Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy 2535 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teachers and residents urge board to reconsider changes to 'Freedom to Read' regulation
Summary
More than a dozen speakers — teachers, the RTEA liaison and residents — told the Board of Education that inserting the phrase 'sensitive material' into policy/regulation 2535 creates ambiguity, chills classroom choices and undermines librarians’ professional judgment; an appeal/petition was filed against the regulation.
A steady stream of teachers, union representatives and residents used the meeting’s second public‑comment period to press the board to reverse recent amendments to policy and regulation 2535 that add the term "sensitive material." Speakers said the term lacks a clear definition, invites arbitrary interpretation and has already affected staff morale and classroom/library practices.
Melissa Bielaw, RTEA liaison and language arts teacher, said it was “disheartening” that more than 100 community emails were characterized at a prior meeting as templates, and she urged the board to treat teacher feedback as substantive. "Attending these meetings is not a matter of entertainment for us," Bielaw said, adding teachers attend after long workdays to collaborate with the board.
Several teachers — including Joyce McGinn and Laura Mahoney — said the phrase "sensitive material" changes the policy’s intent to protect access and could limit classroom and classroom‑library choices. McGinn said the insertion “appears to undermine the actual intent of that policy” and risks arbitrary censorship. Mahoney said the regulation’s vague language has already increased staff anxiety and questioned whether librarians specifically asked for this change.
Other speakers cited a past challenge to a specific library title, Me and Earl and the Dying Girl, and worried about precedent. Tom Curish described the book’s language and asked why it belongs in a middle‑school library; others contrasted concerns about specific titles with broader fears about censorship.
Katherine DeLuca told the board she filed a pro se petition of appeal challenging the revised regulation. Multiple speakers asked the board to provide more transparency about how community emails were counted and who authored challenges, and some raised potential conflicts of interest where the originator of a prior challenge is currently a board member.
Board procedure: the board acknowledged receipt of many correspondences and reiterated that public comment opportunities exist at the start and end of meetings; the policy committee is completing a Strauss Esmay manual audit and has recommended adopting other policy updates (e.g., policy/regulation 1552 for staff sexual harassment) but the 2535 changes remain contentious.
What’s next: several speakers asked the board to reconsider the wording, offer explicit definitions, and ensure that policies do not undercut professional judgment. The administration and board did not adopt or reverse 2535 at this meeting; an appeal has been filed and further public input and legal review may follow.
