(File/Getty Images)
COLUMBIA — State decisions on what to keep or yank from library shelves in South Carolina’s K-12 schools will start with a list that includes “1984,” “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Romeo & Juliet.”
They are among 11 books up for review Thursday by a State Board of Education panel under new rules that took effect in June. The question is whether they violate the regulation, which bans public schools from using or giving students access to books that describe “sexual conduct” — whether as part of classroom discussion or on library shelves.
While enforcement primarily relies on parental complaints, the regulation allows for the state Board of Education to take up books outside of that process.
The first 11 books to get the board’s stamp of approval or rejection were selected by staff at South Carolina’s K-12 education agency.
Dr. Christian Hanley, chairman of the board’s Instructional Materials Review Committee, said he asked for a preemptive review of certain novels in order to address questions brought to the board’s attention through debate on the regulation as well as district-level challenges.
For example, teacher advocates have criticized the regulation’s wording as so broad, even classics by William Shakespeare could be stricken from classrooms.
Hanley, a family doctor in Summerville, said Thursday’s online meeting will likely be the first of several board-initiated reviews to examine commonly challenged books, or those that have raised concerns, without waiting for a parent to appeal a complaint, he said.
“Instead of 50 districts looking at a particular book, can we help them out?” Hanley said was his thought process.
The board’s review is meant to help set a precedent for school districts going forward. As parent complaints come in, district officials can look to decisions the board has already made in deciding whether or not to keep a book, Hanley said.
“Maybe they can glean some general guidance from decisions we make here,” he said.
Agency staff chose three classics as obvious keepers and nine books the department considers obvious violations, according to agency spokesman Jason Raven.
“There are some things that are just inappropriate to be in a South Carolina school,” Hanley said.
For the nine contemporary books the agency recommends for removal, staff pulled excerpts describing sex between characters for board members to read. For the remaining three, staff wrote that they contain no scenes involving sexual conduct.
Of the nine, “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Romeo and Juliet” can be read by middle school students. The other seven are available in high schools only, according to committee documents.
All of the books on the list recommended to be taken out of South Carolina’s public schools entirely were published in the 2000s or 2010s. They include detailed descriptions of sex.
The committee will make recommendations for the full Board of Education, which will make a final ruling at its Nov. 5 meeting.
The classic novels came up during public review of the regulation, both as it went through the board’s approval process and during a legislative hearing. The regulation ultimately took effect without getting a vote by the House or Senate, as legislators let the window for their review expire.
The board wanted to settle questions from teachers’ advocates as to whether the regulation would remove certain classics from schools, including the three up for review Thursday.
Since the regulation took effect, educators have asked the agency to issue clear guidance. But confusion continued. The board-initiated review of books is intended to provide clarity through actual votes on books.
Board members asked, “If people think these are going to get removed from South Carolina schools, if they’re reasonable books, why don’t we look at them now and say, ‘Yeah, they’re fine’?” Hanley said.
Education officials are talking about how to address other books that came up repeatedly, including the Bible. With the Bible in particular, agency employees are trying to figure out a review that encompasses every translation that might be in the state’s schools, Hanley said.
Patrick Kelly, spokesman for the Palmetto State Teachers Association, said the board votes on books could help clear up confusion among teachers on what’s considered “sexual conduct,” which is not defined in the regulation itself. Instead, it points to a section of the state law’s definition that lists sexual activities, which raised questions among teachers as to what, exactly, crossed the line.
“That’s given educators a lot of confusion and stress over this regulation,” Kelly said.
As the regulation was being debated, Kelly suggested adding a single word — “explicit” — to ease teachers’ concerns about the wording being overly vague. But the agency declined.
SC teachers say new ‘age-appropriate’ rule is causing confusion. They’re seeking clear guidance.
The department attempted to clear things up with guidance issued Oct. 8. In general, it says teachers unsure of whether to include something in their class should ask themselves if they would be comfortable having a student read it aloud at a school board meeting. That means descriptions of romance and kissing are fine, but anything involving “sexual conduct” is not, the guidance continues.
While this initial review may set a helpful precedent, Kelly doesn’t want the board to continue selecting books for review, he said.
The regulation was intended to create a process for parents to challenge books in their children’s schools, Kelly said.
Under the rules, parents who disagree with a district’s decision could then appeal it for review at a state level. The state department selecting what to consider, while allowed under the regulation, goes outside of its intended application, he said.
“To stay within the spirit of the policy, this should be the exception, not the rule,” Kelly said.
That’s especially true considering that the regulation is for library books and classroom materials, most of which are purchased using local tax dollars or donated to the schools. If state officials want to decide what’s allowed and what isn’t, they should pay for all reading materials in public schools, he said.
“When it comes to challenging locally or privately purchased materials, it makes far more sense that the origin of the complaint comes from a parent who pays taxes and has a stake in the matter,” Kelly said.