Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Library Books topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Instruction committee backs parent opt‑in and catalog marker after review of 130 library titles
Summary
After a two-month review of 130 library titles using Virginia definitions of sexually explicit material, staff recommended a parent opt‑in system plus a small catalog dot to identify flagged titles; the committee agreed to bring opt‑in and a logistics plan (and possibly a limited separate section) to the full board on Aug. 19 for further action.
Amy Hall, coordinator of secondary literacy and K–12 libraries, told the Instruction Committee that librarians, teachers, parents and community members reviewed 130 titles flagged under state guidance and produced mixed recommendations: 78 titles (60%) should retain a sexually explicit label and remain in collections, 39 titles (29%) should be removed from the state list, 12 titles should be removed from school libraries under Policy 304P, and one title should move grade bands.
Hall and the librarians described a deliberative two‑month review that considered context, circulation data and the application of the state definitions. Ms. Elise Decoy and Ms. Maggie Schrock said committee members wrestled with short but potentially explicit passages, memoirs describing sexual assault, and a wide range of degrees of explicit content. Committee members also reviewed circulation counts and noted many flagged titles had low checkout rates, making replacement or weeding a practical option for some items.
Staff presented three options for the board: a parent opt‑in system for flagged titles, placing flagged titles in a separate section, or removing titles wholesale. Librarians recommended option one (parent opt‑in) and suggested a small colored dot on the book barcode to help staff and parents identify flagged materials; they cautioned that a full separate section would create cataloging and signaling challenges and might inadvertently draw more attention to the books. Amy Hall said the committees included school staff, parents and administrators and emphasized that the division followed the policy review process; appeals would route from school to central office and then to the board per existing procedures.
Board members pressed for clarity on public access to the committee spreadsheet and were told the recommendations and spreadsheet are on board docs; staff acknowledged a public access link problem and said they would fix it. Several members urged the division to identify the number of titles held at each school before the Aug. 19 full‑board discussion so the board can assess space and logistics.
The committee coalesced around bringing a staff recommendation to the full board that includes a parent opt‑in approach and a small barcode marker (the “dot”), with logistics about a possible separate section to be developed between now and the Aug. 19 meeting. Staff noted that fully removing all sexually explicit books would be higher risk and would likely require a formal policy vote if the board chose that route.
What happens next: staff will prepare options and logistics (including counts of titles at each school and how an opt‑in system would be implemented) for the Aug. 19 full‑board discussion. Parents may continue to use the established appeal process starting with the school and moving to central office if unresolved.
