Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities And Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent urges Mason board to install urinal privacy screens across district
Summary
At the board meeting, parent John Coleman asked the Mason City Schools board to install privacy screens between urinals in all five district school buildings, arguing lack of screens raises bullying and comfort concerns; the superintendent said staff will investigate costs and feasibility.
John Coleman, a parent of three Mason City students, asked the Board of Education to commit to installing privacy screens between urinals in every district building during the public-comment portion of the meeting.
"Why are there no privacy screens between urinals in any of the 5 Mason school buildings?" Coleman asked. He said that in many public settings — professional workplaces, stadiums and restaurants — privacy screens are the norm and that the absence of screens in schools increases the risk of teasing, embarrassment and anxiety among students.
Coleman framed the request as a matter of student well-being and safety, not mere modesty: "It is about creating an environment where students feel safe, respected, and are able to focus on learning rather than discomfort or humiliation," he said.
Superintendent Dr. Cooper thanked Coleman for raising the issue and said the district would follow up. Cooper told the board he and operations staff (including Eric Messer) would investigate the request and the costs involved, noting there can be reasons why fixtures are configured as they are and that the district would look at durability and repair concerns as part of the assessment. "We will follow-up on that," Cooper said.
Board members acknowledged the concern and suggested the facilities committee would likely take the issue up for further review. No formal motion or vote was taken on the privacy screen request during the meeting; the item will be treated as a public concern for staff investigation and potential committee consideration.
The exchange provides the district with a clear next step: staff-directed follow-up to evaluate costs and practical barriers, and possible review by the facilities committee. Coleman’s request remains unresolved pending that follow-up.
