OUSD School Board Meeting of 3/13
Hi everyone,
I thought I'd try to summarize the meeting last night. There were several speakers including Rebecca Verity. They all had something powerful and unique to add, and I was so grateful to hear their voices! Thanks also to the many of you who wrote to the board. First, my feeling was that the board was very receptive to community input, and they alluded many times to the emails they had received from parents and community members. Also, the board stated that they had wanted to create a resolution responsive to community requests as well as the swastika incident, which is one reason why they wrote it quickly and tried to pack various elements into one resolution. In the end it was decided that perhaps the resolution was still only draft quality, and that it was worth it to take more time to create the resolution the community needs. So the vote was postponed, but not in a negative or obstructive way -- it will come back in a better, stronger, more carefully-crafted format. It was suggested that the board "workshop" the resolution, but they all sort of groaned at that idea, and in the end Jason Kaune and Julie Rossiter are going to continue their work on it.
So we should continue to offer our feedback ... in fact I have already emailed the board twice since the meeting last night!
For your reference, here is the link to the draft resolution, and here are some of the proposed changes:
Revise and expand the paragraph listing "enumerated groups," or in other words the classes or types of students who are highlighted for support (FYI, here is a handout on enumeration); the board seemed uncertain about what should be included here, and I think they need some support; they should include "actual or perceived" ethnicity, race, color, religion, immigration status, sexual orientation, ability, sex and gender identity, socio-economic status, or ideological beliefs ... other suggestions? Family structure? Physical appearance? Should disability be expanded to include physical, mental, sensory, learning?
They LOVED the SPLC's Teaching Tolerance sign reading "This school welcomes ... [various groups enumerated] ... YOU" and wanted to put it on the door of every school office. (I will attach a copy.) I loved their enthusiasm! On the other hand, later my son pointed out that it doesn't include "gender" or "gender identity," so this exact sign won't work.
Julie is going to collect and cite existing board/school policies that relate to reporting/responding to "bias incidents" or "discriminatory harassment" (I use these terms as broader than "hate crime" but more specific than "bullying") -- this is to expand the paragraph which currently reads like only bias incidents on a bus are reportable! I sent a long email to the board about this topic already, and if you're interested I can forward it to you. This is just one paragraph in the resolution and it could be an entire resolution in itself. (The board recognized that some of the policies they were going to gather might be outdated or inconsistent, but that they would take this as an incentive to eventually revise any policy to which they refer.) Unlike "regular" bullying, I just learned that federal civil rights law comes into play here.
The curriculum director is going to continue research into an anti-bias initiative / training program; three that were suggested are the Human Rights Campaign's "Welcoming Schools," the Southern Poverty Law Center's "Teaching Tolerance," and the Anti-Defamation League's "No Place for Hate." This sounds like it won't be part of a resolution, which is fine, as long as it doesn't get put on the back burner indefinitely. Perhaps the resolution could allude to things like district-wide activities promoting diversity, which would then be administered through the anti-bias initiative?
The board members seemed like they agreed that it was a stretch to call Think First and Kidpower anti-bias programs, and it sounded like they were even going to strike the mention in the resolution of adding "hate symbols" to the Kidpower training, because they said that just calling out symbols (not speech, actions, etc.) doesn't go far enough. I was glad to hear this; I was concerned that the board might try to simply use their existing anti-bullying and character education initiatives.
The board wondered whether they were trying to fit too much into one resolution, and whether "diversity and safety" were even a comfortable match in the title of the resolution in the first place. Someone suggested that it would be a natural break to separate all the immigration law issues into one resolution, and the anti-bias resolution stuff into another, but I don't know if this is going to happen.
Anything I left out? Probably! Please feel free to chime in if you have more detail. I think we can expect to see a revised version of this resolution on the agenda for next month, so if you have suggestions or feedback for the board, now is the time to share them. Thanks to this wonderful community of support! Nicole
