49 °F Ocean City, US
May 3, 2024

Board put issue to rest: Don’t start new controversy

The Ocean City Board of Education members who voted against adopting new state Health and Physical Education Standards last August forcefully stopped last week’s attempt to bring the standards back into the spotlight.

That fact should put this issue to rest.

More telling is something that has become obvious over the course of the school year: the overwhelming majority of parents have shown their faith in the judgment of the professional educators in the Ocean City School District.

Last week, three of the newest members of the school board — Robin Shaffer, Liz Nicoletti and Catherine Panico, all elected in November — brought up a pair of resolutions that would not have had any practical effect on the standards. One would have nullified the board’s August vote to adopt them; Shaffer explained that was to avoid members being targeted with potential ethics violations for not voting to support an Education Department mandate. The other was to send a message from the school board to the state that the standards are inappropriate and should be revised.

After comments from members and the public that lasted some two hours, the board voted 9-3 against both proposed resolutions.

The three yes votes were from Shaffer, Nicoletti and Panico. They based much of their campaign for office on parental rights and their opposition to the standards, or more precisely the parts of the standards related to sex education, gender and gender identity, and at what grade level certain lessons were being taught. 

The trio believe their election was a mandate from the public because they were part of ousting four incumbents, three of whom voted in favor of the standards. That may be a fair interpretation, but of the four incumbents who lost, two were appointees (one appointed only three months earlier), not elected, and another actually voted against the standards. The most prominent casualty was the former board president, but he was less than 35 votes from being elected over two of the winners, receiving 2,092 votes versus 2,120 and 2,125.

Clearly, there is a constituency for these new board members. However, while they belong as equal members of the local board, they do not have a mandate to bring a national political fight over social issues into the district. (This trio was supported by a national political advocacy group.)

We devoted extensive space in this issue of the Sentinel to the comments from board members regarding these two resolutions. We did that because it is rare to hear board members speak so passionately and at such length on any controversial topic. Aside from offering committee reports, they’re usually close to mute during meetings.

Disston Vanderslice, Bill Holmes, Jacqueline McAlister and Cecelia Gallelli-Keyes defended being part of the five-person minority in August’s 6-5 voted against adoption of the standards, all citing language they consider graphic, and all saying they didn’t want their vote rescinded even with the possibility of an ethics complaint against them. 

They were joined in strong comments by Fran Newman and new board member Kevin Barnes, who ran his own campaign. They were supported in the 9-3 vote by new Upper Township representative Kristie Chisholm, new board President Chris Halliday and Vice President Joe Clark. 

They all support how the district has sensitively tailored its curriculum around the standards and they all argue that enough is enough: it is time to move on because the issue has proved divisive in the community and they don’t want the district to draw national scrutiny for all the wrong reasons.

A key point that arose is that only 11 families have opted out of having their children taught under the new standards. Parents can continue to opt out of specific lesson plans they believe they should teach their children themselves, but to put the opt-out in perspective, there are nearly 2,000 students in the district.

That numerical disparity is a vote of confidence in the teachers and administrators that parents feel safe having their children educated in this district and that what they are learning is appropriate.

There were two somewhat disconcerting things.

One was Panico saying that she “would not stop.” Continuing to advocate for what she believes is in the best interest of children is fair, just as it is for every other board member, but she also has to decide whether her advocacy will propel the district forward or into continued controversy on a narrow agenda.

The other was the fleeting mention of a book review group being formed. That is disquieting. There are already professionals who review what is available to students in the libraries and in student coursework. 

As many have noted, parents have the right to decide what their children can read, but they don’t have the right to decide what everyone else’s children can’t read.

Let’s not make book banning the next fight.

Related articles

Give customer service a break

We were upset by the news that a long-time ice cream parlor in Cape May County was forced to temporarily shut down because of problems arising from COVID-19. It is a reminder for all of us to be considerate to the businesses we frequent and to be patient, understanding that many of them are working […]

Conservative citizens must demand more from the GOP, leadership

When will enough Republicans of conscience step forward to ensure the future of our democracy? With rancor between the political parties, change can only come from within. We need a groundswell of conservative citizens – citizens who have full faith and trust in the Constitution – to send a clear message that continuing the false narrative […]

1 Comment

  1. Who wrote this misguided opinion? I’ll tell you what is disquieting: repeating lies. This is the third time I have seen this ridiculous assumption about a local book group in the media. One misguided person who has ideological differences with some members of the school board spoke during a public comment period. Without any facts or having the decency to reach out to me, she insinuated this book group is an attempt by some school board members to ban books in our schools and libraries. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, I don’t even believe in banning books! Second, I did not ask for the approval, advice, or opinion of any board member, and certainly the Ocean City Board of Education and schools are capable of providing appropriate literature for students without referencing the opinions of a local book group! This book group has nothing to do with Ocean City Schools.
    Writers who repeat the false narrative that this book group is a subversive attempt to ban books in Ocean City schools are simply spreading lies to stir controversy, scare the public, and sway people’s opinions against board members with whom they have differences of opinion. Weaponizing reading and honest efforts by local citizens to create more opportunities for people to enjoy themselves and literature is a twisted means to an ends. Reject the nasty, negative attempts to divide us and turn citizens into adversaries.

    My advice: Read books, banned or not! Discuss them with friends, and if so inclined, make new friends in a book group. Make reading and discussing books fun!
    The Ocean City Banned Books Group reads and reviews banned books and will continue to do so regardless of how foolish people try to mischaracterize our group. Our current book is The Hate U Give.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *