Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Community speakers urge board to restore books, defend teachers and prioritize students’ mental health
Loading...
Summary
Dozens of residents used public comment to challenge recent textbook and curriculum removals, defend teachers against accusations, and urge the board to focus on budgets, building needs and student mental‑health supports.
During public comment at the district’s February action meeting, a string of residents urged the school board to reconsider recent curriculum removals and to treat teachers with respect as the district addresses finances and building needs.
Amy Carr opened the public‑comment block with a personal defense of reading and educators, telling the board she trusted classroom professionals and criticizing what she called an atmosphere of mistrust. “The fact that one of our teachers felt the need to come to a four‑hour meeting on a school night to defend themselves is absolutely shameful,” she said.
Several speakers specifically asked the board to show where titles removed from the tenth grade ELA curriculum were objectionable. Joyce Stoltzfus said she purchased and read removed titles including The House on Mango Street and found nothing that matched the board’s stated reasons for removal, asking the board to show chapter and verse of objectionable passages.
Other speakers defended inclusion and warned that removing books with complex themes removes opportunities for students to develop empathy and resilience. Sarah Zaiters, a mental‑health professional, told the board that removing stories containing grief and trauma does not improve youth mental health and that “books are powerful because they help us put words to what we feel.”
Jim Safford, president of the teachers’ local association, said his union stands in solidarity with students and teachers and urged the board to stop smearing educators. He called the attacks “vicious, baseless” and asked the board to craft policy to protect staff from false accusations and online harassment.
Other comments invoked building conditions and budget priorities; some speakers thanked the board for difficult fiscal decisions while asking for clarity on where funds are being used. The public comment period concluded with the board moving into action items.
The meeting record shows the board received a range of community views: requests for specific evidence underlying book removals; calls to return removed titles and mental‑health screenings; and appeals to keep the focus on budget and building planning.
Next steps: the board did not take votes on curriculum at this meeting; public speakers asked for clearer explanations and evidence when titles are removed.
