Quick Take
The Pajaro Valley Unified School District board voted Wednesday to continue revising its controversial issues policy and to form a committee of teachers and students to help rewrite it. The decision followed strong opposition from educators and parents who argued that the proposed changes would limit teachers’ autonomy and give administrators excessive control over classroom discussions.
The Pajaro Valley Unified School District governing board decided Wednesday evening to continue working on proposed changes to its controversial issues policy and to convene a committee with teachers and students to help update it.
The policy, which hasn’t been revised in about 16 years, sets guidelines on how controversial issues are discussed in classrooms. The proposed changes would have aligned the district’s policy with those of several other districts in the region, including Santa Cruz City Schools and Hollister School District.
During the Wednesday meeting, about 14 parents and teachers urged the board to reject the policy changes, arguing that it didn’t respect teachers’ expertise and gave administrators too much power over their curriculum. Several people also said the policy’s language was too vague and leaves open the possibility to allow a single person to decide what is controversial.
Chris Webb, a Watsonville High School teacher, said he felt that giving administrators the power to decide a topic was too controversial to be discussed in the classroom was insulting to the district’s educators.
“This whole thing is extremely disrespectful to me as a teacher,” he said, adding that he doesn’t think principals and Superintendent Heather Contreras have the time to address the number of times a controversial issue could be discussed.
”I know you’re a busy person,” he said to Contreras. “I don’t want you dealing with those all the time.”
The new draft policy says teachers who plan to discuss controversial topics should consult the “superintendent or designee” to “determine the appropriateness of the subject matter.” Claudia Monjaras, assistant superintendent of curriculum, said despite the language, that principals would address “99.99%” of the controversial issues topics teachers might want to discuss in class, as opposed to the superintendent.
Watsonville High English ethnic studies teacher Bobby Pelz, who has been outspoken against the policy and the changes, said he feared that the policy would allow just one person to decide what is controversial or not.
“I’m not against helping teachers navigate difficult topics,” said Pelz. “But policies like this should be written through partnership with teachers, with students, with family and with community members. That’s what transparency looks like. Collaboration, not control.”
Trustee Carol Turley said she supports the district maintaining a controversial issues policy to ensure that students aren’t exposed to hateful messages or falsehoods. She also suggested that a couple of board members, teachers and students meet to draft a policy.
“I don’t want to see people coming into our schools who are teaching facts according to [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.],” she said. “I don’t want to see people who are teaching hate.”
Kennedy, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, has long promoted falsehoods and conspiracies, including that the coronavirus vaccine was made to control people using inserted microchips.
Turley said she’d like to help and work on putting together a committee to draft a policy. Contreras said, “We can work on that.”
Originally, trustees placed the proposed policy changes on the consent agenda, meaning it was on a list of items that were to be collectively voted on for approval by the board members without discussion. In response, teachers and community members urged the board to put the item on the agenda for discussion instead. As a discussion item, trustees didn’t take action on it but informally agreed to create a committee, as Turley suggested.
Trustee Olivia Flores apologized to the community, saying that Contreras initially told the trustees to put it on the agenda for discussion. Instead, the trustees tasked with setting the agenda decided to place it for approval without discussion.
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.