Parents and teachers defend Talbot Elementary educator after state attorney general’s letter; board hears public pleas

Dozens of parents, teachers and community members used the school‑board public‑comment period on Nov. 4 to defend a Talbot Elementary staff member who was removed from classrooms after a complaint that prompted a public letter from the state attorney general.

"I am heartbroken and deeply concerned about the removal and public defamation of one of our most beloved teachers," said Jamie Levitt, a Talbot parent, who asked the board to reinstate the employee so that students — including her child with an Individualized Education Program — could regain stability. "This teacher has done nothing but show kindness, compassion and dedication to our children."

Several speakers directly challenged assertions attributed to the attorney general in the public letter. "The claim that Mx is simply a work of fiction is simply wrong," said Gina Rivera, a Talbot teacher, citing dictionary and academic references and saying the attorney general’s characterization of the honorific and related scientific claims was incorrect. Rivera added that, in her classroom, the staff member never pressured students to use particular pronouns.

Lisa Blake, a Talbot parent, told the board the attorney general’s social‑media post naming the school had spurred online harassment and put students at risk. "That was not leadership. That was reckless … To broadcast the location of our young students simply as a political attack is not just unprofessional — it puts our children in danger," she said.

Speakers also warned of the educational consequences for students suddenly without familiar staff, including children who receive ESE support. "His comfort, his learning, and his confidence have all been shaken," Levitt said of her third‑grade child. Educators and union representatives said affected staff are being provided legal support where eligible.

Superintendent Patton and district staff did not announce any personnel action or reversal during the meeting. District policy and staff statements presented at the meeting indicate the board and district process for personnel matters remain in effect; the public record at the Nov. 4 meeting shows only comment and no reinstatement or vote.

The Talbot controversy was one of the most frequent themes during public comment at the meeting, and speakers urged the board to press state officials for clarification, to protect students from online harassment, and to reaffirm protections for both student privacy and employees’ due process rights. The board did not take a formal vote on the Talbot personnel matter at the session; multiple speakers requested follow‑up and public statements from the board.