For Jaimie Ashton, the proposal to establish a memorial park for Spotsylvania County Public Schools students who died at a young age was a labor of love.
She was further encouraged after the school board approved the project on July 14. She was named the celebrant for the park, and community members approached her and immediately confirmed the need for the undertaking.
“It’s been so many stories, and it kind of validates the whole project,” Ashton said. “It’s been stories of, ‘We couldn’t have a funeral. We didn’t have anything.’”
Now, regardless of family resources, there will be a dedicated space for Spotsylvania parents and loved ones to visit to reflect on their children gone too soon.
Ashton estimated that the park — located at the SCPS administrative building at 8020 River Stone Drive — is 90% complete after work began on it last Friday. The project features 10 benches that will have the names of deceased youth added as early as next week.
Families who want their loved ones included can email her at [email protected] to make a request. An unveiling ceremony will be held at 2 p.m. on Oct. 18.
“We put a lot of work into it,” Ashton said … “The meaning of the park is to honor kids who aren’t here, to help their family, friends, teachers and staff have a place to heal.”
Ashton said she met several times with school officials to review details for the project and the policy that was created to allow it to be constructed.
During last month’s meeting, the board voted 5-0 to approve the project on first reading, with Nicole Cole of the Battlefield District and Berkeley District representative April Gillespie absent.
Courtland District board member Carol Medawar made a motion to waive the second reading, and it was approved 4-1 with Lorita Daniels of the Salem District casting the lone dissenting vote.
It was Daniels who spoke up during a work session Monday night, requesting that the board revisit the policy because it is “half-baked,” and lacks detail, she said.
Ashton said she was “hurt” by Daniels’ assertion. No action was taken on the policy, but School Board Chair Megan Jackson stressed that policies can be revisited at any time, and Superintendent Clint Mitchell said in a telephone interview Wednesday that he is weighing Daniels’ concerns.
Daniels did not specify what her issues are, and she did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.
She did, however, say that she would like for Mitchell to form a committee to focus on clear guidance and parameters on memorials, taking into consideration recommendations from the Virginia Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Education and the National Association of School Psychologists.
Mitchell said one potential issue is that school psychologists typically recommend no permanent memorials for students who died by suicide. They fear a contagion effect or romanticizing suicide, potentially leading others to do the same.
Mitchell also mentioned ensuring that any situations with students who died in “events that occurred that involve the law” are vetted. The superintendent said that, per directions from Jackson, he and his staff will examine recommendations from the sources Daniels mentioned regarding best practices for student memorials.
“There are some recommendations around whether or not students who are involved in murder and murder-suicide should be memorialized, and I think that is the conversation that we need to have as a board,” Mitchell said.
Mitchell said recommendations will be brought back to the board later this year and potentially implemented into the policy.
A portion of the current policy states: “Memorials will be considered for students and staff members who were enrolled or employed in one of the division schools at the time of their death. Consideration will be given to those individuals (employee or student) who made a considerable contribution to their school community during their time in one of the division’s schools or following graduation. The school board or its designee reserves the right to accept or deny any memorial gift.”
Daniels said she’s concerned that there was no second reading to give the public a chance to comment. She said the policy needs to be reworked because it does not answer key questions.
“I feel it’s incomplete,” Daniels said. “It lacks the parameters that are needed to ensure that we are addressing the needs of the community, and it aligns with our expectations as a board … I think maintaining the policy in its current state, it would be like jumping in the ocean with your clothes on and then wondering why you’re wet. So, it’s clear that we have a policy that is not fully developed and it’s no surprise that I have community concerns coming to me now.”
Other board members didn’t agree. They said the policy was given careful consideration before it was implemented. Ashton said she received encouraging texts messages from five board members after Daniels’ comments.
Board member Lisa Phelps of the Lee Hill District said that while many policies need to be reviewed, this isn’t one of them.
“I thought we had a really great discussion [about the policy],” Phelps said. “We know that our experience as a community, we needed something like this to bring us together … I don’t believe a memorial is something that would cause any kind of discontent.”
Cole, who is often on the opposite side of Phelps in policy discussions, agreed that there was a robust conversation about the policy before it was approved. Cole also said that in the interest of expediency, a second reading was unnecessary.
“I respectfully disagree with the need for going back and reviewing this policy again,” Cole said.
