Parents and advocates raise IEP complaint, curriculum and funding concerns at Buncombe board meeting
Loading...
Summary
During public comment four speakers urged action: a parent alleged repeated IEP violations without parental consent; an equality advocate praised the reversal of a digital-library ban; a teacher raised questions about a proposed percentage-based county funding model; and a community advocate warned about Lifewise curriculum content.
Four public commenters addressed the Buncombe County Board of Education during the Dec. 11 meeting, raising distinct concerns about special-education compliance, curricular content and funding.
A parent identified as Miss Brown said the district had unilaterally modified her child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) and reassigned the student’s classroom in November without parental consent or proper IEP‑team process. She told the board those actions “constitute an egregious violation of the legally binding IEP document” and requested immediate steps to rectify the situation and ensure future compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Craig White of the Campaign for Southern Equality thanked the board for reversing what he called a ban of a digital library and invoked the U.S. Supreme Court’s West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) as a precedent for protecting student rights and nonpartisan public education.
Joan Hoffman, a CTE teacher and vice president of the Buncombe County Association of Educators, raised concerns about a proposed percentage‑based local funding model. Hoffman asked why education funding would be based on received—not projected—tax revenue and warned that a county decision to lower tax rates could reduce school funding tied to received property and sales taxes.
Sharon Broussard, a public‑school advocate, urged the board to reject Lifewise Academy programming in the district, accusing the program in blunt terms of teaching religious supremacy and anti‑Semitic tropes. Her remarks characterized Lifewise as organized to “infiltrate” schools and urged board action.
Board members did not provide on‑the‑spot remedies for the IEP complaint in the public comment segment; the transcript records the statements and the board’s receipt of them but does not show immediate remediation or a detailed staff response during that time.
