I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the recent Lookout Eugene-Springfield op-ed “Who Will Move Springfield Schools Forward?”

Community engagement and accountability matter deeply to me, and I believe it’s important to clarify both the facts and the path forward. The perspective shared here reflects my personal views and not a formal position of the Springfield Public Schools Board of Education.

First, I want to clarify and correct the record.

After the Dec. 8 meeting, I acknowledged that the comments made by Sarah Bosch during public comment were not necessarily a violation when viewed in isolation, but that the board’s ability to take action related to the pending complaints about the district’s curriculum is limited until the Oregon Department of Education and a second outside investigation into the August 2025 complaints are completed.

However, it is important to clarify why I chose to interrupt this particular public comment.

Board policy is explicit. During public comment, speakers may offer objective criticism of district operations and programs. However, the policy clearly states: “The Board will not hear comments regarding any individual district staff member.” When a concern involves a complaint about a staff member, the board chair must direct the speaker to Board Policy KL – Public Complaints.

Comments that reference “district leadership” in ways that are thinly veiled but clearly directed at the superintendent, through role identification, inferred responsibility, tone, body language or contextual cues, fall outside the bounds of permitted public comment.

Even when a name is not spoken, the intent and target can be unmistakable. Allowing such comments to continue would constitute a clear violation of board policy and would undermine the protections that policy is intended to provide to both staff and the district.

My personal agreement or disagreement with a speaker is irrelevant. Whether I agree with the concern being raised, sympathize with the frustration expressed, or even share similar questions does not change my responsibility as board chair. Nor does it matter whether a comment is directed at a teacher, an administrator, the superintendent or any other district employee. Board policy applies equally in all cases.

When comments cross into personnel matters or reference individuals, directly or indirectly, the chair is obligated to intervene and redirect the speaker to the appropriate complaint process, regardless of viewpoint, tone or the issue’s popularity.

For these reasons, my decision to pause the speaker was not casual, discretionary or made after the fact. It was a required action based on:

  • Board policy governing public comment
  • Legal guidance related to active investigations and complaints
  • The board chair’s obligation to apply policy consistently and fairly

Public comment remains an essential part of our democratic process, and I take no satisfaction in interrupting a speaker. However, ignoring board policy, particularly when comments veer into personnel matters related to active investigations, would be irresponsible and unlawful. My responsibility in that moment and in all future meetings is to uphold the policy entrusted to the board, even when doing so is difficult or unpopular.

On curriculum adoption and instructional materials, the op-ed and related advocacy call on district leadership to ensure that Springfield Public Schools is current with Oregon’s instructional materials adoption schedule, specifically, to complete the elementary science adoption and begin the districtwide social sciences adoption by the end of the 2025-26 school year, with aligned professional development for educators.

This is a reasonable and appropriate expectation, and instructional materials adoption must be timely, standards-aligned and paired with meaningful professional development. Curriculum adoption is an administrative responsibility carried out by district leadership, guided by state requirements, instructional priorities and budget realities, with board oversight at key decision points.

The board’s role is to:

  • Ensure adoption processes align with Oregon Department of Education timelines and standards
  • Ask clear questions about implementation, educator support and instructional coherence
  • Approve adoptions brought forward through a transparent, lawful process

I am committed to ensuring these questions remain visible and prioritized as we move into the 2025-26 planning cycle, and that adoption discussions, which will be before the board later this winter and continuing into the spring, are conducted publicly with clarity and accountability. 

When parents have questions or concerns about their child’s classroom instruction, the most effective first step is to contact their child’s teacher or the school’s principal. These individuals are best positioned to explain how instructional time is structured, how standards are met and how adopted materials are being implemented. Many concerns can be addressed collaboratively at the school level before escalation is needed.

Springfield Public Schools has experienced significant tension this year around governance, processes and trust. I do not dismiss that. At the same time, the board has taken corrective actions, is scheduling additional training and remains committed to strengthening governance practices to better serve students and families.

I am a parent of three students in this district. I care deeply about instructional quality, equity and student outcomes. I remain committed to listening, learning and working with our community, even when the conversations are difficult, and to moving Springfield schools forward with integrity, transparency and a clear focus on what matters most: our students.

I welcome continued dialogue and can be reached at heather.quaas-annsa@springfield.k12.or.us.

Heather Quaas-Annsa is the chair of the Springfield Public Schools board.