Public asks about pride-flag authority as board members debate a $238,000 K–5 science curriculum from Amplify

At the April 11 Upper Perkiomen School Board meeting, resident Chris Donatelli asked the board for the legal authority used to permit pride flags in classrooms, saying he could not find supporting language in the school code and that he viewed the action as political. The board president declined back-and-forth during public comment and said the question would be addressed in board comments.

In board comments later in the meeting, a board member raised extended concerns about the district’s proposed K–5 science curriculum from Amplify, which the board member said would cost about $238,000. The board member cited Amplify’s publicly stated commitment to DEIA (diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility) and expressed concern about whether that commitment affects curriculum content; the speaker also asserted a relationship between Amplify and the Emerson Collective and raised the names of public figures associated with that organization. Those assertions were offered as a rationale to encourage colleagues to conduct independent reviews before approving a curriculum purchase.

Randy Bapst, a resident, earlier praised the district’s refreshed K–5 science materials after reviewing the curriculum director’s materials, saying the new science programs “look like there’s lots of hands-on activities” and that they align with Pennsylvania foundational science standards.

A different board member responded in board comments that they had reviewed the curriculum and that they would not ban items (including flags) that make students feel safer, while noting that inappropriate symbols (for example, recognized hate symbols) would not be acceptable. The meeting record does not show a formal board vote on any curriculum purchase at this session.

The claims about Amplify’s ownership and media holdings were made by a board member during comments; the district did not provide documentary evidence for those assertions during the meeting. The board did not resolve the legal-authority question about classroom flags in the public-comment period; members indicated it would be addressed in subsequent board business or communications.