School Board Approves the Bond Measure, but Not Parental Choice
On Wednesday June 26, the PVPUSD School Board held their last regularly scheduled meeting of the school year. Two significant topics were on the agenda: the last of three discussions regarding the upcoming school bond measure to fund the repairs of our deteriorating school facilities, and (what should have been) the last discussion on the district’s implementation of parents’ ability to opt their children out of certain topics in health class according to the California Healthy Youth Act. Both of these topics had interesting results.
Before the agenda started, several members of the community addressed the board on non-agenda items. Most of these speakers expressed their concern that the board still had not taken any significant action regarding the antisemitic yearbook incident. They spoke about the continuing environment of antisemitism in the district and communicated an overall lack of trust in the board to effectively do their job. This seemed to set the tone for the bond discussion, which was the first agenda topic of the evening.
The Bond Survey
The bond discussion started off with a presentation from Dr. Tim McLarney, who presented the results of yet another community survey commissioned by the school board (this one was in addition to the survey conducted prior to the first school board meeting that discussed the bond). The results were mixed. On one hand, a vast majority of people surveyed found the arguments regarding the need to repair our deteriorating schools “somewhat convincing” or “very convincing.” Indeed, the district has done an excellent job communicating the state of the facilities to our community. On the other hand, over 75% of the people surveyed found it a “somewhat convincing” or “very convincing” argument that the district can’t be trusted with this tax.
As a result, Dr. McLarney’s conclusion was that bond is feasible, “but it will require effective outreach/engagement to be viable and is not without risk.” Given the board’s and the district’s performance in communication skills this year regarding the bond and other incidents, this certainly will be a challenge.
The Bond Resolution
The remainder of the bond discussion focused on the last-minute redline changes to various aspects of the text that will become the official bond measure. Some of the specific items in the project list were added/deleted/changed in order to clarify their intent and match up with the ballot language. The ballot language itself was reordered to emphasize fixing leaky roofs and failing electrical systems over earthquake safety. There was some discussion on the specifics of how the bond will be sold to underwriters, but that decision was delayed until after the the election. I will certainly be watching how that process plays out. Just prior to the vote, board member Julie Hamill brought up some excellent points regarding trust in the district leadership and the way the state funds (or doesn’t fund) educational facilities. I highly recommend taking a few minutes to watch; it is right in line with my philosophy to be the shield and the sword for our district.
At the end of the discussion, the board voted on whether or not the bond measure will appear on the ballot. The vote passed 5-0, so we will see this bond measure on the ballot this November.
Health Class Opt-outs
This discussion should have been a quick review and vote to approve. Several months ago, the CSBA (California School Board Association) sent recommended changes to all of its member organizations to update school district regulations based on the California Healthy Youth Act. This Act updated the California Educational Code to require districts to provide comprehensive sexual health and HIV prevention education. It also provided for the opportunity for parents to opt their child out of class if they did not want them to participate. The version of the updated regulations initially proposed by the CSBA “went above and beyond the law to limit parental rights and choice” according to one school board member. Indeed, after the board’s first reading of this regulation several months back, the district’s legal counsel agreed with that board member and removed some of the restrictive language from the proposed local regulation. This updated regulation is what was presented for the final reading and approval.
In the discussion prior to the vote, board member Sara Deen suggested that allowing parents to opt out of certain portions of the class (such as gender identity) would be discriminatory. Board president Ami Gandhi agreed and recommended that the discussion be tabled to allow district staff to research the issue further. Superintendent Dr. Serrano stated that staff had already done the necessary research and that the regulation before the board that evening was their best recommendation. There seemed to be some confusion regarding a memo that had been written by the district’s legal counsel that opined and provided legal opinion on the matter. From the discussion, it was not clear if all the board members had read it, because their desire to return to the original CSBA language apparently ran counter to the memo.
Despite the apparent confusion, a vote was held to adopt the updated regulation, with the questionable CSBA language removed. Board members Linda Reid and Julie Hamill voted in favor. Board members Linda Kurt, Sara Deen, and board president Ami Gandhi voted against.
This result is disappointing. I’m not a lawyer, but the law seems pretty clear to me. California Educational Code 51938(a) states:
“A parent or guardian of a pupil has the right to excuse their child from all or part of comprehensive sexual health education, HIV prevention education, and assessments related to that education through a passive consent (“opt-out”) process. A school district shall not require active parental consent (“opt-in”) for comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education.” (Emphasis added)
By voting against this district regulation (and ostensibly planning to bring back the more restrictive CSBA version), board members Kurt and Deen and board president Gandhi are, in my opinion, exposing the district to potential litigation from parents who want the ability—as provided in California state law—to opt their child out of the classes they choose.
I’ve said often times that when I am on the board, I will act as the shield for our district. That means not blindly adopting policies and regulations that are recommended by the CSBA, especially if they run counter to the law. I applaud board members Hamill and Reid for trying to do the right thing for our district. I will be providing updates on this issue as it develops.
