Shining Rock charter school singles out media with restrictive new policy
On June 30, a Superior Court judge ruled against Shining Rock Classical Academy on all counts of a civil lawsuit.
File photo
Shining Rock Classical Academy’s taxpayer-funded, unelected governing board pledged “a new direction” on transparency and accountability after a June court ruling dismissed its claims of defamation against a parent and found the school had improperly used government authority to impede public records requests, but that pledge appears to have been short-lived with the recent passage of a media policy in direct response to a forthcoming story by The Smoky Mountain News.
Board Chair Alyson Weimar mentioned the policy at the outset of the Aug. 27 meeting, saying board members had received an Aug. 21 email from SMN sharing transcripts from the five-day trial and the intention to “reach out to board members for comment or public statement” for the story beginning Sept. 3.
Weimar previously told SMN she didn’t attend a single minute of the trial proceedings and hadn’t read any of the transcripts, which contain disturbing allegations about SCRA’s Head of School Joshua Morgan. Weimar also said it has been a board protocol not to make individual comments to the media.
The policy requires that all inquiries “by the media and outside agencies” be directed exclusively to the head of school or the board chair, who alone are empowered to issue or approve public statements with the stated goal of conveying “a consistent message.”
Staff, teachers and even other board members are prohibited from speaking publicly on behalf of the school unless specifically authorized.
“This is congruent with board practices from other areas, from charter schools and other public systems in our area, and our process to constantly improve transparency and communication,” Weimar said.
Related Items
District change proposal is just a bad idea
Word from the Smokies: Park entomologist reflects on career of conserving insects
Running in the red, Shining Rock may end high school instruction
Innovative Project SHIFT begins second cycle at SCC
Except it’s not — officials serving on public bodies cannot be compelled to speak with the media or the public; however, officials from other public bodies and public school systems regularly make individual comments to members of the media, including to SMN, on a variety of issues.
By contrast, Haywood County Schools’ policies are far less restrictive and encourage community dialogue. Chuck Francis, chair of the Haywood County Schools board for the past two decades, said that to his knowledge HCS does not have a policy prohibiting board members from speaking.
As with SRCA, HCS policy 2220 designates the board chair and superintendent as official spokespersons when speaking on behalf of the system, but unlike SRCA, the HCS policy doesn’t say that “Only the Head of School, and/or Board Chair, or a person designated by the Head of School or Board Chair” can make public statements, like the SRCA policy does.
“Our general practice is that the chair speaks on behalf of the board, but I’ve never been a chair that has tried to stop people [from speaking out],” Francis said. “I think it’s important that everyone has the chance to express their opinion on matters before the board.”
HCS Superintendent Trevor Putnam said that oftentimes, administrators will defer to board members or teachers better equipped to answer questions from the media or the public.
HCS policy 5040 , meanwhile, emphasizes cooperation with the press, noting that the superintendent should cultivate strong relationships with media outlets and keep them informed about closings, educational goals and student achievement.
The HCS policy is designed to ensure accurate information flows to the public and that there’s no attempt to silence other officials or punish parents, students or employees for engaging with journalists.
Shining Rock’s policy goes much further. It not only consolidates communications into the hands of two officials, it also threatens parents and students with disciplinary action for social media criticism, labeling such speech as “misuse of the brand.” It empowers administrators to report posts, block individuals from school-affiliated platforms, or even pursue legal remedies.
HCS has a social media policy, but it’s directed solely at employees, not students or parents.
The document also extends into publications, mandating prior approval before any employee writes or publishes an article or paper that references the school. HCS has no such policy.
“We could have adopted a policy on parents and social media,” Putnam said, “but we don’t want to be in the business of managing social media.”
While SRCA’s policy includes boilerplate language disclaiming any intent to infringe on free speech, the policy doesn’t provide much cover for board members to avoid questions from the media or the public — critically, no school board policy can override the First Amendment.
Officials serving on public bodies retain the right, as individual citizens, to speak with the media. Courts have consistently held that the government cannot impose prior restraints on speech or retaliate against officials for expressing their views. In practice, SRCA’s new media policy may chill participation and deter open dialogue, but it cannot lawfully silence board members who wish to communicate with the press.
For a school already under scrutiny for transparency concerns, the attempt to codify such restrictions raises deeper questions about whether its leaders are committed to the public’s right to know. Larry Davis, an SCRA board member and chair of the policy committee, introduced the policy by framing it as an empowering step.
“Basically, [the policy is] just giving the right to the media. They are able to ask us for information,” Davis said.
When asked for comment on the policy by SMN Aug. 28, Weimar refused.
