During the public comment period, just over a third of the speakers addressed the move to dissolve the equity, diversity, and inclusion committee, saying the district still needs to confront inequities that exist in academic achievement and behavior management.
However, in a 4-2 vote the committee was disbanded, with Board members Stephanie Kraybill and Hugh McManus dissenting. Board member Stephanie Walker was absent from the vote.
But before the dissolution, members conversed about the prior goals of the committee — and what happened at its last meeting on Monday, December 4.
Board member Pat Bradford said at this EDI meeting she was “disrespected” by an unnamed school employee and no one welcomed her except for another unnamed person. She said the last EDI meeting was a “disgraceful display of a temper tantrum” and that she was “appalled” and saw a “great deal of hate” — and that those members should apologize to Mason, the former EDI committee chair.
Mason chimed in to say that she did not “feel respected” at that meeting — and her reasons for dissolving the committee were that the work of EDI is being done in the district’s exceptional children (EC) and academically or intelligently gifted (AIG) committees. She added that the district has support systems for multilingual learners and military families — and concluded by saying that the committee’s work was overlapping with the district’s already outlined duties.
One criticism of dissolving the EDI committee has been a lack of accountability for equity issues. Mason argued that accountability would be provided by sending in complaints of unfair treatment through Ethix360 — and following up on those with the human resources department.
Kraybill vehemently disagreed with Bradford and Mason’s characterization of the Monday EDI committee, saying she might have to “step out [of the Tuesday meeting] because [her] heart was palpitating.”
She added that Bradford was on the phone the whole time — and that there was “no hate and disrespect in that room.” Kraybill said that Mason didn’t want to answer the committee’s questions or give specific data to prove why the work of the committee had been accomplished.
Kraybill added that she was sorry for the loss of this advisory body, as there won’t be a group of people to give direction as to how to best recruit teachers of color or how to develop a possible ‘newcomer’ school for students who are new to the United States.
She finished by saying that the committee’s dissolution would mean that those members' “voices won’t be heard — and their opinions don’t matter.”
Shortly thereafter, Board member Hugh McManus was called ‘out of order’ by Mason when he brought up that she and the New Hanover County GOP’s plan had always been to dissolve the committee because of 2022 campaign trail promises.
Wildeboer followed those statements by saying the board will likely have to change its strategic plan and mentioned that Superintendent Dr. Charles Foust didn’t ask for an EDI officer in his 2020 budget — an apparent reference to Chief Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Officer Malcolm Johnson, who wasn’t included in the 2022 budget until the majority of the board pressured Foust to add the position.
Board member Josie Barnhart agreed with Wildeboer that the strategic plan needed to be “realigned” to expand the narrow focus of EDI, which was about “sexuality and race.”
Wildeboer also suggested that someone on the EDI committee had said the 12 largest school districts in the state all had EDI committees — Wildeboer said he had done his own research and claimed this was not true.
“So, just to let you know, I’m just presenting the facts on that one,” he said.
However, Wildeboer mischaracterized the comments he was claiming to fact-check. During Monday’s EDI committee meeting, committee member Shawn Lamb said she had benchmarked the top five schools in the state, noting that they all had equity officers, if not committees.
“Maybe not everybody has a committee but those that don't have a committee have an office, they have dedicated people under the equity officer," she said on Monday night.
Other policies and issues
The board also approved a new parental involvement policy 1310 — without the public being able to view it beforehand.
Foust said that the policy needed to be passed that evening or the board would need to hold a special meeting in December. He said this will keep the board in compliance with the new state law known as the Parents’ Bill of Rights.
At the November 21 policy committee meeting, when Bradford asked the status of policies coinciding with the bill, Foust said there were still issues being worked out with the language and its implementation.
Kraybill said she was caught off guard by this new policy, as she hadn’t seen nor read it before Tuesday’s meeting. Barnhart said they could review the policy and make further changes if necessary at the December 12 policy committee meeting.
The board also moved forward with changes to policy 4300 concerning student behavior. Members decided to change the line, over the objections of Foust, Assistant Superintendent Julie Varnam, and Kraybill, that behavior policies would “ensure the equitable treatment of all students.”
The policy now reads that the district will ensure that students receive “dignity, respect, and fair treatment” when addressing their behavior.
Representatives from ‘Student Voice’ also spoke, including students Cassidy Thompson and Samin Bhan; they said they would be conducting research on the board’s controversial proposed policy 7205 which outlines professional standards of conduct for teachers, book bans, student mental health, and overcrowding in schools.
Thompson said this group hopes to present their findings to the board at a later date — and that they would like to be in attendance at the next policy committee meeting where 7205 will be discussed on December 12.
There was some debate over whether the students could attend in person as it’s set for 1:00 p.m. Wildeboer said they needed to be in school — Kraybill countered that the students could manage their schedule with their parents, teachers, and principals.
Below: The new 'parental involvement' policy.
1310-4002 (Parental Involvement) Updated by Ben Schachtman on Scribd
