purchases — a change that parents and some directors said would be perceived as shifting technical curriculum judgment from trained educators to elected officials. Supporters of the edit said it is primarily an accountability step: the board already approves budgets and has ultimate legal responsibility.
Next steps: The committee planned a curriculum advisory meeting on May 20 and anticipated returning to the board with additional detail; Director Madsen was recommended to be a board‑appointed member of the advisory committee and to report back to the full board to maintain ongoing oversight.
