Students, parents push board to reinstate class rank and graduation honors; petition and Sunshine Act concerns raised

Three public commenters and multiple students used the meeting’s public‑comment period to press the Connellsville Area School District Board of Directors to reinstate class rank and traditional graduation honors, saying the change affects academic recognition and community trust.

Jody Mangus, a community commenter, asked the board to vote to reinstate class rank, salutatorian and valedictorian honors and described remarks from recent National Honor Society events to emphasize the academic achievements students want recognized. Student Julian Smith said students have repeatedly raised the issue for eight months, described gathering a petition of about 1,200 signatures, and said he was concerned the board had not publicly discussed or voted on the policy change in the full open‑meeting context. Smith specifically referenced provisions of the Sunshine Act and urged the board to ensure public process requirements were met.

Community member Sonnie Bentley gave an extended statement arguing that the district’s process on class rank had damaged transparency and trust, urging the board to ‘‘re‑engage in the community in a meaningful way’’ and submitted a petition count of 1,175. Bentley called for transparency, accountability and meaningful opportunities for public input before policy decisions are finalized.

At several points during and after public comment, a heated exchange unfolded over whether the board should name top students (top five or top 10) at graduation and whether athletic achievements and academic honors are being treated consistently. Commenters and some board members criticized the tone of interactions at previous meetings and complained about feeling shut out of deliberations.

Board members did not take a final vote or adopt a policy change on class rank during the portion of the meeting covered by the transcript. The petition counts—reported by commenters as about 1,200 and 1,175—were submitted to the board during public comment. The concerns raised included alleged lack of timely notice, limited public engagement before prior votes, and questions about whether the board followed open‑meetings rules; those allegations were presented by commenters and were not adjudicated during the meeting.