SUNBURY — The Big Walnut Board of Education has once again introduced controversial resolutions at a meeting. On Nov. 16, the school board proposed limits on what could be displayed in the classroom and mask usage.

Resolution 12.6 said, “It is recommended the board approve the attached Resolution Limiting Display of Flags, Banners, Signs and Symbols in the Classroom.”

“We’ve been advised by legal counsel that this be treated like policy or bylaw, which requires two readings. So, unfortunately, I’m going to have to read this,” said Board President Doug Crowl after the motion had been made and seconded.

In part, the resolution reads:

“WHEREAS, the Big Walnut Local School District Board of Education acknowledges its responsibility to act as a representative body for citizens in all matters related to programs and operations within the district; and WHEREAS, the Board recognizes the importance of classroom spaces as environments exclusively dedicated to enriching content area learning and inspiring academic success for our students; and WHEREAS, the Board understands that flags, banners, signs, or symbols displayed in classrooms or school buildings can have a significant impact on the educational environment; and WHEREAS, the Board acknowledges that while ultimate responsibility for public education rests with the State, it is granted specific authority through statute to make decisions that directly affect the educational experience of our students and the broader school community; and WHEREAS, the (board) is committed to making decisions that align with our declared educational philosophy and goals,

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the (board) … that the display of flags in classrooms shall be limited to the following:

a. The United States flag

b. The State of Ohio flag

c. Military flags

d. Flags from other states and other countries

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that banners, signs, or symbols that promote activist causes, or are otherwise deemed controversial, shall not be displayed in classrooms or school buildings. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage and shall apply to all classrooms and school buildings within the (district). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the (board) shall ensure that this resolution is communicated to all district administrators, teachers, and staff, and that it is implemented consistently and in accordance with the principles set forth herein.”

During the two-and-a-half hour meeting, nine people made public comments, all opposing the board and the resolutions. The common theme was why was the board focused on banning pride flags, instead of working on more pressing issues, such as school safety, capacity and hiring bus drivers. Several asked what would be deemed as controversial or activist and how would the resolutions be enforced. Another said it was a disservice to recently honored veterans to be fighting culture wars that marginalized other Americans.

Comments included that this was “a gross overreach of power … you should be ashamed of yourselves.”

“Our kids deserve better than what we are giving them,” said one person.

“A rainbow doesn’t turn you gay,” said another.

“This is not what the community wants,” one person said.

Crowl cited a Supreme Court ruling in 2022 that impacted Boston in support of Big Walnut’s resolution. The question was whether the display was public or private. “There is a need for the school district to have a policy in place for the display of flags and banners,” he said.

Board member Steve Fujii asked what prompted the need for this resolution. Board member Todd Smith called the resolution “an example of how fear turns into the absurd. … What I am referring to is the fear of people who are unlike oneself.” He said the vague and ambiguous resolution is meant to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community without specifying it.

“If it goes into effect, it will ruin the district like nothing before,” Smith said. “We have to be cognizant of what we’re doing.” Crowl threatened to remove audience members who were cheering or laughing. He was concerned if a deeply religious person entered a classroom and would feel condemned by seeing a pride flag.

“When are we going to get to the point where we use our classrooms to educate kids?” Crowl said. Smith cited the example of his being taught in history class using Soviet-banners and methods to understand another culture. Crowl said this would not be allowed because “we’re in America.”

Board member Alice Nicks, who introduced the resolution, said, “The people who have reached out to me would be very relieved to go into a classroom where it’s not in their face.” This prompted a couple of people to leave the meeting. Nicks said she feared retaliation for that those who supported the resolution. “There has to be a compromise here that will work for everybody,” she said.

“There’s one flag in the United States that represents all of us,” said board member Angela Graziosi. “There’s no hate in my heart for anyone.”

Superintendent Ryan McLane noted the resolution would therefore prohibit the Big Walnut Eagle and Ohio State flags, and wondered who would determine what was an activist cause for banners and if that could be appealed. Would Black Lives Matter or All Lives Matter signs be considered controversial activism, or would a Red Cross, food drive or recycling banner be considered controversial activism. He described the resolution as “a recipe for disaster.”

“I do not see how this policy gets us anywhere near where we’re going to have a functioning school. If I was a teacher, I’d take everything down in my classroom. … So, our kids are going to come into our schools with blank walls, and we’re going to expect to inspire and guide them,” McLane said, citing the district’s mission statement. “You’re going to end up banning everything. I don’t know what the answer is, but this is not the answer.”

Resolution 12.7 said, “It is recommended the Board approve the attached Resolution on Parental Choice and Informed Consent Regarding Mask Usage.” Crowl said again he had to read the resolution as a first reading, although Graziosi and Nicks had motioned and seconded it.

In part, the resolution reads:

“WHEREAS, the (board) is committed to promoting the well-being and health of our students, staff, and community members; WHEREAS, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) has issued a statement on November 16, 2023, emphasizing the importance of informed consent and raising concerns about the effectiveness and potential harms of mask mandates; WHEREAS, the use of masks and face coverings has been recommended by government authorities as a public health measure during the COVID-19 pandemic; WHEREAS, there is ongoing debate and scientific discourse about the efficacy and potential harm associated with mask mandates; WHEREAS, the (board) recognizes the importance of parental rights and individual freedoms in making health-related decisions for their children;

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the (board) acknowledges the concerns raised by the AAPS regarding mask mandates and their potential impacts on individuals’ rights to informed consent and health.

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the (board) affirms that the decision to wear masks to school should ultimately be left to the discretion of parents or legal guardians, in accordance with their individual beliefs, the guidance of healthcare professionals, and their evaluation of the best interests of their children. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the (board) encourages open dialogue and communication between school administrators, parents, and healthcare providers to ensure that individuals have access to accurate and up-to-date information regarding the risks and benefits of mask usage. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the (board) recognizes the importance of reviewing and reevaluating its policies on mask usage as new scientific evidence and guidance becomes available. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, in the interest of preserving individual freedoms and informed consent, all existing mask mandates within the (board) jurisdiction shall be immediately rescinded. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the (board) opposes the imposition of future mask mandates for viral illnesses, as they have not demonstrated clear benefits, and evidence suggests potential harm. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall be communicated to all parents, staff, and stakeholders within the (district), emphasizing the importance of responsible decision-making and respect for individual choices in matters related to mask usage. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the (board) will continue to monitor the evolving situation related to COVID-19 and related public health measures and will adjust its policies accordingly to prioritize the well-being and educational needs of our students.”

Smith said he took issue with the resolution for a number of reasons. “The resolution is unnecessary,” he said, since there currently isn’t a need for a mask mandate in the district. When there was a mandate, it was to keep everyone safe and out of respect for others. He felt that certain privileged people were offended when told they had to wear a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Smith also said the AAPS was a “hired thug. This a charlatan organization whose sole purpose is to spread conspiracy theories and medical misinformation and put doubt in people’s minds.”

People at the meeting also spoke out against the mask resolution, saying the AAPS was politically conservative, instead of the unbiased CDC, American Medical Association or the American Academy of Pediatrics. There was concern about the impact of student health if another respiratory disease came along, and whether immunocompromised youth could still wear masks.

Nicks said that the student’s parents should have the right to decide whether or not they should wear a mask, and Graziosi said it was traumatic for children to wear a mask all day.

One person said the board was “pushing politics over people and agenda over facts.”

Also at the November meeting, the board recognized the district’s National FFA Convention seven-student contingent. McLane addressed what the district and staff are doing to help students with dyslexia; and introduced a proposed school calendar for the 2024-2025 school year. The board approved the purchase of four propane-powered school buses at the cooperative rate.

In other matters, the board adopted bylaw and administration policies. These policy updates were unable to be approved at the October meeting, since two board members weren’t present, and the matter required a supermajority of at least four votes. Graziosi said that while the process was tedious, some of the policies hadn’t been reviewed since 2009.

At its two-plus-hour meeting on Oct. 19, the board recognized several students who earned awards from the National Merit Scholarship Program. Treasurer Darren Jenkins said the state considers Big Walnut to be a wealthy school district based on county appraisal data. At the November meeting, Jenkins gave the latest assumptions and suppositions on the five-year forecast, which the board then approved.

During the public comment portion of that meeting, one person requested the resignation of Nicks. Another said political agendas don’t belong in a non-partisan arena like a school board.

There will be a special meeting at 4 p.m. on Nov. 30 to discuss the district’s buildings. It was noted that renovation to the Baughman Street (last used as the intermediate school), originally estimated at $9 million, is currently $19.5 million.

The two resolutions are set to be considered at the regular meeting on Dec. 14.

Assistant Editor Gary Budzak covers the eastern half of Delaware County and surrounding areas. He may be reached at [email protected].