Parents, advocates at Indian River school board meeting decry vouchers and press for policy fixes

At the Nov. 17 Indian River County School Board meeting, seven public commenters raised concerns about voucher programs, the state 'Phoenix' declaration, implementation of policy 5223 and the effect of proposed start‑time changes on single‑parent households.

Margaret Murray, vice chair of the Education Champions, opened the public‑comment period with a forceful warning about vouchers and so‑called 'schools of hope.' "Silence is not neutrality. Silence is surrender," she told the board, urging parents to organize to protect public schools.

Other speakers referenced the "Phoenix declaration" and asked whether state‑level guidance will narrow local curriculum or advance a privatization agenda. Susan Stoler, called by the board to speak, said the Phoenix document "threatens to censure history" and questioned how the state's vision will translate in classrooms.

Nicole Campanelli told the board she has tried repeatedly since May to implement policy 5223 (release time for religious instruction) and described unsuccessful outreach to district staff. "I've tried phone calls, emails... I got zilch," she said; Superintendent Dr. Moore replied that staff would follow up and that Beth in the superintendent's office would collect information to problem‑solve the family's situation.

A parent who said she chose Gifford Middle School (called to the lectern during the hearing) warned that proposed consolidated start times could impose untenable costs for before‑ and after‑care on single‑parent households and asked the board to explore alternatives.

Heather Askin, identifying herself as an education advocate, praised district efforts but urged research into Mater Academy and Academica, saying critics link those organizations and nationwide groups to an agenda that could redirect public funds to private operators. Arlene Jamieson urged preserving school culture during reorganization and spoke in favor of arts programming.

The superintendent and several board members acknowledged the commenters, thanked them for participating and committed to follow up; staff were asked to reach out to individuals who requested additional information. No policy changes were adopted at the meeting; the board noted the public hearings and rule‑making schedule for the boundary initiative and asked staff to be present at forthcoming town halls.

Why it matters: public commenters raised both specific operational concerns (policy 5223 implementation, start times, transportation) and broader policy objections (vouchers, Phoenix declaration, privatization). Board members and the superintendent repeatedly invited continued engagement ahead of the Dec. 17 hearing and other town halls.