School Boards, Book Challenges, and State Literacy Policy: A Case Study of Policy Layering and Literacy
Saved in:
| Title: | School Boards, Book Challenges, and State Literacy Policy: A Case Study of Policy Layering and Literacy |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Susan Cridland-Hughes (ORCID |
| Source: | Reading Research Quarterly. 2026 61(1). |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 17 |
| Publication Date: | 2026 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Public Schools, Boards of Education, State Policy, Educational Policy, Literacy, Education, Policy Formation, Books, Censorship, Student Rights, School District Autonomy, State Departments of Education, Power Structure, Politics of Education, Centralization, State Government |
| Geographic Terms: | South Carolina |
| DOI: | 10.1002/rrq.70082 |
| ISSN: | 0034-0553 1936-2722 |
| Abstract: | As book challenges have increased across US public schools, so too has the need to understand the relationship between state literacy policy, policy layering, and censorship. Policy is continually molded by external factors, and more information is needed to understand how policy shapes and is shaped by public discourse, discourse specifically related to book challenges and materials reviews. School board meetings in Greenville, South Carolina were analyzed using policy layering to explore how book bans and challenges as a state literacy policy expand or restrict both students' right to read and the power of local control over education. Findings reveal that policy is either supported or critiqued relative to whether the policy results in an outcome that aligns with that desired by the individual or state actor. In this case, individual school board members, school district members, constituent groups, and the State Department of Education all exerted pressure, resulting in a change in state-level literacy policy. Policy layering regarding materials review as a state literacy policy resulted in the curtailing of local-level policies and policy revision as consolidation of power. The continual layering of state and local policy led to shifts away from local control and centralized power in upper tiers of the state's political institutions. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1494490 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG4vxJiDcDzksyVbomqmFJTAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMvSZy4ayevKWzYYgAIBEICBm9o1DugsYs-wfb5NyOy-1GX8JHyuti0rVSKr7sTGA0YaVd3_8BB6huPHj_Xa27ajqU_QGMb6NXR104httAeWv2F56sA8D29zCvoDocOD-YXhZX3qBFSBQum9LXgt_3JIdEw5LG-4Gm5BjeXmGuL9_jDAUohB7hsavoED2zpIG-CBJKI5duE93Ef1vg7N3lOxeEmIAJtMPQhQl54h Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0191105822;[nrnu]01jan.26;2026Jan28.02:53;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191105822-1">School Boards, Book Challenges, and State Literacy Policy: A Case Study of Policy Layering and Literacy </title> <p>As book challenges have increased across US public schools, so too has the need to understand the relationship between state literacy policy, policy layering, and censorship. Policy is continually molded by external factors, and more information is needed to understand how policy shapes and is shaped by public discourse, discourse specifically related to book challenges and materials reviews. School board meetings in Greenville, South Carolina were analyzed using policy layering to explore how book bans and challenges as a state literacy policy expand or restrict both students' right to read and the power of local control over education. Findings reveal that policy is either supported or critiqued relative to whether the policy results in an outcome that aligns with that desired by the individual or state actor. In this case, individual school board members, school district members, constituent groups, and the State Department of Education all exerted pressure, resulting in a change in state‐level literacy policy. Policy layering regarding materials review as a state literacy policy resulted in the curtailing of local‐level policies and policy revision as consolidation of power. The continual layering of state and local policy led to shifts away from local control and centralized power in upper tiers of the state's political institutions.</p> <p>Analyzing both state policy changes and the local conversations regarding implementation through the lens of policy layering, we found that influence on policy was bidirectional as policy was being negotiated, and many different groups had influence on the enacted policy. However, as state level policy choices centralized power at higher levels, that limited the options available for local policy makers and communities.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70082-toc-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70082-toc-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191105822-3">Introduction</hd> <p>The National Council of Teachers of English argues that "one of the foundations of a democratic society is the individual's right to read, and also the individual's right to freely choose what they would like to read" (NCTE [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref1">40</reflink>]). Classrooms and school libraries across the United States, however, are facing unprecedented attacks on students' right to read. Since 2020, both individual actors and groups involved in a process called "astroturfing," organized political attacks disguised to look like grassroots advocacy, have succeeded in challenging thousands of books (Charbonneau et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref2">8</reflink>]). Over the 2023–2024 school year, there were over 10,000 book bans, targeting more than 4000 unique titles (Meehan et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref3">36</reflink>]). This was three times the number recorded in 2022–2023, revealing that book challenges are accelerating and expanding. State‐ and local‐level policymakers are in a position to advocate for creating literacy policies that can expand or limit students' right to read. Consequently, federal, state, and local policies then become contested spaces because existing policy is destabilized or is in flux.</p> <p>These conflicts we are seeing between existing policies related to materials adoption and review at different levels of government and the resultant attempts to bring those policies into harmony are best explained using policy layering, the analysis of how different policy layers exert pressure on each other (Choi and Seon [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref4">9</reflink>]; Howlett and Mukherjee [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref5">30</reflink>]). Changes in state policy have made it easier to remove books from classrooms and school libraries. These policy shifts include changing definitions of sexual content and removing exceptions for artistic and literary merit. In one example, the 2022 Tennessee legislative session initially passed state‐level legislation attempting to control what texts could be in school libraries (Age‐Appropriate Materials Act [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>]) and then in 2024 added specific and targeted language restricting texts based on sexual conduct and prurient interest (Age‐Appropriate Materials Act rev. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>]). Contradictory policies related to materials access have emerged from different layers of government, shaped and reshaped according to the desires of external actors and elected officials, with the resulting bill text crystallizing the lines of what is acceptable to the State as a policy actor but obscuring what that means for practitioners in the field. The State has become a curriculum and materials gatekeeper, streamlining processes for removing texts across state public schools and libraries to control what students have the right to read.</p> <p>Our focus for this study is the intersection of state and local policies in one school district in South Carolina related to the review and adoption of instructional materials, including book challenges. South Carolina was one of the first states to create a state‐level review committee with the power to remove texts across the entire state; as such, it offers an important case study for exploring how state consolidation of power occurred against students' right to read. However, the story in South Carolina started with an attack on Beaufort County Schools and its local materials review committee policies. We briefly introduce Beaufort here to show the first stage of policy layering—the destabilization of preexisting policy (Choi and Seon [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref8">9</reflink>]). This destabilization sets the stage for everything that follows at both the state and local levels.</p> <p>Beaufort County was the birthplace of the current rise of book banning in South Carolina. In 2022, 97 books were challenged simultaneously by two complainants: a parent of a child in Beaufort County, and a former member of Moms for Liberty, a right‐wing parental rights advocacy group (Southern Poverty Law Center, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref9">50</reflink>]). The challengers utilized BookLooks, an online book rating system initially developed by a member of Moms for Liberty, to identify books to challenge (Pelley et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref10">42</reflink>]). BookLooks' scale ranges from 0 to 5, and books labeled as a 3 or higher are labeled as "minor restricted," "no minors," and "aberrant content" based on the presence of "references to sexual activities," "drug or alcohol abuse," or "'obscene' references to sexual activities" (BookLooks [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref11">5</reflink>]). The use of BookLooks as an authoritative source to determine which books were appropriate, rather than the professional knowledge of teachers and librarians in Beaufort, highlights how official policy was subverted.</p> <p>Beaufort County's official review policy called for the books to remain on the shelves during the review process; however, due to threats of violence against district educators and librarians, superintendent Frank Rodriguez pulled all 97 books off the shelves while reviews proceeded (Pelley [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref12">41</reflink>]). Following the materials review process, 92 books were returned to the shelves (Cridland‐Hughes, McGee, and Gallman [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref13">14</reflink>]; Way and Wiggin [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref14">59</reflink>]) and one book was determined to have never been on the library shelves in Beaufort County Schools (Pelley et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref15">42</reflink>]). For the local community, the decision to make nearly all the books accessible demonstrated the success of the materials review processes: the challenged texts went to the material review committee, the committee chose to retain them, and the elected officials deferred to the committees as the voice of the community.</p> <p>Beaufort was one of the places where the local policy protected materials under review from being removed from libraries. While books were initially removed, many were returned through the materials review committee process. State actors across the country, however, learned from challenges to policy, transforming policies to construct and exploit state‐level mechanisms for controlling instructional materials. As the new levers of power were being explored, school boards were reviewing their policies—specifically their instructional materials review processes—in anticipation of increased state parental rights acts and more challenges to materials.</p> <p>The situation in Beaufort caused us to ask questions about how other districts in South Carolina and their school boards were navigating book challenges and book bans. For this study's data collection, we focused on a second district in South Carolina, Greenville County Schools (GCS), coding transcripts from school board meetings where board members and school district staff and administration grappled with local and state policies around materials adoption and challenges. The Greenville School Board was also facing community challenges to individual texts in 2022, and voted to restrict <emph>George—</emph>later renamed <emph>Melissa</emph>—by Alex Gino based on the grade level of the student and parental permission (Hamilton [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref16">29</reflink>]). The restriction was born from criticism that the book was not age‐appropriate for elementary students because the title character is a young transgender girl. The final decision of the board overturned the materials review committee's decision to retain the book and removed the book from elementary schools, required parental permission to be read in the middle school grades, and left the book unrestricted only at the high school level (Boyd [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref17">6</reflink>]). In GCS, the presence of both internal and external policies complicated the adoption of texts, obfuscating both the text selection processes, and what the vetting process entailed. Without a clear understanding of the selection processes, texts that challengers deemed "inappropriate" came under fire.</p> <p>Policy layering added a new layer in July of 2024 when South Carolina Department of Education Regulation 43‐170 became law, further complicating district policies. This regulation accomplished multiple goals: redefining guidelines for what materials should be removed from schools; creating a statewide committee that would adjudicate book removal requests whose decisions would be binding across the state; and introducing penalties for educators who did not comply. As R. 43‐170 went into effect, it became unclear if librarians and educators were to follow official channels for book removals or preemptively remove materials that appeared to violate the new regulation. In August of 2024, GCS decided to pause its annual Book Fair because they could not guarantee that books provided by vendors did not violate R. 43‐170 (Moss [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref18">38</reflink>]). Burke Royster, Superintendent of GCS, also noted that GCS paused Book Fairs because it was unclear what the consequences might be—for both educators and school administrators—for providing books to students that violate the regulation (Greenville County Schools Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref19">27</reflink>], August 27).</p> <p>Due to the policy layering occurring in South Carolina, and local and state actions taken that destabilized existing policies, we chose to examine the bidirectional relationship between the shaping of policy decisions and school board members' public discourse to explore how state literacy policy restricts or expands students' rights to read. With the expansion of state power and rapidly changing policies, local school boards in South Carolina are increasingly navigating the desires of the local communities and their own policies in light of more restrictive state policies. The traditional rhetoric of community control over schools and educational materials is now often superseded by state‐level politics and external actors like Moms for Liberty, a conservative parental rights advocacy group driving many of the book challenge efforts across the country (Friedman [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>Much of the research on censorship thus far has focused on documenting and naming the effects of censorship—the books that have been removed or are no longer taught (Nam [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref21">39</reflink>]) and the state and local policies that have changed (Cridland‐Hughes, Gallman, and Cridland‐Hughes [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]; Cridland‐Hughes, McGee, and Gallman [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref23">14</reflink>]). Little research explores the conversations between key policy actors as they try to navigate rapidly changing book challenge processes. We asked the question: how does school board members' public discourse related to book bans and challenges shape and get shaped by policy decisions at the local and state levels? We focused on the discourse of school board members because they are the closest elected officials to local control of education and become the policy layer that most directly affects school districts. We ask this question to explore how book bans and book challenges as a form of state literacy policy either enhance or restrict students' right to read in one Southern state.</p> <hd id="AN0191105822-4">Policy Layering</hd> <p>As part of a larger study, we analyzed the policy choices and discussions related to book bans and book challenges in South Carolina. While transcribing local school board meetings, we realized that much of the discussion in local school boards referred back to policies at both the local and state levels. Policy layering is a helpful lens to make sense of the complicated interactions between local and state governance. Policy layering examines how policy, law, and regulatory choices, in this case related to book bans and book challenges, reveal information about relative power in systems of schooling (Choi and Seon [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref24">9</reflink>]). Policy layering is a process policy makers engage in when responding to political pressures by overlaying new policy layers—incremental reforms altering or redesigning policy—onto existing policies. According to Howlett and Mukherjee ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref25">30</reflink>]), "very few design processes begin de novo" (p. 62); instead, "a policy keeps its core purpose by adding new layers in response to political pressure for more substantial changes" (Choi and Seon [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref26">9</reflink>], 598). As policy layering develops, the core goal of the policy remains, but layers are continually added in an ongoing process to adapt to political pressures and perceived failures of the original policy (Howlett and Mukherjee [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref27">30</reflink>]). One goal of policy layering is policy stability or reform that prevents challenges and controversies from the vicissitudes of politics. Stability comes at a cost, however, as striving toward a stable political system can lead to increasing inequities (Choi and Seon [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref28">9</reflink>]). In another form of policy interaction, tense policy layering occurs when actors add "inconsistent layers to avoid severe social conflict" (Moe 1989; Vij et al. 2018, as cited in Choi and Seon [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref29">9</reflink>], 600). The creation of tense layers results in "inconsistent policy goals," leading to uncertainty among key policy actors (Choi and Seon [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref30">9</reflink>], 600). This uncertainty creates destabilization that is often only resolved through both overcompliance of actors with less power and through consolidation of power.</p> <p>Policy layering requires policy actors. Policy actors can include any combination of elected officials (e.g., school board members and local and state officials whose responsibility is to make policy), members of educational systems (e.g., superintendents and state and local board of education employees), community actors (e.g., advocacy groups and parents who have a vested interest in the success of the system), and parents and teachers who comprise the day‐to‐day community. All policy actors have power in shaping policy; however, each actor's power is relative to the power other actors exert in the space. The idea of how relative power held at each level of policy engagement emerges and is squeezed by external policies allows us to look at policy impact, policy implementation, and policy learning discussions as negotiations between layers of power (Choi and Seon [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref31">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>While layering can consolidate power for those who create the policies, it can have the effect at both local and state levels of creating confusion among stakeholders, reducing the effectiveness of the policies, as stakeholders are uncertain how to reconcile potential conflicts between different layers (Pinto [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref32">44</reflink>]; Stacey et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref33">51</reflink>]). This may be an intentional effect of the layering process: "a complex multilayer system of policy would make it difficult for target groups to grasp the full picture of a given policy and judge how to respond to new layers" (Choi and Seon [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref34">9</reflink>], 600). Pinto ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref35">44</reflink>]) shows uncertainty can also lead to fear, which can cause over‐enforcement of policies as those subject to the policies respond by overcompensating their efforts to comply. Some of that uncertainty occurs as a result of the changes to policy, as those members of the system governed by the new policies (i.e., teachers) are often so busy attempting to comply with them that they do not have the time to resist implementation (Stacey et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref36">51</reflink>]). Even though layering is typically done in response to outside pressure, the end result often focuses power in the hands of those who already held it.</p> <p>In addition to the changed policies that are the end result of policy layering, the process of layering can be effective as a tool to both consolidate power and create obfuscation regarding the objectives and procedures of policy makers. Choi and Seon ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref37">9</reflink>]) identify this process as "tense layering," and describe how "policymakers sometimes drive the addition of layers not to rationally improve the effectiveness of policy instruments but to defend themselves against political opposition" (<reflink idref="bib600" id="ref38">600</reflink>). While the end result can cause confusion among stakeholders that weakens resistance, so too does the process itself: "it is likely that the complexity of policy layer structure prevents target groups from effective learning...even smart policy layering from the policymakers' viewpoint can be confusing to target groups who lack sufficient resources to decipher the overall policy" (Choi and Seon [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref39">9</reflink>], 600). In some cases, this complexity of the policy layering process may be deliberate, in order to prevent effective resistance from stakeholders who oppose the end result.</p> <p>Policy layering can also be exercised across different levels of governance among policymakers who share similar goals. A policy may be adjusted at the local level, which provides impetus for policymakers at a state or federal level to create additional layers to existing policies. However, this attempt to layer policies at different levels of government can cause issues as well:</p> <p>Conflicts with respect to goals and instruments are likely to be more common and prominent when multiple jurisdictions are involved. This is so because in such multilevel government and governance contexts, different levels of government are likely to have some common, but also different goals and instrument preferences. (Howlett et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref40">31</reflink>], 72)</p> <p>In addition, there are times when an initial attempt at policy layering can fail. Layering, then, may be attempted through a different political mechanism. In those situations, the core policy goal remains the same; the policy layering merely moves to an avenue where the proposed reform is easier to pass. This procedure is outlined by Hacker ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref41">28</reflink>]), who described the process for layering when initial efforts at policy reform have failed: "When the support coalitions behind policies have proved weaker or the latitude for internal change greater, they have turned to strategies of internal conversion, altering policies' aims or operation without revamping their formal structure" (p. 258).</p> <hd id="AN0191105822-5">School Boards, Book Challenges, and State Literacy Policy</hd> <p>To understand policy layering in this study, it is important to consider where and why challenges occur and how materials reviews intersect with local and state literacy policy. Lo Bianco ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref42">35</reflink>]) describes the interaction between literacy and policy making as "the main vehicle in democratic societies for establishing authorized intervention and determining resource allocation" (p. 213), arguing as well that "It is as if policy exists to make harder the kinds of educational interventions that teachers and other language professionals identify as being justified either by the needs of students or by socially transformative goals and ideologies" (p. 212). Lo Bianco ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref43">35</reflink>]) considers large‐scale national literacy interventions, such as increasing literacy rates for particular communities in a specific country. The most current analogous example of state‐sponsored literacy policy in the United States emerges with the current policy enshrinement of the science of reading (Aydarova [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref44">3</reflink>]). The same interaction, however, occurs between policymaking and the establishment of state authority over book bans and materials reviews—policies create boundaries between what is considered approved and what is considered controversial.</p> <p>Local school boards have a long history of being spaces where policy related to local education is negotiated, often resulting in contentious public responses (Tracy and Durfy [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref45">53</reflink>]; Tyack [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref46">54</reflink>]; Wirt and Kirst [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref47">61</reflink>]). Although there are multiple examples of public comment at local school boards related to school closures and attendance zone boundaries (Gómez Marchant et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref48">19</reflink>]; Castro et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref49">7</reflink>]; Ewing [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref50">16</reflink>]; Johnson [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref51">33</reflink>]), discourse markers of school board speakers (Tracy and Durfy [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref52">53</reflink>]), and public discourse by board members when acknowledging financial mismanagement (Tracy [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref53">52</reflink>]), little has been written about school boards as spaces for negotiating access to materials. This is partially because, until 2021, book challenges closely mapped the concerns of individual parents within individual contexts who "first...have a high sense of community... And second, one of their primary concerns revolves around the moral development of their children" (Knox [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref54">34</reflink>], 8).</p> <p>Research connected with school boards and book challenges has expanded, reflecting the sustained attacks on school library content and students' right to read. This research has focused on the time and effort expended in negotiating book challenges (Cockcroft [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref55">10</reflink>]), as well as how school boards have responded to external advocacy campaigns designed to influence book adoption and retention (Pérez and Duarte [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref56">43</reflink>]). In the latter example, the school board ultimately deferred decisions about book adoptions and retentions to a new superintendent, choosing not to use its power to control a student's right to read. One of the other findings from research into school boards and book bans was how existing policy was either ignored by those seeking to censor texts or provided a road map for the consideration of challenged texts. In Yorio ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref57">62</reflink>]), one participant reported "being questioned despite a reconsideration policy that clearly states books are not restricted while under review" (p. 9). Cridland‐Hughes, McGee, and Gallman ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref58">14</reflink>]) reported a similar finding, with books being initially removed while under review; this study, however, goes on to describe how the subsequent review of the removed texts conformed to district policy and resulted in the majority of books being returned to the shelves.</p> <hd id="AN0191105822-6">Methodology</hd> <p>Our research uses the theory of policy layering (Choi and Seon [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref59">9</reflink>]) and case study methodology (Dyson and Genishi [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref60">15</reflink>]) to explore the policy conversations related to book bans and book challenges in one school district in South Carolina—Greenville County Schools (GCS). GCS encompasses both Democratic and Republican precincts, ranges from rural to urban contexts, and includes demographically diverse constituents and school board members. As part of the larger study, we coded 20 meeting transcripts from January 2023 to October 2024 and 18 documents, reviewing over 35 h of school board deliberations and public comments that occurred from school board members and GCS staff. Three types of meetings occurred during this time. Committee of the Whole (COW) meetings occurred 2 weeks prior to the Board of Trustees (BOT) meeting and operated as broad, fact‐gathering and discussion meetings between the trustees, requested presenters, and school district officials. COW meetings were held in the mornings. Regular BOT meetings focused on celebrations of schools, student groups, athletics, or individual student accomplishments and official votes regarding issues passed by the previous COW meeting. The BOT meetings occurred in the evenings. Lastly, Special Called Meetings (SCM) occurred as needed for discussing a particular issue necessitating substantive discussion.</p> <p>For purposes of this paper, we defined and constituted our case both geographically, bounded by conversations occurring within one school board in one district in one state, and temporally, starting from the beginning of board meeting discussions about book challenges and approvals in March 2024 and following through September 2024, the meeting at which the Board approved the minutes detailing the revision of their materials review policy to align with the new state regulation related to materials reviews. To answer our research question, how does school board members' public discourse related to book bans and challenges shape and get shaped by policy decisions at the local and state levels, we transcribed seven board meetings, paying particular attention to public comments from school and district staff and board members related to the negotiation of book access as a marker of the support for students' right to read.</p> <hd id="AN0191105822-7">Data Collection and Analysis</hd> <p>Using transcriptions of local board meetings, publicly available book challenge documents, policy recommendations and revisions, we explored how school board members, school district administrators, and other policy advocates engage with each other to make sense of the wave of censorship. Meetings were initially transcribed using Turboscribe, then cleaned by reading along with the transcript while watching the archived video. This study focuses on 14 h of public school board meetings from March 2024 through September 2024, a period that included the expansion of book challenges in Greenville County Schools, the Board of Trustees' rejection of the materials review committees decisions, and the creation of a state‐level review board in South Carolina. We also reviewed local and state policy documents as well as proposed policies referenced during the board discussions (Table 1).</p> <p>1 TABLE List of GCS board meetings and documents transcribed and coded.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Meeting date&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Length&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Type of meeting&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Documents generated relevant to research&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Key conversations&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;March 12, 2024&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3:29:26&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Committee of the Whole&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Board discussion of book approvals/curriculum&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;May 28, 2024&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1:02:41&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Board of Trustees&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Public comments on material challenges/removals&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;May 28, 2024&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1:41:40&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Special Called Meeting&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1. Full Agenda: Appeal of High School Material Review Committee Decisions: Perfect, Tilt, and Empire of Storms2. Instructional Material Challenge Packet&amp;#8212;Perfect3. Instructional Material Challenge Packet&amp;#8212;Tilt4. Instructional Material Challenge Packet&amp;#8212;Empire of Storms5. Instructional Materials Appeals Presentation 05.28.2024&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Overturning materials review committee decisions for Perfect, Tilt, and Empire of Storms&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;June 25, 2024&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1:47:09&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Board of Trustees&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1. Agenda Item: Appeal of High School Material Review Committee Decision&amp;#8212;Tricks, by Ellen Hopkins2. Appeal Summary&amp;#8212;Tricks3. Material Appeal Presentation&amp;#8212;Tricks&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Public and board comments related to Tricks and book challenges&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;August 6, 2024&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;No recording&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Ad hoc committee to review Board Policies IFA and KNBA&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1. Full Agenda2. 2024.08.06 Proposed Revision&amp;#8212;Board Policy KNBA&amp;#8212;Complains about instructional materials3. Exhibit 1: Definition 16&amp;#8211;15&amp;#8208;301(C)14. Exhibit 2&amp;#8208;SC Complaint Form and Instructions5. State board Reg 5269&amp;#8212;Selection or Reconsideration of Instructional Materials&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;August 13, 2024&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3:45:36&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Committee of the Whole&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1. Agenda Item: Revision of Board Policy KNBA2. KNBA Revision Presentation 08.13.20243. Proposed Revision Version 1&amp;#8212;Board Policy KNBA 08.06.20244. Proposed Revision Version 2&amp;#8212;Board Policy KNBA 08.13.20245. Exhibit 1: Definition 16&amp;#8208;15&amp;#8208;301(C)1 08.13.20246. Exhibit 2: Panel Review Form 08.13.20247. Exhibit 3&amp;#8208;SC Complaint Form and Instructions 08.13.20248. State board Reg 5269&amp;#8212;Selection or Reconsideration of Instructional Materials 08.13.2024&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Explanation by district GC of interpretation of a "good faith attempt" to resolve book issues at school level through school committees&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;August 27, 2024&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2:12:16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Board of Trustees&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1. Agenda Item: Revision of Board Policy KNBA2. KNBA Revision Presentation 08.13.20243. Proposed Revision Version 1&amp;#8212;Board Policy KNBA 08.06.20244. Proposed Revision Version 2&amp;#8212;Board Policy KNBA 08.13.20245. Exhibit 1: Definition 16&amp;#8208;15&amp;#8208;301(C)1 08.13.20246. Exhibit 2: Panel Review Form 08.13.20247. Exhibit 3&amp;#8208;SC Complaint Form and Instructions 08.13.20248. State board Reg 5269&amp;#8212;Selection or Reconsideration of Instructional Materials 08.13.2024Note: These are the same documents from the 08.13.2024 meeting&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Comments on R 43&amp;#8208;170 policy creation and implementationCochran's motion to strike language about creating panel to review books&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;September 24, 2024&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0:46:20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Board of Trustees&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1. Agenda2. Minutes, Board of Trustees, The School District of Greenville County, Regular Session 08272024&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Public responses to book fair pause&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>All transcripts and documents were initially coded individually and documents were considered supplemental to the discussions contained in the transcript. We then reviewed individually coded transcripts as a coding team to reach consensus codes. We created a shared code book with the code, the description and examples from the documents to refine codes and generate themes. In the coding process, we looked specifically for comments related to advocacy for or against particular books, as well as discussions of proposed policy revisions at both the local and state levels.</p> <p>In our first layer of coding, a priori codes were determined by the research team based on our research questions, theory of policy layering, and relevant literature (e.g., Tracy and Durfy [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref61">53</reflink>]). Additionally, along with these initial codes, the team open coded for other themes and possible codes helpful to answering the research question. Hence, generative codes were also used when the data highlighted relevant themes (Saldaña [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref62">47</reflink>]). The code book was expanded as conversations about our coding continued. For example, we coded for disagreements in policy as a marker of policy layering when the transcript indicated two policies that were in conflict with each other. We also coded for discussions focused on one policy separately from discussions looking at the interaction between policies, exploring the difference between the intent of one policy and the effects that occurred when it was layered with additional policies. At each team meeting, codes were discussed and the codebook was modified based on consensus. Once an initial run of all the data was completed and discussed the second iteration of coding began (Table 2).</p> <p>2 TABLE Representative sample of code book.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Code&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Description&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Example&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;DP&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Disagreement in policy (policy layering)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;"So my suggestion would be, if that's the thinking of the board, is it would be a section and you either have access to that with your parents' permission, or you don't have access to it, or you can have access to it if you're 18" (062524, BOT)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;MC&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Moments of confusion (places where there does not seem to be a clear procedural understanding of what is happening or how things are happening)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;"Now how do we select, once we have the pool, how do we actually select the people that are going to be in the pool?" (052824, Special Meeting)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;CBM&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Conflict between board members (whether they are willing to disagree with policy or not, where they are overriding their own systems)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;"It's not that I disagree with every single thing said across the board on either side of the issue, but I think it's worth reminding ourselves of our audience, our job, the fact that our students' brains are not fully developed, and the graphic nature. Again, it's not that the topic is hard for me, I can handle a rough topic. I could just do without the graphic nature and I have to ask myself is that healthy for a 14&amp;#8201;year old&amp;#8212;because that is a high school student&amp;#8212;to be reading?" (062524, BOT)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;CPI&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Challenges of policy implementation&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;"I mean it just seems like it would be a lot of work for the principal to have to review everything and I wonder if the principal could also have a designee like an assistant principal or could the teacher count as having reviewed" (031224, COW)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;SP&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;State policies directly affecting book bans (H.3728, for example)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;"We also have, as was mentioned earlier, a new uniform procedure for selection or reconsideration of instructional materials that is coming from the South Carolina State Department of Education and, as was mentioned earlier, that apparently took effect today. As part of that, now this is section one part C, and among other things, it says, "instructional material is not age and developmentally appropriate for any age or age group of children if it includes descriptions or visual depictions of sexual conduct" and this book certainly does" (062524, BOT)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;PD&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;District policies affecting book bans&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;"Greenville set up a system for considering challenged books about 40&amp;#8201;years ago with this Materials Review Committee. Our committee was made up, as you know, of teachers, students, counselors, Librarians, even a Minister, and Community Representatives&amp;#8212;pretty good representation of the community and that's what this committee is supposed to be" (062524, BOT)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;CS&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;The idea of "common sense" that there is a common standard against which agreements about what should be included and excluded can be measured&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;"Y'all, I think at some point, we kind of need to wrap our arms around ourselves and like get a grip. I read this in its entirety&amp;#8212;contrary to what lots of folks think that we're just looking at stuff out of context, and I'm not that chick that's going to read an excerpt, but I could" (062524, BOT)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;EA&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;External actors&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;"Yeah, we know it's a national agenda, we know that it's an assault on public education" (062524, BOT)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;AA&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Age Appropriate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;"I'm not saying ban. We've heard that word tossed around tonight&amp;#8212;nobody's trying to ban something. We're trying to protect students from stuff that is not age appropriate" (062524, BOT)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>In the second iteration of coding, inductive coding was used to identify patterns that were later sorted into categories based on the previously established codebook. New codes were added to the codebook as they were constructed from the data (Saldaña [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref63">46</reflink>]). This second layer of coding resulted in the following themes: policy layering as consolidation of board power at the local level, "tense layering" as a destabilization of local control, and policy layering as consolidation of state control over local policies. With these codes it was possible to look across the policy discourses to describe the consequences of policy layering on GCS policies and the school boards' decision‐making.</p> <hd id="AN0191105822-8">Greenville as a Case Study</hd> <p>We chose Greenville because it is the largest public school district in South Carolina and the 44th largest in the country, serving over 77,000 students (About Greenville County Schools, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref64">1</reflink>]). In addition to its population, GCS also has several other factors that make it useful as a case study. The first of these is due to the large geographic size of GCS as it encompasses the entire county. Contained within that area are a wide range of levels of urbanization, which create a contrast both demographically and politically. At the center of the county lies the city of Greenville, with almost 73,000 inhabitants (U.S. Census Bureau [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref65">57</reflink>]). Of those, 68% are white, 20% Black and 7% Hispanic or Latino (U.S. Census Bureau [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref66">57</reflink>]). The County overall, however, is 76% white and only 18% Black (U.S. Census Bureau [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref67">58</reflink>]). The areas of the county surrounding the city to the south and east are densely populated suburban areas, while the area to the north of the city becomes more rural in nature. Politically, the city council is majority Democrat, and most city precincts voted for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in 2012 and 2016 (Connor [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref68">11</reflink>]). In contrast, the County Council has 10 Republicans and only two Democrats (County of Greenville, SC [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref69">12</reflink>]). In that 2016 election, Donald Trump won the county as a whole, with 59% of the vote (Ballotpedia, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref70">4</reflink>]). This diversity of politics and demographics ensures a wide range of views from Board members and the public involved with GCS Board meetings. GCS also has a history of policies regarding book bans, first enacting a policy for challenging books in 1980, and having 18 books removed since 2001 (Mitchell [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref71">37</reflink>]). This history provided a baseline of policies in place for a significant period of time so that, as changes were made through policy layering, that evolution could be tracked over an extended chronology.</p> <p>One of the key signals of the coming attack on instructional materials was the release of model legislation from the Manhattan Institute in 2021 with the following purpose: "to ensure public transparency in schools' instructional, training, and learning materials; and to give parents and students reasonable access to review such materials" (Rufo et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref72">45</reflink>]). During the 2023 state legislative session, South Carolina was expected to pass the Transparency and Integrity in Education Act in SC (H. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref73">49</reflink>]). Although the proposed legislation eventually moved into reconciliation (where the Senate and House versions of the bill are negotiated into a compromise bill), this started a policy destabilization process, with districts across the state trying to adjust policies in anticipation of what the state would ultimately require districts to provide to parents. With this in mind, the bulk of our analysis for this paper focused on the months between March and September of 2024. During this time, four key events occurred: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref74">1</reflink>) Materials Review committees in Greenville met to make recommendations about challenges to school library materials using the local guidelines and processes, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref75">2</reflink>) the school board rejected the recommendations of the Materials Review committees, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>) the State Board of Education issued R. 43‐170, the Uniform Procedure for Selection or Reconsideration of Instructional Materials, that inextricably tied definitions of <emph>age‐appropriate</emph> and <emph>sexual content</emph> to a narrow part of the criminal code, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref77">4</reflink>) R. 43‐170 placed authority over final arbitration about books at the state level. The conversations occurring at the local level reflected this conflict between community decision‐making and state policy modifications.</p> <hd id="AN0191105822-9">Findings</hd> <p>First, we discuss the context and its experience with book bans. We then explore how policy layering allowed the board to advocate for more power for themselves. In the final section, we look at how policy layering ultimately resulted in less power for the board; in Greenville County School Board's attempt to concentrate their power, school board power was subsumed under the State Board of Education. Greenville County experienced a surge in book challenges in 2023–2024, in line with a national trend toward banning books that had begun in earnest in 2022 (Friedman [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref78">18</reflink>]). Table 3 shows the high school‐level books that were challenged in 2024, the reasons they were challenged, and the decisions of the local review committees. At the time of the convening of these committees, <emph>Policy KNBA: Complaints against Instructional Materials</emph>,[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>] stated that "any individual residing within the attendance area of the school district or who has a child who attends a school in the school district may lodge a complaint against any reading material used in the school system" (Greenville County Schools Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref80">20</reflink>]). When a complaint could not be resolved at the school level, a materials review committee would be convened, with the following required constituents at the high school level (Greenville County Schools Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref81">20</reflink>]):</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Three parents, each of whom must have a child enrolled in a District high school.</item> <p></p> <item> Three District high school teachers, each of whom shall teach in a different discipline.</item> <p></p> <item> One District high school media specialist.</item> <p></p> <item> Two high school students.</item> <item>ook review decisions by materials review committee and the board of trustees.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Book&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Date discussed by board&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Decision of materials review committee&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Decision of board&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Perfect by Ellen Hopkins&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;May 28, 2024&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Unanimous: retain at high school level&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Remove&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Tilt by Ellen Hopkins&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;May 28, 2024&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Retain at high school level&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Remove&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Empire of Storms by Sarah J. Maas&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;May 28, 2024&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Retain at high school level&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Remove&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Tricks by Ellen Hopkins&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;August 13, 2024&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Retain at high school level&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Remove&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>Materials review committees were convened for each of the challenged books. According to testimony before the board, the materials review committee for each book voted to retain the books. When the decision was appealed, the first three books were discussed in a Special Called Meeting of the Greenville County Schools Board of Trustees on May 28, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref82">23</reflink>]. The fourth book, <emph>Tricks</emph>, was evaluated by the materials review committee prior to the change in state‐level regulation, so the process followed that of the previous three books. Much of the discussion about the texts centered around <emph>Perfect</emph>, by Ellen Hopkins, but concerns about process and the composition of the review committees permeated the larger discourse. Regarding <emph>Perfect</emph>, Tara Dean, Executive Director of Academic Innovation and Technology, testified to the following (Greenville County Schools Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref83">22</reflink>], May 28):</p> <p>...the committee reached a unanimous consensus that the book... should not be removed from high school media centers. The committee made the recommendation that the complainant be made aware of the option for a parent to notify media specialists to place a note in a student's Destiny account that we require a parent's permission to check out books or book with selected titles, authors or any other topic or they can come ask the library to disallow students to check out any book. So this was the decision. They felt like it met the policy that there were things in that book, there were profanity, there were some sexual scenes but it was all realistic and that there this was a book that could teach that lesson to students that we shouldn't just do anything to make our bodies perfect for us to be perfect and that's what's the committee's discussion.</p> <p>The Greenville School Board removed all four of the texts discussed using the KNBA policy in place for the school year 2023–2024.</p> <p>Even as the Greenville County Schools Board of Trustees was overruling decisions of the Materials Review Committee for the four challenged texts, the South Carolina State Board of Education passed Regulation 43‐170, the Uniform Procedure for Selection or Reconsideration of Instructional Materials ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref84">56</reflink>]). R. 43‐170 established an additional layer of appeal for parents who were not satisfied with the decision of the local school or district. Parents would now have the ability to appeal local school board decisions to retain materials to the State Board of Education. If the State Board decided to remove the book upon appeal, then it would immediately be removed from all districts in the state, not just the district where the challenge originated. Additionally, R. 43‐170 allowed for books to be removed statewide, even without going through a local challenge process—in effect, members of the state board could determine unilaterally that a book needed to be removed from public schools.</p> <p>This regulation went into effect August 1, 2024, and formed the backdrop for policy revision discussions in the Greenville County Board of Trustees meetings for the next school year, as they attempted to bring local policy in line with the consolidation of state‐level power. As demonstrated before, policy KNBA governed much of the school board discussion about whether particular books should be retained or removed from the high school media centers. The resulting conversations between board members revealed a disconnect between the historical context of book challenges and materials review policies. At this moment, board members articulated a divide between the findings of a committee structure focused on maintaining access to texts and a majority of board members that perceived these books to be "vulgar" or "obscene," or, at the very least, inappropriate for GSC high school students. With the passage of R. 43‐170, definitions of age‐appropriate were removed from the district's discretion entirely.</p> <p>Board members returned to their work in August 2024 with a mandate to revise their policies, now out of compliance with the state‐level regulation. Much of the policy discourse related to that process occurred in board meetings on August 13, 2024, and August 27, 2024, where representatives from Greenville County Schools presented two potential policy options for Policy KNBA that would bring the procedures of the district in line with R. 43‐170. In the following section, we explore the policy layering that occurred between state and local policies. The state's layering suppressed the local control of GCS's Board of Trustees, requiring them to re‐interpret and reform local policies to be in compliance with the state layers.</p> <hd id="AN0191105822-10">Policy Layering as Consolidation of Board Power at the Local Level</hd> <p>For this analysis, we specifically focus on how board members' public comments used policy layering either to restrict materials or to expand access to materials in ways that directly impact students' right to read. In our first example, discussions of policy shaped the board's consideration of books that had been challenged to the materials review committee, then the decision of the committee was challenged by the board. The first question asked by a board member involved the composition of the materials review committee, with board member Cochran asking, "how do we actually select the people that are going to be in the pool?" (GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref85">23</reflink>], May 28). This was the first in a series of questions from board members about how people were chosen to serve on the materials review committees. Articulating the role of the materials review committee and the policy establishing it, Superintendent Royster highlighted the goal of constituent representation in the composition of the materials review committee:</p> <p>This policy, I believe, attempts to create, I believe the legal definition would be a community standard by having these aspects of the community represented on the policy. So when it is not just absolutely clean‐cut, then that goes to that committee and they're supposed to advise you all as to their perspective as members of the community and I assume that was the thinking behind the different perspectives selected for participation on the committee. (GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref86">23</reflink>], May 28)</p> <p>Royster's advocacy in favor of the 2015 KNBA policy, however, was lonely. Board members appeared to believe that any decision choosing to retain a text under discussion was evidence that the materials review committee was not representative of either the board or the community as a whole. Later in the meeting, board member Mosley clarified the divide between the materials review committee and her own perspective, saying "I don't think there's any guarantee that the cross‐section of the community is always represented in the makeup of the committee" (GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref87">23</reflink>], May 28). Board members in multiple instances indicated that the materials review committee did not reflect their beliefs or those of their constituents. This remained true even though volunteers for the materials review committee were approved by the board in September of 2022. In one of the few instances of support, a board member confirmed the work of the materials review committee, Goodwin Calwile commented, "I agree with the selection committee, the material review committee, that this book is okay to be in the high school library" (GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref88">23</reflink>], May 28). Policy layering emerged as Trustees pushed back on the procedures and what their significance means for their decision‐making. By questioning the makeup of the committees, they created opportunities to go against the community's recommendations and opportunities to revisit policy. This adds a new layer to the hidden policy understandings of the community perspective and the weight the materials review committee recommendation has on the policy makers. For example, Mosley and Cochran perceive their constituents as having greater weight in their decision‐making processes than other individuals in the community.</p> <p>Some board members were focused on the standing of the complainant to challenge the book and how the complaint moved through the established district process. Morrison‐Fair asked why school‐level accommodations were not suitable for the complainant. After GCS superintendent Burke Royster explained that "in this case, the parent's child was not in the school where the book is located," Morrison‐Fair responded, "That is something I need to ponder because this makes no sense then. If the parent's child is not in the school, I will think about that" (GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref89">23</reflink>], May 28). Board member Saylors also highlighted the problems associated with the origination of the complaint. Policy KNBA allowed any resident to challenge any book in any school without limitation in the district, meaning that school‐level remedies could not be used. Consequently, the challenge was immediately elevated to the district‐level review board. For some school board members, this disconnect between the way policy was intended to work and the weaponization of policy introduced hesitation into the decision about how to vote as the complainant's child would not have even been able to access the book through the school system. Royster and Morrison‐Fair's conversation opened a policy layering discussion that can help the policy currently in place be more efficient. This question about how a parent can challenge a book in a school they do not have a relationship with is a question about both standing and a recognition of a hole in the existing argument that could be patched through a policy layering process.</p> <p>For one board member, the biggest source of policy discourse was related to the inclusion of high school students on the materials review committee for high schools. Leventis‐Wells started her comments about <emph>Perfect</emph> by saying, "I don't want my grandchildren coming to public school and reading this or this or this but that's me" and then followed that with:</p> <p>And I really have a problem with us having students [in the materials review committee]. I think I'm gonna ask that we really address our—our policy and putting students on this because oh my goodness we're asking students to come and read this and then give us their rating on it with adults in there. (GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref90">23</reflink>], May 28).</p> <p>In this moment, where the policy process resulted in a recommendation to retain a book, there was an explicit call to change the policies about the process. What is unique about Leventis‐Wells' public comment is that the call to change the process presupposed that in all cases a book under review would not be age appropriate for high school students. In direct contradiction, the policy itself (specifically for the high school‐level materials review committee) prioritized student input into the decision to remove or retain a text. This serves as an example of an attempt at policy layering as Leventis‐Wells exerted pressure to update and reform the current policy. The policy was problematic because it did not align with the values of one individual on the board. Leventis‐Wells' comments also revealed an additional mechanism that would function to further limit students' right to read. By suggesting students be removed from the material review panels, the students of GCS lose one of the few avenues for advocacy they have to self‐determine access to challenged content.</p> <p>In one instance, calls to policy appeared to operate to inspire fear in other board members. Board member Dulin, who was elected during the ascent of Moms for Liberty and reelected in 2024, called for "a roll call vote because I'd like to know which of you would vote to give these books to my child who will be 14 next year" (GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref91">23</reflink>], May 28). This roll call vote was directly linked in the school board members' discussion with Dulin's own beliefs that "the administrative rule is the district would not in any case endorse obscenity, salacious profanity or graphic sexual incidents all of which are in these books. So the bottom line is I think the books violate the district's policy" (GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref92">23</reflink>], May 28). Dulin relied on her own personal judgment, linking the decision of access with what she believed to be appropriate for her own child. Dulin's comments are representative of attempts to restrict students' right to read by asserting pressure made possible through her elected position in an attempt to enshrine her own beliefs as district policy. District policy that she used to support her interpretations of the text as "salacious" and "graphic" was valued, but district policy related to the current materials review process that resulted in the retention of texts became something that "we need to readdress that policy so there is an ad hoc committee that already exists and I'd like to request that we reconvene soon to address the policies maybe as soon as next week" (GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref93">23</reflink>], May 28). Dulin perpetuates the request to revisit and add layers to the book banning policies by focusing on how the materials review committee failed to remove texts.</p> <p>Ultimately, at the moment when board members could decide to trust the policy process or make individual decisions, in most cases they chose their own individual beliefs for determinations of whether books were appropriate. By proposing additional layers to the materials review committee policies, there was a board‐level consolidation of power against the will of the representatives of the larger community of the school district. Board members' public rhetoric around the texts for the most part indicated a stance in favor of restricting access, with the challenged books being referred to as "vulgar," and thereby, it being their responsibility to protect youth from the material. Their attempt at policy layering weakened public input, revising the policy to consolidate board power. This process of policy layering would lead to policy stability by better aligning the processes with the trustees' interpretations of appropriateness. This stability would alleviate the contradictory votes by the board against the recommendations of the materials review committee. Stability, consequently, would ban a larger selection of books from students.</p> <hd id="AN0191105822-11">Tense Layering as Destabilization of Local Control</hd> <p>The State's primary means of consolidation of power was through R. 43‐170, which allowed parents to challenge any materials review decisions conducted at the district level to a newly established state materials review board and allowed the state board to also initiate reviews without a parental complaint. Additionally, this policy used existing state‐level policy in novel ways to redefine appropriateness for school materials. Policy layering, in this instance, created a politicized state‐level policy where there had not previously been one. This tense layering set definitions of age appropriateness that restricted the range of options for district‐level policies related to materials reviews.</p> <p>Perhaps most important, R. 43‐170 tied conversations about age appropriateness to a two‐pronged test. The first prong was whether there was sexual conduct in the book, because "instructional material is not 'Age and Developmentally Appropriate' for any age or age group of children if it includes descriptions or visual depictions of 'sexual conduct', a term defined by Section [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref94">48</reflink>] of the SC criminal code." If a book survived the first prong, the second prong was whether the material included "topics, messages, materials, and teaching methods suitable to particular ages or age groups of children and adolescents, based on developing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral capacity typical for the age or age group" (Uniform procedure for selection or reconsideration of instructional materials [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref95">56</reflink>]). This two‐pronged test adds a layer of specificity to the language of the previous policy. The test becomes more of the standard—increasing the efficiency and stability of the policy. However, the two‐pronged test is vague enough to incorporate room for interpretation by state board members regarding sexual conduct and appropriateness from a child development perspective.</p> <p>Regarding the first prong, R. 43‐170 connected the review process for books with the existing criminal code. Figure 1 shows Section 16‐15‐305(c)(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref96">1</reflink>), a subsection of "Disseminating, promoting or procuring obscenity unlawful," that defines sexual conduct.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70082-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70082-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 South Carolina criminal code referenced in R. 43‐170." /> </p> <p></p> <p>This entire section of the South Carolina Criminal Code is focused on punishing individuals for disseminating obscenity and materials harmful to minors. The statutory language (subsection C) supplied with R. 43‐170, however, ignores subsection B that provides criteria required to be met for material to be obscene (Figure 2).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70082-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70082-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Omitted subsection B language, South Carolina Criminal Code, Section 16‐15‐305." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Because R. 43‐170 used as its definition of age appropriateness only subsection C of the original criminal code, the regulation removed all initial considerations of whether the item taken as a whole, with attention to literary, political, or artistic merits, has been determined to be obscene. By reforming the definition of obscenity solely based on the presence of sexual conduct, the State Board of Education used policy layering to excise the necessary contextualization of all instructional materials reviewed.</p> <p>R. 43‐170 also established enforcement measures that meant that teachers could face penalties if they were found to have provided "age inappropriate" materials to students. This created questions for teachers, superintendents and board members about whether teachers would be subject to criminal charges for violating R. 43‐170. Although the state later issued clarification that teachers would not be criminally charged (Tyler [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref97">55</reflink>]), the potential for job loss and certificate revocation remained. This policy layering injected uncertainty and fears of retaliation and job loss for teachers, librarians, and administration.</p> <hd id="AN0191105822-14">Policy Layering as Consolidation of State Control Over Local Policies</hd> <p>If the first discussion of Policy KNBA focused on policy layering only in the local context, with school board members using their relative power to supersede their own policies, the passage of R. 43‐170 caused the board members and administrators to adapt their focus to how to maintain local autonomy with regard to determinations of curriculum and the retention of materials in the face of policy layering at the state level. School board members were provided two options for the new Policy KNBA, one with a school‐level review committee (Option A) and one with no school‐level review, only board review (Option B). Neither option retained any material from the previous version of the policy. The new Policy KNBA started with the definitions provided in the state statute and then created a process in keeping with R. 43‐170. Policy layering as a theory emphasizes how competing revisions of a policy often lead to a lack of clarity; in this case, the previously existing lower level policy was excised entirely, with the new policy drafted to satisfy the requirements of the state rather than the needs of the local district (GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref98">24</reflink>], August 6; GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref99">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref100">26</reflink>], August 13).</p> <p>In his presentation to board members, school district general counsel Doug Webb highlighted the key modifications required by the change in state policy (Webb [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref101">60</reflink>]; Figure 3).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70082-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70082-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Presentation to the board, proposed revisions to KNBA, August 13, 2024." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Webb also referenced R. 43‐170's definitions of age‐appropriate and sexual conduct, as well as the included and new requirement that complainants be parents or guardians of students currently in the district. In one of the only ways that R. 43‐170 became more restrictive than the previous policy, it included language that restricted actions related to the challenging of instructional materials to parents and guardians of current students in the district where the material was being challenged.</p> <p>Included in the proposed revision for board policy KNBA was the removal of all district‐level materials review committees. One of two options presented, Option A, included instead school‐level panels consisting of "an administrator, the media specialist, a teacher, a representative from the Academics department [of the district], and three parents or members of support organizations of the school, such as the PTA or S[chool] I[mprovement] C[ommittee]" (GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref102">26</reflink>], August 13). Option B did not include any local review. The primary difference between the two proposed policies was whether parents would be required to complete a school‐level review prior to appealing to the district (GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref103">26</reflink>], August 13). Additionally, the policy was written so that, when a complaint rose to the level of the district, the "Board Chairman will inform the Board of the complaint and will submit a written request to the State Board's chairperson... for the State Board to accept jurisdiction over the complaint and consider and decide it in the first instance" (GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref104">26</reflink>], August 13). The state's policy now removed the local control of the district by circumventing their decision‐making regarding the books.</p> <p>After the enactment of R. 43‐170, the GCS board's policy discourse again moved to the role and effectiveness of committees and panels in making materials determinations. Board members were divided on whether the inclusion of the school‐level panels at the district level was in line with the state‐level regulation. Some board members believed that the committees had failed, forcing the board to overturn them. Although trustee Cochran pointed out the lack of control over curriculum connected with a state‐level policy, he was also one of the most vocal opponents to the idea of school‐level panels, saying, "We had at least 10 people, I think, on those committees...and yet when that committee came forth with their choice... in each case it was different than what the board—the elected representatives of Greenville County—on this board decided" (GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref105">27</reflink>], August 27).</p> <p>Cochran, in effect, wanted only the elected representatives of Greenville County to be able to decide what happened to these books—a desire for consolidated power at the district level.</p> <p>For trustee Pressley, her priority was ensuring local constituents who, during public comment, expressed anger at how the state‐level regulation was being used to pause all book fairs in GCS, understood that GCS did not instigate the policy. In this exchange with Superintendent Royster, she sought clarification on the process of passing R. 43‐170 (GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref106">27</reflink>], August 27):</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> PRESSLEY: It was generated from the State Department of Education, approved and...once those regulations go into effect then what do school districts have to do?</item> <p></p> <item> ROYSTER: It went from the administration of the State Department of Education, so from the state superintendent to the State Board of Education. State Board of Education approved it as a regulation. All agency regulations in South Carolina are subject to a legislative review... if there are unreviewed regulations [when the legislative session ends], they would put them in Sine Die resolution then be able to address them when they returned, generally in June. For whatever reason that did not happen. Therefore, when the session ended the regulation de facto went into effect. So that's how—that's the history of the implementation and the development of the regulation that we are obviously required to follow.</item> <p></p> <item> PRESSLEY: ...Once it comes to us it is the responsibility of a school district and its board members to figure out how to put it into policy. How we—how we put that into policy...43‐170 is dirty bath water y'all... It was made murky by the hands that created it, whether intentionally or unintentionally, or carelessly, or because somebody wasn't paying attention, but this is dirty bath water.</item> </ulist> <p>Pressley's analysis highlighted that the district was responsible for reconciling the new regulation with its own policies, regardless of whether the board agreed with the regulation or not. She also discussed her opinion that the state policy may have been written to be intentionally vague, in keeping with an understanding of some policy layering as using confusion to achieve larger political goals, in this case restricting access to materials across the entire state.</p> <p>The regulation, however, also offered a method for supporting the previous materials review committees and advocating for an ongoing role of local book review panels. Pressley defended the same materials review committees she overrode, saying "I want to talk about the difference in the Committees and their charge... One, those committees that were set forward initially, they didn't have this level of specificity...They didn't have [criminal code] 16‐15‐305, okay?" She then went on to advocate for the revised version of KNBA that maintained some control in the district itself:</p> <p>I have a hard time saying that our administrators in Greenville County School District are not equipped to convene a panel at the school level to have a robust discussion that is then going to be shared with superintendent Royster...We owe that to our parents at the school level, our teachers, our media specialists at the building level who are the hands‐on, the boots on the ground with our children...I can't in good faith just wipe that away, and say that we all of a sudden say that "at the building level not so much, we kick it straight to the State Department of Education." (GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref107">27</reflink>], August 27)</p> <p>For Pressley, the school‐level review panels were the only opportunity to maintain some local input into curriculum, given the concentration of power that occurred under the state‐level regulation.</p> <p>In effect, Option B of board policy KNBA removed the authority to weigh in on any book challenges until the state either accepted or declined a first review. Board member Cochran highlighted the limits of the board's power, saying:</p> <p>...What we should have done is we should have let the 12 elected representatives on the Greenville County School Board—those folks should be making more of those decisions but it seems like, in that case, well we're not so concerned about making decisions here locally. (GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref108">27</reflink>], August 27)</p> <p>The absolute authority for final arbitration contained within R. 43‐170 reformed the district policy, and the only local review of a text occurred at the school where the material was challenged instead of in the hands of a district‐wide materials review board.</p> <p>In the case of the GCS Board of Trustees, the board approved a policy that still instituted local input into the materials review policy, including the language about school‐level panels as an initial evaluation of the challenged texts. Policy KNBA was modified for the first time since 2015 in August of 2024, and the language on the district page subsequently changed to the following (GCS Board of Trustees [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref109">21</reflink>]):</p> <p> <emph>A parent/legal guardian of any student who attends a school within the District must make a good‐faith effort to address their concerns with the school prior to filing a complaint requesting that the specifically identified instructional material be discontinued for any grade level and/or removed by the District from all its schools, specific grade levels, or have parental consent required for some or all age groups</emph>. Schools will create a panel of seven individuals at the school‐level to review concerns communicated by parents/guardians. The panels, as selected by the school principal, will consist of an administrator, the media specialist, a teacher, a representative from the Academics Department, and three parents or members of the support organizations of the school, such as the PTA or SIC... A decision by a panel to remove in its entirety or to restrict Instructional Material by grade level will be considered by the Superintendent or designee in determining whether the material should be removed or restricted throughout the District.</p> <p>The final wording of Policy KNBA matters for both what it preserved and what it gave up, as well as how it was constrained by state‐level requirements. Starting with what was retained, the makeup of the school‐level committee prioritized expertise, with four of the seven members occupying professional roles in the school or district. It also retained some oversight for school board members, in that they affirmed the importance of GCS members making decisions for GCS students and reserved the right to review challenges at the local level before a challenge was appealed to the state. Regarding what was lost, the new policy removed high school students from the committee deciding whether texts should be retained or removed; members of the broader community were also excluded, even though specific constituent groups (including clergy) were included in the previous policy. The only community input came from the parents/legal guardians included in the school‐level committee. Additionally, any decisions at the school level to remove or restrict a text could be applied across the district at the discretion of the Superintendent, a mechanism of this policy that made the removal of texts across the district easier. The new policy was also required to adopt the language of appropriateness from R. 43‐170; the discretion previously available to local communities to assess the holistic value of works of art and literature no longer existed.</p> <hd id="AN0191105822-16">Discussion</hd> <p>Our aim in this study was to explore how book bans and challenges shape the public discourse of school board members at a school district in South Carolina. Policy layering (Choi and Seon [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref110">9</reflink>]) as a tool helped in understanding how book bans and challenges as a form of state literacy policy enhance or restrict students' right to read. Moreover, policy layering aided in showing how the engagement of policy makers in banning processes shifted power away from school communities to increasingly centralized governing bodies (e.g., school boards, state committees). Altogether, policy layering increased the stability of the book banning processes by having fewer groups involved in decision‐making processes about what materials are appropriate for youth. This came at the cost, however, of removing any input into the process from a wider group of stakeholders, including teachers, school librarians, administrators, and students.</p> <p>There were two stages to policy layering for South Carolina state literacy policy within the battle over book bans and book challenges. Both leads to the same effect in which power is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people with the effect of increasing the restriction of access. State literacy policy becomes key because it is both the restricting factor in response to the retention of texts by Beaufort County in 2022 and the instigating factor for all decisions for Greenville County post–August 2024. In our findings, confusion and questioning of procedures for challenging books by external actors (e.g., a complainant with no child at the school where materials were available to students) led to further interrogation of review materials policies and procedures. This opened the opportunities for reforming committees and local procedures. While the seeds of potential reform began at the district level, policy layering as a consolidation of power required the actions of the state.</p> <p>The first stage was policy layering internal to Greenville County, where, when faced with outcomes from the review committees contradicting the personal values and beliefs of the majority of trustees, the school board overrode its own policies. In response to this, they proposed reform to revise their policies regarding processes for challenging and removing books. The goal was to empower the board itself to enact increased restrictions on access and consolidate their decision‐making power. In many cases, the board members relied on the rhetoric of "protection," "common sense," and "age appropriateness." This is similar to how children's safety and best interest have been used to move forward unpopular policies (see Castro et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref111">7</reflink>]; Jenkins [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref112">32</reflink>]; Tracy and Durfy [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref113">53</reflink>]). In this stage, the power for students to assert their right to read is shifted into the hands of the 12 board members.</p> <p>The second stage began at the state level and then trickled down to Greenville County. The first instance of layering at the state level occurred with the attempts to pass Transparency in Education laws that would have restricted materials based on definitions of divisive concepts. When the use of new legislation leading to book restriction was blocked, a policy layering approach was enacted to invoke the criminal code as a definition for appropriateness of books. As prior work has shown, it is easier to layer policies than to enact new ones (Choi and Seon [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref114">9</reflink>]). State Board Regulation 43‐170 followed. These reforms constructed a series of layered policies at multiple levels of government generating conflict and uncertainty as the GCS Board attempted to return to compliance with the new state regulations. One of the major tensions to resolve for the GCS Board was how to retain decision‐making on access to books within the local school district policies, while ceding some degree of control to the State Board over the materials restriction process. Along with the possibility of the passage of the Transparency in Education laws, the GCS school board overcompensated their own policy layering to be prepared for the formation of future layers by the State (Pinto [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref115">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>The findings point to the continued pattern in literacy policy where local and statewide discourses collide in their policy layering to create more restrictive access to books and other text materials. There is a spiral interaction between local and state policymakers that is encapsulated in the study's findings. The Greenville County school board discussions reveal the cycle of policy layering. First, policy layering is catalyzed by a precipitating event that destabilizes the existing policy. In response, a more restrictive policy is enacted. This spiral ends with the rest of the policy ecosystem being brought in line with the more restrictive/power‐centralizing policy. In the attempt to have policy stability at the state level, this spiral works to centralize decision‐making so that local decisions do not conflict with each other. Unifying power increases inequities by restricting greater access to particular texts. Through policy layering in this one specific literacy‐related example, the state created confusion, overcompensation, fear of retaliation and job loss, and a renewed need for policy learning, all of which are ways to consolidate decision‐making power.</p> <hd id="AN0191105822-17">Conclusion</hd> <p>We began this conversation discussing how policy and the adoption of state‐level policies can impact students' right to read. Tracing both the creation and layering of policy in the case of Greenville highlights the tensions that can restrict students' access to books. On a practical level, this example of policy layering in action helps to expose not only the changes in a single policy, but how incremental change to a single policy creates a cascading effect. In a previous paper, Author 1 and Author 3 traced the signals sent at the federal level in the first Trump presidency that allowed for and encouraged "divisive concepts" legislation. First, model policy was rolled out by the Manhattan Institute, a private conservative policy think tank. This language was then taken up in an executive order at the federal level, the signal was recognized by conservative state legislatures, and Transparency and Integrity in Education Acts were proposed for inclusion in state education code across the country. That was policy layering in action. Complex modifications of existing policies or insertions of conflicting policies were inserted into existing educational code, with the end goal being the restriction of freedom for teachers, schools and districts to choose for themselves what their local community would be.</p> <p>Policy layering often involves an element of power redistribution. A policy enacted at the state level ensures that all related policies below the level of the state must be brought in line with the policy of the state. In the battles over educational censorship, both liberal and conservative states are deploying this tactic—in conservative states, the penalization occurs when a book is not removed or materials are not restricted. In liberal states, the penalization occurs with the removal of state funding if books are removed or materials are restricted. The mechanism, however, is the same—the exertion of state power through policy to restrict local control.</p> <p>One of the things previous research in policy layering was missing is the examination of discourse by school board members navigating both internal and external struggles for power. Some board members knew that the state‐level policy was potentially harmful to teachers and students, but the hierarchical nature of school governance meant that they were obligated to bring local policies in line. Some board members welcomed the loss of local control because it allowed them to enforce unpopular, more restrictive policies that had been resisted by other members of the board.</p> <p>This story is ultimately about the loss of autonomy of local communities to negotiate and agree on how they will be governed, which may differ from the choices of another community within the state. As we focused on the voices of board members and school administrators, we were struck by the moments when they realized how power had been consolidated away from the community they had been elected to serve. At a philosophical level, these conversations happening in public reveal where power resides in the local areas, and how that directly affects the literacy policies enacted. In some cases, the protective power carved out by local communities is seen as a threat, and the consolidation of power at the state‐level results in hard conversations at the local level that do not reflect the will of the people. How we respond to politicized literacy now is a critical conversation for understanding how our civic engagement will shape future students' right to read. Exploring policy layering helps expose the mechanisms by which power consolidation occurs; in our most hopeful moments, we also imagine ways this exploration allows for disruption in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0191105822-18">Funding</hd> <p>The authors have nothing to report.</p> <hd id="AN0191105822-19">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>The authors have nothing to report.</p> <hd id="AN0191105822-20">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0191105822-21">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.</p> <ref id="AN0191105822-22"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref64" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The letters KNBA for this specific policy refer to where the policy can be found in the School Board Policy Manual: K is the section for General Public Relations, while NBA directs to the specific policy for complaints about instructional materials.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0191105822-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> About Greenville County Schools. n.d. "Greenville County Schools." Accessed December 10, 2024. https://<ulink href="http://www.greenville.k12.sc.us/About/main.asp?titleid=aboutus">www.greenville.k12.sc.us/About/main.asp?titleid=aboutus</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref6" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Age‐Appropriate Materials Act of 2022, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 49‐6‐3801 – 3803. 2022 &amp; rev 2024. https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/112/pub/pc0744.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref44" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aydarova, E. 2024. " What You See Is Not What You Get: Science of Reading Reforms as a Guise for Standardization, Centralization, and Privatization." American Journal of Education 130, no. 4 : 653 – 685. https://doi.org/10.1086/730991.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref70" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ballotpedia. n.d. "Presidential Election, 2024." https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref11" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> BookLooks. 2022. "Ratings System." https://booklooks.org/ratings‐system.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref17" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Boyd, T. 2022. "In Vote to Remove Book, Greenville County Board Says 'Parents Should Be in Control'." Greenville News. https://<ulink href="http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2022/05/26/why&amp;#8208;greenville&amp;#8208;school&amp;#8208;board&amp;#8208;members&amp;#8208;voted&amp;#8208;remove&amp;#8208;george&amp;#8208;book&amp;#8208;ban&amp;#8208;transgender&amp;#8208;lgbtq/9927262002/">www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2022/05/26/why&amp;#8208;greenville&amp;#8208;school&amp;#8208;board&amp;#8208;members&amp;#8208;voted&amp;#8208;remove&amp;#8208;george&amp;#8208;book&amp;#8208;ban&amp;#8208;transgender&amp;#8208;lgbtq/9927262002/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref49" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Castro, A. J., M. Parry, and G. Siegel‐Hawley. 2022. " 'All Schools Are Not Created Equal': An Analysis of Public Comments on School Rezoning." Education Policy Analysis Archives 30, no. 13 : 1 – 33. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.30.6984.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref2" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Charbonneau, D., S. Hawamdeh, S. Oltmann, J. Winberry, J. Yeon, and A. Zalot. 2023. " Challenging Book Challenges: Understanding the Background, Examining 'Astroturfing' as a Current Political Strategy, and Finding Ways Forward." In 86th Annual Meeting for the Association of Information Science and Technology, edited by I. Ruthven, H. O'Brien, and G. Doherty, 755 – 757. Curran Associates Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref4" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Choi, T., and S. W. Seon. 2021. " Target Groups on the Mainline: A Theoretical Framework of Policy Layering and Learning Disparity." Administration and Society 53, no. 4 : 595 – 618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720949853.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cockcroft, M. 2024. " School Boards Tied Up by Bans." School Library Journal 70, no. 12 : 12 – 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connor, E. 2019. "Majority Democrat: Does Shift on City Council Matter?" Greenville News, A2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> County of Greenville, SC. 2025. "County Council." https://<ulink href="http://www.greenvillecounty.org/Council/Default.aspx">www.greenvillecounty.org/Council/Default.aspx</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cridland‐Hughes, S., J. Gallman, and C. Cridland‐Hughes. 2025. " Challenging Times: Book Challenges and State Consolidation of Power in South Carolina." In NCTE Special Issues: Censorship in the English Language Arts, Vol. 1, edited by A. David. National Council of Teachers of English.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cridland‐Hughes, S., K. McGee, and J. Gallman. 2025. " Policy Analysis as Critical Literacy: An Exploration of One Book Challenge in Beaufort County." Literacy Matters 25 : 7 – 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyson, A. H., and C. Genishi. 2005. On the Case: Approaches to Language and Literacy Research (Illustrated ed.). Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ewing, E. L. 2018. Ghosts in the Schoolyard: Racism and School Closings on Chicago's South Side. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friedman, J. 2022. "Banned in the USA: The Growing Movement to Censor Books in Schools." PEN America. https://pen.org/report/banned‐usa‐growing‐movement‐to‐censor‐books‐in‐schools/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friedman, J. 2024. "Beyond the Shelves: Three Years of Book Bans and Educational Censorship." PEN America. https://pen.org/beyond‐the‐shelves‐three‐years‐of‐book‐bans‐and‐educational‐censorship/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gómez Marchant, C. N., A. R. Aguilar, and E. C. Gargroetzi. 2023. " 'Simply a Matter of Numbers': Public Commentators' Use of the Myth of Mathematics Objectivity to Maintain White Supremacy." Electronic Journal for Research in Science &amp; Mathematics Education 27, no. 1 : 1 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenville County Schools Board of Trustees. 2015. "Policy KNBA: Complaints Against Instructional Materials." https://go.boarddocs.com/sc/greenville/Board.nsf/Public#.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenville County Schools Board of Trustees. 2024a. "Policy KNBA: Complaints Against Instructional Materials." https://go.boarddocs.com/sc/greenville/Board.nsf/Public#.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenville County Schools Board of Trustees. 2024c, May 28. "Board of Trustees Meeting [Video]." YouTube. https://<ulink href="http://www.youtube.com/live/FKEbn191dAc?si=Dv3xDaEhdvBsU8HR">www.youtube.com/live/FKEbn191dAc?si=Dv3xDaEhdvBsU8HR</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenville County Schools Board of Trustees. 2024d, May 28. "Special Called Meeting—Appeals of Material Review Committee Decisions [Video]." YouTube. https://<ulink href="http://www.youtube.com/live/Xx37RithdE4?si=wnJ8WnsSMJUfGyiR">www.youtube.com/live/Xx37RithdE4?si=wnJ8WnsSMJUfGyiR</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenville County Schools Board of Trustees. 2024f, August 6. "Proposed Revision Version 1‐Board Policy KNBA‐Complains About Instructional Materials." https://go.boarddocs.com/sc/greenville/Board.nsf/files/D7YHNA49457B/$file/2024.08.06%20Proposed%20Revision%20Version%201‐Board%20Policy%20KNBA‐Complaints%20about%20Instructional%20Materials.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenville County Schools Board of Trustees. 2024g, August 13. "Committee of the Whole and Special Called Meeting [Video]." YouTube. https://<ulink href="http://www.youtube.com/live/pByO8filTys?si=yj57WLWbtgDZ&amp;#8208;8XW">www.youtube.com/live/pByO8filTys?si=yj57WLWbtgDZ&amp;#8208;8XW</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenville County Schools Board of Trustees. 2024h, August 13. "Proposed Revision Version 2‐Board Policy KNBA‐Complaints About Instructional Materials." https://go.boarddocs.com/sc/greenville/Board.nsf/files/D8ER3R6C1061/$file/2024.08.13%20Proposed%20Revision%20Version%202‐Board%20Policy%20KNBA‐Complaints%20about%20Instructional%20Materials.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenville County Schools Board of Trustees. 2024i, August 27. "Board of Trustees Meeting [Video]." YouTube. https://<ulink href="http://www.youtube.com/live/qST&amp;#8208;HP99FSU?si=TzfNTM8RgJotSJcR">www.youtube.com/live/qST&amp;#8208;HP99FSU?si=TzfNTM8RgJotSJcR</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hacker, J. S. 2004. " Privatizing Risk Without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States." American Political Science Review 98, no. 2 : 243 – 260. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404001121.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamilton, A. 2022. "Greenville County School Board Votes to Remove Book From Elementary Schools." Greenville News. https://<ulink href="http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/education/2022/05/25/greenville&amp;#8208;county&amp;#8208;schools&amp;#8208;vote&amp;#8208;remove&amp;#8208;book&amp;#8208;elementary&amp;#8208;schools/9898782002/">www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/education/2022/05/25/greenville&amp;#8208;county&amp;#8208;schools&amp;#8208;vote&amp;#8208;remove&amp;#8208;book&amp;#8208;elementary&amp;#8208;schools/9898782002/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howlett, M., and I. Mukherjee. 2014. " Policy Design and Non‐Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types." Politics and Governance 2, no. 2 : 57 – 71. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v2i2.149.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howlett, M., J. Vince, and P. del Rio. 2017. " Policy Integration and Multi‐Level Governance: Dealing With the Vertical Dimension of Policy Mix Designs." Politics and Governance 5, no. 2 : 69 – 78. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v5i2.928.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenkins, D. 2023. " "Schools are not Safer With Police": A Critical Discourse Analysis of Public Comments on the Removal of School Resource Officers." Journal of Education Human Resources 41, no. 3 : 413 – 439.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, A. W. 2013. " 'Turnaround' as Shock Therapy: Race, Neoliberalism, and School Reform." Urban Education 48, no. 2 : 232 – 256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912441941.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knox, E. J. M. 2015. Book Banning in 21st Century America. Rowman &amp; Littlefield.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lo Bianco, J. 2001. " Policy Literacy." Language and Education 15, no. 2–3 : 212 – 227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780108666811.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meehan, K., S. Baeta, T. Magnusson, and M. Markham. 2024. "Banned in the USA: Beyond the Shelves." PEN America. https://pen.org/report/beyond‐the‐shelves/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell, A. B. 2024. " State‐Mandated Book Ban." Charleston Post and Courier A5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moss, S. 2024. "Greenville County Schools to 'Pause' Book Fairs After New Rules Mandated in South Carolina." Greenville News. https://<ulink href="http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2024/08/22/book&amp;#8208;fairs&amp;#8208;paused&amp;#8208;in&amp;#8208;greenville&amp;#8208;county&amp;#8208;schools&amp;#8208;heres&amp;#8208;why/74906705007/">www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2024/08/22/book&amp;#8208;fairs&amp;#8208;paused&amp;#8208;in&amp;#8208;greenville&amp;#8208;county&amp;#8208;schools&amp;#8208;heres&amp;#8208;why/74906705007/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nam, R. 2023. " Teacher Use of Diverse Literature in Secondary English Language Arts Classrooms." Study &amp; Scrutiny: Research on Young Adult Literature 6, no. 1 : 1 – 20. https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2376‐5275.2023.6.1.1‐20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Council of Teachers of English. 2018. "The Students' Right to Read." https://ncte.org/statement/righttoreadguideline/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelley, S. 2024. "Beaufort, South Carolina, Schools Return Most Books to Shelves After Attempt to Ban 97." CBS News: 60 Minutes. https://<ulink href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/beaufort&amp;#8208;south&amp;#8208;carolina&amp;#8208;schools&amp;#8208;return&amp;#8208;most&amp;#8208;books&amp;#8208;to&amp;#8208;shelves&amp;#8208;after&amp;#8208;attempt&amp;#8208;to&amp;#8208;ban&amp;#8208;97&amp;#8208;60&amp;#8208;minutes&amp;#8208;transcript/">www.cbsnews.com/news/beaufort&amp;#8208;south&amp;#8208;carolina&amp;#8208;schools&amp;#8208;return&amp;#8208;most&amp;#8208;books&amp;#8208;to&amp;#8208;shelves&amp;#8208;after&amp;#8208;attempt&amp;#8208;to&amp;#8208;ban&amp;#8208;97&amp;#8208;60&amp;#8208;minutes&amp;#8208;transcript/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelley, S., A. Chasan, H. Schuster, and S. Turcotte. 2024. "See the Full List of 97 Books Parents Tried to Ban From Beaufort, South Carolina School Library Shelves." CBS News: 60 Minutes. https://<ulink href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/beaufort&amp;#8208;south&amp;#8208;carolina&amp;#8208;97&amp;#8208;books&amp;#8208;ban&amp;#8208;attempt&amp;#8208;full&amp;#8208;list/">www.cbsnews.com/news/beaufort&amp;#8208;south&amp;#8208;carolina&amp;#8208;97&amp;#8208;books&amp;#8208;ban&amp;#8208;attempt&amp;#8208;full&amp;#8208;list/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pérez, E., and B. Duarte. 2025. " In Defense of Books: Examining the Localized Enactment of Book Censorship Policies." Journal of Educational Administration &amp; History 57, no. 3 : 318 – 336. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2025.2506127.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pinto, L. E. 2015. " Fear and Loathing in Neoliberalism: School Leader Responses to Policy Layers." Journal of Educational Administration and History 47, no. 2 : 140 – 154. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2015.996869.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rufo, C., J. Copland, and J. Ketcham. 2021. A Model for Transparency in School Training and Curriculum. Manhattan Institute. https://manhattan.institute/article/a‐model‐for‐transparency‐in‐school‐training‐and‐curriculum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña, J. 2011. Fundamentals of Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press Incorporated.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña, J. 2015. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 3rd ed. SAGE Publications Ltd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> S.C. Code Ann. § 16‐15‐305. 1987 &amp; rev. 2001. https://<ulink href="http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c015.php#:~:text=SECTION%2016%2D15%2D305.,penalties%3B%20obscene%20material%20designated%20contraband">www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c015.php#:~:text=SECTION%2016%2D15%2D305.,penalties%3B%20obscene%20material%20designated%20contraband</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> South Carolina Transparency and Integrity in Education Act, H. 3728, 125th Session. 2023 –2024. https://<ulink href="http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess125%5f2023&amp;#8208;2024/bills/3728.htm">www.scstatehouse.gov/sess125%5f2023&amp;#8208;2024/bills/3728.htm</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Southern Poverty Law Center. n.d. "Moms for Liberty." Accessed December 11, 2024. https://<ulink href="http://www.splcenter.org/fighting&amp;#8208;hate/extremist&amp;#8208;files/group/moms&amp;#8208;liberty">www.splcenter.org/fighting&amp;#8208;hate/extremist&amp;#8208;files/group/moms&amp;#8208;liberty</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stacey, M., S. Mcgrath‐Champ, and R. Wilson. 2023. " Teacher Attributions of Workload Increase in Public Sector Schools; Reflections on Change and Policy Development." Journal of Educational Change 24 : 971 – 993. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833‐022‐09476‐0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tracy, K. 2007. " The Discourse of Crisis in Public Meetings: Case Study of a School District's Multimillion Dollar Error." Journal of Applied Communication Research 35, no. 4 : 418 – 441. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880701617133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tracy, K., and M. Durfy. 2007. " Speaking out in Public: Citizen Participation in Contentious School Board Meetings." Discourse &amp; Communication 1, no. 2 : 223 – 249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307076008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tyack, D. 1974. The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tyler, J. E. 2024. "Clarification on R. 43–170 and Educator Disciplinary Action." State of South Carolina Department of Education. https://ed.sc.gov/newsroom/school‐district‐memoranda‐archive/clarification‐on‐r‐43‐170‐and‐educator‐disciplinary‐action/clarification‐on‐r‐43‐170‐and‐educator‐disciplinary‐action‐memo/#:~:text=2.‐,R.,if%20appealed%2C%20by%20the%20SBE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uniform Procedure for Selection or Reconsideration of Instructional Materials, S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 43‐170. Supp. 2024. https://<ulink href="http://www.scstatehouse.gov/coderegs/Chapter%2043.pdf">www.scstatehouse.gov/coderegs/Chapter%2043.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Census Bureau. 2023a. "Quick Facts: Greenville City, South Carolina." https://<ulink href="http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/greenvillecitysouthcarolina/PST045223">www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/greenvillecitysouthcarolina/PST045223</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Census Bureau. 2023b. "Quick Facts: Greenville County, South Carolina." https://<ulink href="http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/greenvillecountysouthcarolina,US/PST045224">www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/greenvillecountysouthcarolina,US/PST045224</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Way, K., and T. Wiggin (Directors). 2024. "Banned Together [Film]." Atomic Focus Entertainment.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webb, D. 2024. "Proposed Revisions to Policy KNBA." Greenville County Schools Board of Trustees. https://go.boarddocs.com/sc/greenville/Board.nsf/files/D83GAU42E8CC/$file/2024.08.13%20KNBA%20Revisions%20Presentation.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wirt, F. M., and M. W. Kirst. 2005. The Political Dynamics of American Education. 3rd ed. McCutchan Publishing Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yorio, K. 2022. " Censors Bypass Policies." School Library Journal 68, no. 1 : 8 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Susan Cridland‐Hughes; Kelly Buck; Jed Cridland‐Hughes and Carlos Nicolas Gomez Marchant</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib600" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref112"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1494490 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: School Boards, Book Challenges, and State Literacy Policy: A Case Study of Policy Layering and Literacy – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Susan+Cridland-Hughes%22">Susan Cridland-Hughes</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4209-5197">0000-0002-4209-5197</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kelly+Buck%22">Kelly Buck</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8757-2786">0009-0001-8757-2786</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jed+Cridland-Hughes%22">Jed Cridland-Hughes</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8335-1027">0009-0002-8335-1027</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Carlos+Nicolas+Gomez+Marchant%22">Carlos Nicolas Gomez Marchant</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2286-4144">0000-0003-2286-4144</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2026 61(1). – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 17 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2026 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Schools%22">Public Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Boards+of+Education%22">Boards of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Policy%22">State Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literacy%22">Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Education%22">Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Policy+Formation%22">Policy Formation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Books%22">Books</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Censorship%22">Censorship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Rights%22">Student Rights</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+District+Autonomy%22">School District Autonomy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Departments+of+Education%22">State Departments of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Power+Structure%22">Power Structure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Politics+of+Education%22">Politics of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Centralization%22">Centralization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Government%22">State Government</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22South+Carolina%22">South Carolina</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1002/rrq.70082 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0034-0553<br />1936-2722 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: As book challenges have increased across US public schools, so too has the need to understand the relationship between state literacy policy, policy layering, and censorship. Policy is continually molded by external factors, and more information is needed to understand how policy shapes and is shaped by public discourse, discourse specifically related to book challenges and materials reviews. School board meetings in Greenville, South Carolina were analyzed using policy layering to explore how book bans and challenges as a state literacy policy expand or restrict both students' right to read and the power of local control over education. Findings reveal that policy is either supported or critiqued relative to whether the policy results in an outcome that aligns with that desired by the individual or state actor. In this case, individual school board members, school district members, constituent groups, and the State Department of Education all exerted pressure, resulting in a change in state-level literacy policy. Policy layering regarding materials review as a state literacy policy resulted in the curtailing of local-level policies and policy revision as consolidation of power. The continual layering of state and local policy led to shifts away from local control and centralized power in upper tiers of the state's political institutions. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2026 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1494490 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1494490 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1002/rrq.70082 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 17 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Public Schools Type: general – SubjectFull: Boards of Education Type: general – SubjectFull: State Policy Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Policy Type: general – SubjectFull: Literacy Type: general – SubjectFull: Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Policy Formation Type: general – SubjectFull: Books Type: general – SubjectFull: Censorship Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Rights Type: general – SubjectFull: School District Autonomy Type: general – SubjectFull: State Departments of Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Power Structure Type: general – SubjectFull: Politics of Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Centralization Type: general – SubjectFull: State Government Type: general – SubjectFull: South Carolina Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: School Boards, Book Challenges, and State Literacy Policy: A Case Study of Policy Layering and Literacy Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Susan Cridland-Hughes – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Kelly Buck – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Jed Cridland-Hughes – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Carlos Nicolas Gomez Marchant IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2026 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0034-0553 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1936-2722 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 61 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
