A controversial flag policy, discussed by the School Committee, is back on the agenda this week, several months after the committee tabled the topic during a heated meeting in August.
On Wednesday, Jan. 15, at 9:30 a.m., the School Committee’s policy subcommittee will meet to discuss the flag policy. The group’s most recent draft which would allow only Marblehead, Massachusetts, U.S. and POW flags on school property. It could lead to the removal of a Black Lives Matter banner and Juneteenth and Pride flags at the high school. The meeting will be at 9 Widger Rd. and online.
The subcommittee is also expected to discuss a recess policy for the district.
“I am planning to discuss where we left off and where we plan to go ahead regarding the flag and recess policies,” School Committee Chair Jenn Schaeffner told the Current on Jan. 13. “The last draft of the flag policy is the last item we discussed and I would assume we start there but again, we cannot deliberate anything until we convene in open session. “
In August, a passionate crowd of students, parents and community members voiced opposition to the draft flag policy.
Students Nina Johnson and Maren Potter criticized the lack of student input in developing the policy.
“You told us five months ago during the student listening sessions that you wanted to include student voices in this process, but by speeding up this process, you’re trying to pass this policy before school starts. You are actively trying to avoid student input,” Potter said in August.
Resident Cameron Wolfsen spoke about the personal impact of the proposed policy. As a member of the LGBTQ+ community, Wolfsen expressed concern about the message the policy would send to students like her own children.
“My wife and I recently made the difficult decision to leave our home, our family and our friends in South Carolina to move to Marblehead, the town where I proudly grew up,” said Wolfsen. “We did this because we wanted to raise our children in a town that shares our values, values of inclusivity, kindness and civic responsibility, a place where the school district lists ‘school culture’ among its core values and promises.”
Jordan Caress-Wheelwright, a parent of a Glover School student and employee at GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), raised legal concerns about the policy’s language potentially infringing on constitutional rights.
“They called attention to the phrase ‘banners, and similar symbolic displays,’ noting that it is vague and open to interpretation and/or enforcement that could infringe on the constitutional rights of teachers and students,” Caress-Wheelwright said.
Caress-Wheelwright also emphasized the importance of an inclusive school climate, citing research showing its positive impact on student engagement and academic outcomes.
“Studies have consistently found that positive inclusive school climates, in which schools appreciate students for who they are and acknowledge different students’ backgrounds — including racial, cultural, immigration status-based, and LGBTQ+ status leads to greater student engagement in school and better academic outcomes,” Caress-Wheelwright said, quoting from a GLAD brief.
Resident Renee Ramirez Keaney, drawing from her 40-year experience as a clinical social worker, stressed the significance of symbols of acceptance in schools.
“I know for them — any symbol of acceptance, any sense of welcome can matter,” Keaney said.
Educator and former candidate for Congress Angus McQuilken raised concerns about unintended consequences. As he spoke, he held up printed copies of flags for events like Earth Day, the Olympics and Juneteenth as examples of banners that could be banned.
“I strongly oppose this policy; I don’t think we need one at all,” McQuilken stated.
Kira Becker Kay suggested the policy was influenced by outside groups and criticized the meeting’s timing.
“Are you a School Committee or a cruelty committee?” Kay asked.
Following public comments, board member Alison Taylor provided clarification on the policy’s status and the process behind its development.
“The reason that we’re doing this is not because we decided one day that we wanted to have this policy. We’ve never had a flag policy, and that has been fine, and it could have continued to be fine, except that administration asked us, and by law when administration asks for policy, we do have to develop one.”
Taylor addressed concerns about student input and explained the policy development process.
“I would like to have another listening session for sure,” she said, “if it’s the will of the committee.”
Members voted to postpone the discussion until September, with members Brian Ota, Taylor and Schaeffner voting yes and Al Williams and Sarah Fox voting no. The September discussion did not happen.
Interim Superintendent John Robidoux, meanwhile, acknowledged his stance on the policy in August.
“I would agree with the committee that tabling this discussion to have a larger, more inclusive input from the community makes sense,” Robidoux said. “As an educator, as an administrator, my sole focus is making sure students are heard and students are a part of their learning communities.”
***Will Dowd contributed to this article.
