NEW HANOVER COUNTY — The New Hanover County Board of Education’s policy committee discussed a handful of hot button issues in the district at its Tuesday meeting.
READ MORE: Without a (public) word, Brunswick school board shifts meeting prayer procedure
New Hanover County Schools’ board member code of ethics policy and the newly written rules for opening prayers at meetings will head to the school board next month. Another policy regarding the selection of instructional materials — which covers book selection and removal — was retained by the committee, but changes could be imminent.
The new policy draft was prompted by an American Civil Liberties Union North Carolina complaint over the board meetings’ invocation. In its letter to the district, the ACLU said it appears the district is in violation of the First Amendment, which prohibits state actors from promoting, sponsoring, or endorsing any religious tradition.
The letter states ACLU members have been informed that nearly every invocation delivered has been by Christian clergy, while non-Christian members have not received any response from the board.
One speaker was a New Hanover County Schools employee, student records specialist Angela Walker. On March 7, Walker delivered the invocation, which the ACLU claims included expressly sectarian sentiments, such as his denouncing “any demonic demon devil tactic Lord Father that is set up here tonight” and stating “we glorify you and we thank you in Jesus’ name.”
The ACLU claims the sentiments, plus board members’ visible participation in prayers and the presence of students in meetings, signal endorsement of the Christian faith.
After the ACLU’s urging to reconsider its practices, district staff produced policy 2315, which outlines a procedure for speaker selection. On an annual basis, the district will send out a notice inviting speakers from any religious or non-religious congregation to sign-up for a board meeting. If multiple sign up for the same day, one will be chosen by lottery.
The original policy language allowed for the board chair to deliver the invocation if no speaker signed up. Board member Stephanie Kraybill questioned this allowance, to which legal counsel Jonathan Vogel stated it would only be illegal if the board chair did this on a regular basis. He also clarified an invocation would not be required.
Still, Kraybill said she was uncomfortable with the chair taking over and would prefer a moment of silence.
“I think we will alienate a lot of people,” she said.
Board member Pat Bradford suggested limiting speakers to three minutes instead of the proposed five; committee members concurred.
The policy will be reviewed by the entire board at the September 5 meeting.
Curriculum control
The discussion over material selection comes after months of heated debate over books in NHCS’ curriculum or on its library shelves.
This week the district set a date for its first hearing on a book challenge. Parent Katie Gates has been pushing for the removal of “Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You” by Jason Reynolds and Ibram X. Kendi. Gates claims the book is inappropriate for inclusion in Ashley High School’s A.P. Language and Composition course, even though her daughter was given a separate assignment.
READ MORE: ‘Stamped’ co-author cites racial equality as goal of book challenged by NHCS parent
Book banning has been a frequent topic in the school board’s public comment periods since three new Republicans were elected to the body in November. All three ran on platforms that included more parental control over their children’s learning, including library books.
Two of the first-year board members — Josie Barnhart and Bradford — are on the policy committee, which also includes Kraybill. Though, none were the first to speak on potential revisions to the material selection policy.
Policy committee chair Barnhart awarded board member Melissa Mason two minutes to speak.
“We need to really hone in on bringing in the science,” Mason said. “There are developmental scales on what materials and topics are appropriate for students.”
Mason’s note that the policy may be too ambiguous was taken by Barnhart, who advocated for a streamlined process across each grade level. She also wants to implement specific guidelines for staff dealing with controversial topics.
Kraybill pushed back, warning against micromanaging teachers and telling students what to think.
“What I’ve heard from members of this board is we want to teach them how to think, not what to think,” Kraybill said. “If they are never exposed to anything controversial — that to me, means we’re telling them what to think.”
Barnhart clarified she did not want to prohibit student engagement with controversial topics, but noted she did not want them to be equated with rigorous content. Though she also said “hypersexualized content” does not belong in schools.
“I’m talking about making sure that this is off limits to discuss masturbation, oral … oral whatever, different things that we’re discussing,” Barnhart said.
Kraybill later countered that sexually vulgar material is not allowed in schools.
Barnhart also said it was important to reexamine the policy, which she described as a good framework, in the wake of state standards revisions. The state’s social studies curriculum was updated to include teachings on systemic discrimination and racism and was criticized by conservatives.
Last year, Republican Pete Wildeboer, now the board’s chair, questioned the new standards inclusion of the 1898 Wilmington massacre in fourth grade curriculum and expressed concern over whether the event was being taught accurately.
Barnhart bought up the idea of having two committees, one to review supplementary materials and one to review curricula. Superintendent Charles Foust jumped in to clarify the board’s role. He reminded them that teachers must educate based on state standards, but the school board votes on which curricula to use from a third-party company as the method to reach the standards.
However, Foust explained the curricula is not in complete alignment with the standards, thus the use of supplementary materials — books, articles, videos — can help students better understand the information they need to pass state exams.
Ultimately, no clear direction was set on revising the NHCS policy and the committee plans to work with staff on areas of improvement. But Kraybill issued a final warning before discussion was over.
“If we are going to micromanage our teachers and tell them exactly how they have to teach, we will not have any teachers left in our school district because that is not what a professional expects of their employer,” Kraybill said.
The board member expressed concern that some members’ motives for revising the instructional material process were biased. Kraybill said she thought that would be a violation of the board’s code of ethics — also on Tuesday’s agenda.
Accountability vs silencing
Board members have been discussing adding more accountability to the code of ethics since May. The proposed changes include penalties for members that violate its provisions, including removal of committee assignments per majority vote. Mason broke with her Republican colleagues in a vote to revert the policy back to committee in June.
Kraybill, along with Democratic board members Stephanie Walker and Hugh McManus, had concerns the policy would be used as a tool to silence minority dissent. There were also legal concerns; legal counsel at the time, Jason Weber, noted sanctions were legally dubious because board members were in elected positions.
However, the newest iteration of the policy has not changed much. Per majority vote, board members could still face punishment for violating the code. The policy states actions could include censure, removal from committee assignments for any period of time, or the loss of other undefined privileges “so long as any such actions are not inconsistent with law.”
The new language also goes a step further: “A board member’s willful failure to discharge duties may result in criminal charges.” It could include removal from office.
According to Barnhart, the language was drafted and vetted by the district’s new legal counsel, Jonathan Vogel with Vogel Law Firm, which took over from Tharrington Smith LLP in May.
Kraybill stated she felt attacked by the policy, which she had iterated in past discussions as well.
“This policy is putting fear into any board member that feels like they want to talk and represent people from the community that are with us and that we’ve gotten emails from,” she said.
Bradford and Barnhert pushed back; their view is the board needs better accountability to prevent it from becoming, in Bradford’s words, “the laughing stock of the region.”
“There isn’t a bonafide reason to reject this, to be afraid of this,” Bradford said. “The only reason would be that you’re afraid you can’t abide by the code of ethics that we have, and I know you can.”
Kraybill was outnumbered and the policy as is will go before the board in September.
Reach journalist Brenna Flanagan at brenna@localdailymedia.com.
Want to read more from PCD? Subscribe now and then sign up for our newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.
