Parents, teachers urge Alamo Heights trustees to reject or narrow SB 11/SB 12 implementations
Loading...
Summary
Multiple parents and community members urged the Alamo Heights Board of Trustees to reject or narrowly interpret Texas Senate Bill 11 and SB 12, saying the measures introduce administrative burdens, risk viewpoint discrimination, and limit students'access to authors and books; speakers asked the board to adopt clearer local policy instead of broad prohibitions.
Several parents and local advocates told the Alamo Heights Board of Trustees on Feb. 18 that recent state laws involving school prayer and restrictions on certain classroom content should not be implemented in ways that add administrative burdens or curtail students'access to literature.
Dan Sendoff, a parent of a current and future Alamo Heights student, asked the board to vote to reject Senate Bill 11, which he said "creates a new government organized religious structure in our schools" and would require tracking consents, scheduling prayer periods and supervising students, all of which would "sacrifice classroom time" and risk legal exposure for the district. "Let's keep it simple," Sendoff told trustees.
Other speakers focused on SB 12 and the district's interpretation of that law. Bianca Sachera, a Cambridge parent, said district guidance given to visiting authors had effectively asked them to "refrain from any mention of race, color, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation," to redirect student questions to parents, and to avoid mentioning books that discuss those topics. "Our district's interpretation of SB 12 is overly restrictive and unreasonable," Sachera said.
Allison Hardy, who told trustees she had circulated a draft policy for responding to SB 12, urged the board to craft rules that preserve teachers'and visitors'ability to support academic instruction. "If the board of trustees does not implement and enforce the policy that makes sense and supports educators, this issue is not going away," Hardy said, warning that inconsistent application could amount to viewpoint discrimination and leave the district defending legal claims.
Carly Friedman and other speakers described real-world impacts: Friedman said an elementary author visit with Chris Barton was canceled because of the district's concern about references in a book, and urged the board to consider how restrictive interpretations harm students'opportunities to engage with quality literature. Julianne Reeves and Becky DeFossett urged the board to reject SB 11 on the grounds that voluntary student prayer already is protected and that instituting a school-organized prayer period risks pressuring students and diverting resources.
Board President and staff did not engage in debate during the citizens'comment period; trustees noted the policy committee has been reviewing a draft resolution and that the board will consider policy next month. The board's policy committee reported it met on Feb. 2 and Feb. 11 to review draft language on SB 11 and SB 12 and anticipates further consideration ahead of the March meeting.
