These are my observations, summaries, key points and my opinions. I paraphrase and take liberty with the actual phrasing as I organize my notes about what was said. I try to maintain, or even clarify what I understand is the speaker's message. I'm hopeful that you'll find my voice constructive if not all my ideas are agreeable. I'm hopeful that I will receive constructive and civil response and discourse. If you would like to verify what was said in the meeting, you can watch the whole video here.
Open Forum
Charles Towns
2316 Dear Prairie Drive
This gentleman emphasized that the email at the heart of a spirited discussion from the March 18th, 2025 School Board Meeting was ”not marked as confidential” and “wasn’t meant to be confidential.” He goes on, "When a board member stated that they shared the email, another board member suggested that an apology is owed and twice suggested possible censure. And the person should be concerned about the company that they keep." Mr. Towns urges the board to "...consider whether this was overbearing and not conductive to open communication between board members and the citizens of Neenah."
Mr. Towns states that he had "not met these board members and have had no past communication with any of them" before pivoting to addressing the content of the email.
"Rather than change language [of administrative DEI positions] I would hope that the school would consider the intent of the president. The intent is to treat every person the same regardless of appearance, origin, sex, economic status, and other things. This applies to students and adults alike. Educational opportunities as well as hiring practices are to be based on merit alone. Also the things that are taught in school should avoid unnecessary bias towards or against certain groupings of people. If these things are not followed, it could potentially result in the discontinuation of funding which will negatively impact the educational goals of this district."
Dear Mr. Towns,
I appreciate your engagement with our local school board. I understood your public comment to hold two primary points, which I would like to address discreetly:
Your first point:
Suggesting the censure, or requiring an apology from Lindsay Clark was not warranted because she had done nothing wrong and that President Epley and Board Member Alex Corrigan were "overbearing" and compromised communication between board members and the citizens of Neenah.
As I see it, I think you are wrong. I think that Lindsay Clark owes an apology at the very least. Your argument hinges on the letter not being confidential; from there you conclude Lindsay Clark should be free to communicate that information publicly as she sees fit.
I don't think anyone technically disagrees with you here.
If everyone agrees on the technicality you present, why would there be such a strong reaction? It's because Lindsay Clark's negligent handling of information resulted in stoking fear within our community. A threat to anyone in our community is a threat to all of us, and our school employees are critical members caring for our children.
Lindsay Clark has not to my knowledge expressed what her specific desires are for DEI in Neenah Joint School District. In her own words on March 18th, 2025 when describing the sharing of the email she said, "I was not a part of that, I don't want to be a part of that conversation, it's ridiculous, and I feel for Dr. Harrison in that sense because it is not fair how the conversation has been had, I really didn't think anything of it when the constituent asked, I just sent it, and I also saw it on social media."
When she chose to share Dr. Harrison’s email with a constituent, she set off a chain of events that led to members of our school community feeling unsafe. The online response was not just criticism—it was harassment, coming from a space where real-world violence has been fomented in the past. My children interact with those same people who are fearful of an ominous target on their back from anonymous online chatter. My children-- our children-- are at risk being innocent bystanders to potentially terrible actions. As a leader, Lindsay's decisions must account for the world we live in, where the handling of information can have very real consequences.
I'm glad that no real-world violence has actually transpired over this topic in Neenah, but going forward I would like to see Lindsay, and all board members condemn threatening rhetoric that instills fear into our school community. We have a process of electing school board members to advocate for our interests in the rooms where the decisions are made. If the communication that board members have with constituents is stoking violent rhetoric (intentionally or as a result of negligence), that should be condemned-- we must keep that vile behavior away from our children! Lindsay can say she agrees with the executive order, or disagrees with Dr. Harrison's handling of the issue, while also also condemning the violent rhetoric.
Lindsay could apologize that her careless actions enflamed a terrifying and undesirable response without compromising her values, right?
If Lindsay comes around to reconsidering whether she should show contrition for what transpired, a great starting point for her has already been delivered by her colleague, Alex Corrigan on March 18th, 2025:
"Steve, I am sorry this happened. To our equity champions, I am sorry that they found out in the Post Crescent that there were unclear changes to their role... I am sorry for the two people in this role who were made to feel unsafe. It doesn't matter what anyone's intention is, this was the result of what happened." And she goes on to point out that, if this was a topic of interest to a board member, this could have been brought up in the meeting... "Any of us can put in an agenda item for something like this."
And, Mr. Towns, in that agenda item, Lindsay could have expressed her viewpoints, advocated, voted and done the democratic things she's been elected to do as one of our board members. As a fellow neighbor of yours, I hope that you would side with me that we should be stalwarts at keeping violence, and the threat of violence, out of our schools. To that end, I expect board members to be considerate about how they use, frame, share and interpret the information that they're exposed. If they're too unaware of the world to reasonably foresee something like this happening, then they're too unaware to be a sitting board member of my children's school district.
Your second point:
The board should consider whether the changes being made are aligned in intent to the president's executive order and that failure to do so may result in funding cuts which will negatively impact student outcomes.
OK. Are you concerned that not enough has been done to avoid having funding taken away? I am also concerned about losing that funding, which, as Mr. Maurice mentions in his public comment is "a small part of the budget, but it would hurt." What else do you think the school should do to maintain that funding? Are there specific instances where the NJSD is failing to "treat every person the same regardless of appearance, origin, sex, economic status, and other things" for children and adults? I think it would be helpful for Dr. Harrison and the board members to understand what they can do to fulfill the intent, as you understand it, and subsequently maintain the federal funding you refer.
Jacob Towns
919 Louise Street
This gentleman, the son of the first speaker, started off by requesting elected officials in the room raise their hands to identify themselves. President Epley expressed that open forum was not an interactive process, and it was taken in stride, "I do know all of you are elected officials, and I congratulate the winners. It is not guaranteed you will be elected again. You work for we the people, the taxpayers of Neenah and Fox Crossing. Me personally, I am disgusted by decisions and discussing changes. We the people who do elect you, and pay for your salaries, not all of us are happy. I urge you all to make the best decision for the community and for your employers, we the people... I'm sad to say that I'm not happy... Thank you for letting me air this disgust."
Dear Mr. Towns,
If you knew which people in the room were elected officials, then why did you ask them to raise their hands? My guess is that it presents a power dynamic you wish to be observed; one in which the board members are subservient to you. You made it clear that they were not guaranteed to win their next election. You're speaking the truth, sir! There's no guarantee that they will win, and your expression of that reality is a reminder to them of how much power you have over their fate. Your public comments were thin on specific policy requests other than that you "urge you guys all to make the best decision for your community and your employers." Instead your comment was more an expression of sentiment; You are disgusted with the school board. You elected them. Your tax dollars pay their salaries.
I hope that you use your public comments in the future to be specific about your perspective. Your utterances of "We the People" (3x in 1:45 comment) seems to denote a large amount of people sharing your views. I for one am also very angry, and not happy, and sad about many things-- politicians included!-- and I could get into specifics, but do not share your anger directed at the school board. I hope that you refrain from suggesting I share your views by my being grouped into "We the People"...
Think about it:
(1) We, the other people in Neenah and Fox Crossing, are not aligned with your views on the school board, Mr. Towns.
(2) I am not aligned with your views on the school board, Mr. Towns.
(3) Your neighbors are not aligned with your views on the school board, Mr. Towns.
(4) There are a lot of people, Mr. Towns, who are not aligned with your views on the school board.
Each of those effectively says the same thing, but they hit different, don't you agree? For your public comment at your local school board meeting, speak for yourself please, or state specifically who you're representing, but the vagueness of "We the People" the way you use it suggests more of voice than just you and your three minutes. But, if you'd like to speak on behalf of a larger group, then be transparent, or run for office.
Laura Ackman | Mom's for Liberty
4477 Fairview Road
This gentlewoman brought up recent changes to test scoring methodology, "DPI changed the cut score of assessments" which impacted year on year comparisons. "Prior we were aligned with NAPE and now we are not aligned with [National] standards... [there were] significant swings in results from 2023 to 2024 in results... ..which are misleading... [and] give parents a false sense that their children have improved dramatically."
Ms. Ackman goes on to list a handful of dramatic statistical swings of score results for local schools which support her conclusion, "you can see there are significant swings, which really shows that it is inflated..." and that it was not due to a change in the test because testing was generally the same, and that only the scoring had changed.
She continues, "the board should investigate the change, and what communications will take place to parents... Educate the parents that these numbers are inflated, and there’s not an increase in their abilities [because the test scores] give [parents] a false sense of improvement."
Dear Ms. Ackman,
I'm not aware of the details of how the scoring changed. It's not that I haven't heard about it, but that I haven't submersed myself in the details to understand exactly what changed, and how it impacts interpretability.
The statistics you shared in your comment were very dramatic. If it were the case that tests remained the same, but scoring methods changed, and schools 50% reading proficiency to 75% proficiency in one year, then I think it is right to scrutinize what changed. And I do think it would be very helpful for the school district to provide clarity about what changed, how it changed, and how we can interpret trends and ongoing assessment of our school children's performance. If there is a public learning session on test scoring, I would attend-- I'd like to understand that stuff :-). Then maybe we can move beyond framing the change as "inflated" and we can get back to figuring out to improve our student's competencies.
Richard Maurice
629 Knight Avenue
This gentleman stated that he "moved here 42 years ago when Neenah School District was a shining light in the education in Wisconsin. When I read the test results I was floored. I don’t know if they teach cursive any more, but I hear of story of kid who couldn’t read grandparents note. If you can’t write it you, can’t read it! I’m concerned about the DEI. I would like to know who the DEI personnel are in this district. And I heard that some districts are changing the titles and moving them into other departments, so we’ll not know who they are. According to president's executive order, the schools should not have DEI personnel, otherwise if they are present he can withhold funding. A small part of budget, but it would hurt. There’s WILL (Wisconsin Institute of Law and Liberty), they will investigate any district not in compliance with president, and they will sue a district if they are not. I desire what is best for our children… I would like to see the return of Neenah as a shining light."
Dear Mr. Maurice,
You mention at the end that you desire what is best for our children.
You'd like to see improved cursive skills in children. Because "If you can't write it, you can't read it."
I disagree with the premise here, because, respectfully sir, I can write this message in any language I want.
No estoy de acuerdo con la premisa aquí, porque, respetuosamente señor, puedo escribir este mensaje en cualquier idioma que quiera.
אני לא מסכים עם ההנחה כאן, כי, בכבוד אדוני, אני יכול לכתוב את ההודעה הזו בכל שפה שאני רוצה.
我不同意这里的前提，因为，先生，我可以用任何我想要的语言写这条消息。
I can't necessarily read all those languages, but if I want to, I can get them translated now. I don't mean to flaunt google translate here for no reason; our children-- actually we-- already live in a world where real-time translation through lens and devices of any language is possible. Sadly, some analogue activities like cursive script is likely to be a lost skill in time, but not everything from the past needs to come with us into the future, right?
You also wanted the names of the DEI personnel. Since you were at this meeting, you can review last month's meeting where Dr. Harrison explained in detail the re-organizational changes made and the on-the-ground impacts it would have. I don't believe you'll find any DEI staff members in the district any longer. I do believe it is unfair of you to suggest NJSD actions were being done "so we won't know who they are." It is an unfair suggestion because of the extensive explanation given in last week's meeting.
And finally, if we don't do what the president wants, WILL will come and sue us. I wonder whether you want that to happen. Do you want our school to be sued by WILL? Or what do you want? The names of the DEI personnel? Here they are: __.
Comments
Post a Comment