Citizens speak out at MISD board meeting

Many parents and concerned citizens attended the Moulton ISD school board meeting Oct. 9 voicing their concerns and criticisms of the new reading and language arts program “Amplify”. Seven people spoke during public comment.

“I have four children that go to school here,” parent Bridget Brosh said. “My concern is that this new program, ‘Amplify,’ is not fostering a love of learning for these children and they will become complacent about reading, and ultimately about school in general. While I do appreciate the district’s efforts to try a program that would potentially improve our school’s testing scores and benefit the district financially, I’m asking for the program to be pulled before our children face irreprovable harm for their drive to learn. I supported this program for the first six weeks hoping that my children would acclimate its requirements and methods. Instead, my children no longer look forward to going to school and complain daily about how agonizing the reading and language arts program has become. Although we had no way of knowing this program would have this effect on the students without trying it out first, it is clear it is not in the best interests of our students to continue. Our teachers cannot reach children that are not interested in learning, which places an impossible burden on our educators.”

Moving forward, the district aims on using a new curriculum.

“There’s actually three versions of the (kindergarten through fifth grade) curriculum,” Superintendent Renee Fairchild said. “They’re currently using version two of the curriculum. The state of Texas has purchased the curriculum and has now made edits to that curriculum and they call it ‘Bluebonnet Learning.’ We plan to encourage teachers to use the third version or ‘Bluebonnet Learning’ and move forward from there. We’re going to send out an email to all the parents that spoke asking for their additional input. There’s a link to the ‘Bluebonnet Learning’ curriculum and it’s available to anyone who wants to look at the curriculum, we welcome that. I also welcome conversation with any parent that has issues with anything that is taught in our schools.”

One speaker commented on why they chose their child to enroll at MISD.

“We chose Moulton ISD for a lot of reasons,” parent Billy Colburn said. “We had faith in Moulton ISD at the time because we knew that it would not allow or support a liberal agenda pushed down on our children. We knew our teachers and they are more than just people who educate our children, they are people who care about our kids and are invested in the community. We feel our teachers have a voice. The second you quit listening to your employees is the second you move from being a respected leader to strictly a boss. We felt this curriculum the school was using at the time represented the core values of our community which is very important to us. It’s safe to say that the turnout at a schoolboard meeting is usually very low. When people in this community show up to a school board meeting, it’s because you have a problem, or they want change. I truly believe the school board has the same values that this community does and that they will demand answers and the truth to what is being taught to some of our children in the district.”

Colburn claims the superintendent was “dictating” the school’s curriculum.

“When I think of the ‘Amplify’ curriculum being taught to our children, I think about a small group of respected educators in this community who were asked to investigate Amplify and give their opinion on the direction the district should take,” Colburn said. “They all said ‘no,’ from what we’re being told. Their voices fell on deaf ears of the superintendent. Why does our superintendent dictate the curriculum when in the past, the teachers and principals all chose their own curriculum. Last time I checked, the teachers were the ones in the classrooms educating our children, not the superintendent.”

Fairchild had a response for this in a statement after the meeting.

“The choosing of this curriculum was a joint decision, it wasn’t a decision made solely by me,” Fairchild said. “We made two visits to other schools with teachers. I wasn’t really happy with the first visit and that’s why they made a second visit. After that second visit, teachers talked about it and we had people from the region did a presentation on the curriculum and teachers could actually see the print material. Teachers did have a voice in this as well. I did not dictate it and say that we absolutely had to do this, it was a choice we made collectively.”

Folks were outraged to find the books the district was teaching through “Amplify” (the initial version before ‘Bluebonnet Learning’) had suggestive innuendos.

“My third child, who is in sixth grade, came to me and said that he heard from a friend at school that something was in their curriculum that was inappropriate,” Brosh said. “Specifically, (the phrase) was a ‘tonsil tickler.’ It’s going around school that this means a male private part.”

Another concerned parent printed out a list of alleged obscenities that were found in some of the books. These words were found on ‘Urban Dictionary,’ an online encyclopedia of slang. One person commented on the generational divide in some of these books.

“This reading that they are talking about is from a famous author, Roald Dahl, who wrote literature in mid 1900s,”Elizabeth Smolik said. “These words did not have that meaning and these kids are not going to know what that means unless they are searching the ‘Urban Dictionary.’ My child would not research something like that because she is not curious as to what a ‘tonsil tickler’ is. In the context of the reading, you can figure out that it is a piece of candy from the 1920s in this memoir that Roald Dahl wrote.”

There were other obscenities on the list as well.

“We do not use, would not allow the use of, or use as a tool the ‘Urban Dictionary,’” Fairchild said. “If kids have access to or are using the urban dictionary, it is not at school and would not be allowed here under any circumstance.”

Many parents believed the “Amplify” curriculum was pushing a “woke” and liberal agenda. With “Bluebonnet Learning,” this agenda has been changed.

“Texas has said that they wanted certain things changed and ‘Amplify’ said they can’t change it,” Fairchild said. “So, Texas bought the curriculum, or ‘Bluebonnet Learning.’ This is ‘Amplify’ that’s been highly edited according to the Texas Education Agency. One of the things the parents were objecting to (at the meeting), in the ‘Bluebonnet Learning’ version, it’s been changed. When the teachers internalize on Wednesday (today), they’re going to compare the version two to the ‘Bluebonnet Learning’ version and make sure there’s nothing offensive. There is absolutely no way that I would allow anything ‘woke’ or liberal to be taught in my schools. I’m one of the most conservative people you would ever meet and there’s no way I would allow that.”

If Fairchild had known about the obscenities, she said she would have already done something about it.

The school board president also provided a response to the criticisms.

“I was happy to see so many concerned citizens at the meeting,” school board president Daniel Beyer said. “It is important that the board have community input on every aspect of what we do that affects students, staff, and our town. I will never support curriculum that we feel is not in the best interest of our students at Moulton ISD. The administration and board are working on addressing the concerns of the parents who presented their views to the board.”

It was reported that 24 out of 38 districts in Region Three are using the “Amplify” program according to Fairchild.

Recently, the school board voted to give elementary school teachers who were instructing the “Amplify” curriculum a stipend of $4,500 each paid in one lump-sum. This money came from the LASO grant and can only be used for this purpose.

Other items on the agenda include:

• The board approved members for the 2024-25 School Health Advisory Council.

• The board approved Live Oak Public Finances to deal with their financing.

• It was reported that the roof project for the district has been complete.