Dallas Center‑Grimes board affirms superintendent in appeal over English 2 materials

The Dallas Center‑Grimes Community School District Board of Education held a special meeting to hear an appeal of an objection to English 2 instructional materials and voted to affirm the superintendent’s decision, the board record shows.

Board members said the meeting focused on whether the district’s reconsideration committee and the superintendent followed district policy and applicable state law in handling the complaint. The board’s action affirms the superintendent’s prior determination to retain the challenged materials in the curriculum.

Dr. Bloom, who presented the superintendent’s rationale to the board, told members the legal and policy framework guided the district’s process. “The board's focus should be on whether the committee and the superintendent followed the process outlined in policy 605.03 … and whether the superintendent's decision was reasonable based on the information reviewed. The board should not substitute its judgment for that of the superintendent unless it finds clear error,” Dr. Bloom said.

Shannon Olsen, who led the reconsideration process, described how the committee interpreted the district policy and state law when deciding what counts as “instructional materials.” Olsen said the committee limited its review to printed or electronic textbooks and related core materials as defined by Iowa law and district policy, and that the committee sought input from teachers, instructional coaches and other persons with subject knowledge during public meetings.

An appellant identified in the record as Shelley, a parent, told the board she objected not only to two books but to the broader English 2 units, which she said included magazine articles, poems, songs, films and assignments she described as “race centric” and “one‑sided.” “The English 2 curriculum includes 2 long units heavily focused on critical race theory and social justice,” Shelley said. She said she raised concerns with the district beginning Sept. 10, 2024, and asked the board for a comprehensive review of the unit materials and instruction.

Board members acknowledged community tensions and the challenges of balancing parental input, classroom academic freedom and legal requirements. One director said the district should seek clearer guidance on what “balance” should look like while continuing to allow critical thinking in classrooms. The board did not indicate a desire to overturn the superintendent’s decision at the meeting.

Before the public presentations, Dr. Bloom reviewed key legal materials and district policy history cited during the hearing. He summarized House File 802 (signed June 8, 2021) and Senate File 496 (signed May 26, 2023) and told the board that those laws and subsequent guidance shaped which materials the committee could consider and how the district handled confidentiality of complainants. Dr. Bloom said district attorneys and Department of Education attorneys had been consulted during the process and that the district adjusted the committee’s public procedures after legal guidance that committee deliberations should be held in public.

After discussion, a motion to affirm the superintendent’s decision was made and seconded. The board indicated its support by voice vote and the meeting record states the motion "carries." The record shows a full roll call at the start of the special meeting; all present board members voted in favor in the voice vote recorded.

The board noted that the policy language on committee deliberations differs from current legal guidance and signaled a forthcoming need to reconcile district policy with that guidance. The board also referenced a desire to refine how the district explains reconsideration procedures and the meaning of balance to the community.

The meeting concluded with the board setting its next regular meeting date and adjourning.