Parents urge curriculum transparency and legal compliance; other speakers defend district practices
Summary
Several members of the public told the board they want a formal curriculum review, documentation of compliance with Connecticut statutes, and clear opt‑out procedures; other parents voiced trust in district educators and opposed lay review of curriculum.
Multiple members of the public used the board’s two‑minute public‑comment slots on March 3 to press the Buchanan Board of Education for greater transparency about curriculum selection and to ask for evidence the board’s policies comply with Connecticut law.
Mary Anne Knog, a retired educator who identified her address, said she has not received an update on a curriculum‑review committee’s workshop that was first raised in October and asked the board to publish findings. She also asked whether students still recite the Pledge of Allegiance and whether pride flags remain in some classrooms; the transcript records her questions but not a staff response at the time.
Julia Farber, identified as living on Sagamore Trail, said she submitted a formal request that the board review policies she believes may not be in compliance with Connecticut statute she referenced as "ten‑two‑twenty." She asked the board to publish comparisons of district policy to the statute and to state corrective steps if gaps exist. Farber told the board she wants documented evidence that policies were developed with community input; she said, "We voted for you... We trusted you. Now we need you to respect parents, respect families, and ensure the school's part of our children's education is suitable for everyone in New Canaan."
Several other speakers offered contrasting views. Sarah Lohman, a 15‑year resident and parent of three district students, said district communication has been "timely, clear" and called the district’s curriculum process "transparent". She opposed lay review of educators’ professional work and said opt‑out channels exist. Drew McGraton and Andre Asper, other members of the public, also spoke: McGraton said parents are not trained educators and argued for deference to professionals; Asper urged renewed outreach connecting students with STEM careers.
Why it matters: Public commenters asked the board for (a) a clear status update on the curriculum‑review committee, (b) publication of any compliance checks against the state statute alleged by speakers, and (c) clarity about classroom flags and pledge procedures. Board members did not announce a formal response at the time; the transcript records requests and concerns expressed during public comment.
Provenance: Public‑comment remarks appear throughout the meeting’s comment block beginning approximately at timestamp 07:00 and include exchanges between residents and district staff and board members.
