Escambia County School Board adopts new policies tightening review and challenges to instructional and library materials

The Escambia County School Board on its October 2025 agenda adopted two policies that tighten the district’s review and challenge procedures for instructional and library materials, voting unanimously, 5-0, to approve Policy 2520 (selection and adoption of instructional materials) and Policy 2522 (challenges to instructional, library and reading-list materials).

The policies change how titles can be challenged and reviewed and were the focus of an extended public forum in which teachers, librarians, parents and students urged the board to restore books already removed from school and classroom libraries and to clarify how the new rules will be implemented.

Jenna Henderson, an Escambia County educator and elementary media specialist, told the board: “On the agenda tonight are updates to policies regarding the selection and adoption of instructional and library materials.” Henderson and other speakers said the board’s June decision to remove hundreds of titles — including many that had previously cleared local review processes — has left classroom libraries and school media centers depleted and prompted lawsuits.

Multiple speakers said national and out-of-district challenge lists have driven the local removals. “Are we gonna let one man in another county decide what is appropriate for our students?” asked a speaker who said 63% of the state’s reconsideration list items came from Clay County. Several commenters referenced the district’s removal of more than 400 titles in June and cited a later state list of about 224 titles; one speaker summarized the cumulative effect as “approximately 624 plus books removed from school libraries since June.”

Teachers described practical impacts in classrooms. Diane Eubanks, a district social-studies teacher, said she had removed large portions of her classroom library while the new district review process proceeds: “When I was here a month ago, I had had to remove 87% of my classroom library. In the past month, I have gotten another 7% of my books set free.” She said many of the remaining approved items are children’s books and that students at Title I schools lack reliable access to off-campus libraries or bookstores.

Commenters also raised legal and fiscal concerns. Several speakers said litigation challenging prior removals has cost or could cost the district hundreds of thousands of dollars; speakers cited figures ranging from about $600,000 to “nearly $1,000,000” and stressed that lawsuits remain pending or on appeal. One commenter pointed to a federal court order that, they said, requires the district to apply the Miller test before removing titles; that commenter argued continued removals could prolong litigation and expense.

Board members moved and seconded adoption of both policies during the final-reading items. One board member said they would vote yes despite concerns and acknowledged some books frequently used in Advanced Placement coursework warrant future reconsideration. The board’s roll-call names for the votes were not announced in the transcript; the clerk recorded the outcome as approved 5-0 for both policies.

The district’s superintendent acknowledged operational limits on review capacity and said staff are working to move previously approved teacher-owned classroom books back into the district’s Destiny catalog so they can be accessed again. A board member noted the district had more media specialists available to review materials over the summer and that fewer staff are available during the school year, which has delayed approvals.

The board approved the policies after public comment. The record shows the board adopted Policy 2520 and Policy 2522 and approved the broader consent agenda later the same meeting.

Public commenters urged the board to (1) return previously removed titles promptly, (2) describe the exact criteria (for example, how profanity is counted and defined at each grade level), (3) publish detailed legal-cost accounting related to litigation over removals, and (4) restore classroom library access for Title I and other vulnerable student populations.

Board action on both policies was limited to formal adoption; the transcript does not show immediate follow-up directives instructing staff to re‑shelve specific titles or to change the wording of the newly adopted policies.

Ending: The superintendent and board members acknowledged the concerns and indicated staff will continue processing approvals and catalog entries, but commenters said the pace of restorative work is too slow. Several speakers warned that continued blanket removals based on out-of-district lists would prolong litigation and further reduce students’ access to classroom and school library materials.