There are so many things to consider when looking at what a school board trustee is responsible for. While most of the job relates to budget decisions and things that seem more procedural to the public, there are the occasional hot-button issues that a school district faces. With these considerations so high in the public awareness right now, it is important to clarify my position on these issues. If you have questions about anything or have heard about something you aren't sure about regarding my positions, please reach out. This is not an exhaustive list - just a start.
The question of parent rights has become very heated in recent years. Parent rights, in my opinion, are crucial to student success. What does this mean? Parents have the right to know their child’s teacher’s credentials and/or licensure status. Parents have the right to view curriculum, know when their child is at risk, a right to information about their student (records), and the right to homeschool should they choose to do so among many other rights as parents.
I think parents should be in the driver’s seat on many other issues as well, like when their children are tested for illicit drugs or what books the parent wants to discuss with their child. To me, these are rights that I want to hold as a parent and do NOT want the school system or government dictating those for me.
Any restrictions on free speech/expression should be done with extreme care and caution. Living in a free society means we will, at times, encounter speech or expression we do not agree with, that’s the deal. In order for my speech and expression to be protected others have a duty of non-interference. In this particular instance, regarding obscene materials, we actually have case law outlining how to determine if materials are obscene or not. I think we should use this as a test for materials in the public schools.
The Supreme Court of the United States held in the case Miller v. California (1973) that for materials to be considered obscene they must satisfy ALL THREE of the following conditions:
Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law.
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
What does this mean for the school board? We should take great caution in restricting the free expression of one group because at an unknown later date, there might be a time when your own side is suppressed due to these arbitrary standards that are subjective. Who then becomes the arbiter of truth? What exactly is obscene?
This would end with the library having such a limited selection of books that it actually benefits us all to follow the test provided in the Miller decision.
Now, let’s also consider the pragmatic approach: if we bring light to these sensitive materials, I believe we draw more curiosity and appeal to them. There’s a term for this we use in political science: the Streisand effect. Essentially by attempting to suppress things the unintended consequence is that the censored material becomes popularized. Simply put, if we said nothing about these books, the vast majority of kids would probably not read them anyway.
I think the most important thing we can do as educators or board members is to make it clear that marginalized students are welcome in our schools by displaying inclusivity and leading by example. When the board deliberately removed certain protected classes from the language in policy, as benign as the intentions may have been, it did send a message to certain members of the community. Aside from that, it was a waste of time when the board could have been working on other solutions to larger problems like staff retention and student success. Was there a community outcry to change the policy? Was there a specific legal reason to change it? If the answer to those questions is no, why open the board up to unnecessary controversy that inevitably undermines the board’s legitimacy?
Moving forward, in my own classroom I ensure that all students are welcome to share their personality and individuality without judgment. Not one group gets special treatment over another and every student must treat each other with dignity and respect irrespective of their own personal opinions and beliefs. The caveat to this is where it becomes a distraction to the learning environment, such as wearing a button that lights up or makes noise. So long as your expression and individuality does not impede the learning environment, be yourself! The board should act similarly.
Federal regulations regarding Title IX are to be followed, as it is federal law. As a board member, I would follow all state and federal regulations regarding school policies.
The first thing I would do is send out an anonymous form in which staff could answer without fear of repercussion. The questions would be: 1. Are you thinking about leaving, 2. Are you actively looking at different districts?, and 3. What we can do to help you stay in FCSD #1?
Studies show that staff retention is directly related to student success. Having high levels of staff turnover gives students a sense of instability and uneasiness (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0002831212463813).
I have directly spoken to several district staff members, both veteran teachers and new ones, and overwhelmingly, the common complaint is low teacher pay. Again, studies show that districts that compensate teachers fairly and adequately not only have less turnover, but show higher rates of student success (https://journalistsresource.org/education/school-teacher-pay-research/). It should come as no surprise, though, that when districts can attract a larger pool of teachers in which to hire from, they will inevitably get more and often better qualified candidates applying for those jobs. It’s simple numbers.
To quote a current educator in our district (who will remain anonymous), “Lander, at one time, could get away with low pay because you got to live in Lander. Now, new teachers can’t even afford housing here, so why come?”
Another point of contention among staff is the high cost of insurance. My own wife, this last year began, to pay out of pocket for health insurance through the district, which was provided at no charge in previous years. This policy hurts the individual but helps families on plans which have significantly higher premiums. Here’s a solution: if an employee has a spouse who can provide insurance (our own personal case) and they elect to drop coverage, give that employee some of that savings the district would have, OR provide an HSA for those employees.
To retain classified staff, we could implement a similar policy or have them elect to receive no benefits in exchange for higher base pay. Some individuals in the community might already receive those benefits, so a higher base pay is more attractive, but because this option does not exist, they do not apply.
I sometimes hear “well, schools on the reservation pay more,” and this is true. Lander does not have the revenue streams or impact aid that reservation schools receive; therefore, we must be creative and fiscally responsible about how we spend our money. Either way, at the end of the day, if we take care of staff, our students will be more successful.
The drug testing policy recently implemented, in my opinion, is a clear violation of a student’s due process rights. We have a system in the United States where we are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. When we force students to submit urine samples to a government entity to prove their innocence, that is about as draconian and intrusive as it gets. Talk about government overreach!
I have received an outpouring of opposition from constituents asking me if it is legal. Is it allowed by law? Yes, both federal and state statutes allow for drug testing of students in activities and was upheld and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the following cases:
Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995)
Board of Education v. Earls (2002)
Both of the above cases hinge on the violation of a student’s right to unreasonable search and seizure, which can be found in the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. The courts held that because students can opt-out of activities and are not required for graduation, these drug tests are permissible. That’s the reason the board stopped there. Would they have implemented a district wide test if permitted? I can’t say, but I can tell you that I am unequivocally against mandatory random drug testing of students.
Going back to a pragmatic approach to this policy, I would look at the cost. The vendor, Sport Safe (which can be found here: http://sportsafe.com/) stated that the cost of each test will be $31. This will add up quickly and will cost the district tens of thousands of dollars each year. This money can be used in better ways like hiring a counselor or a social worker where students can go talk, feel safe, and get the help they need. Treat the root cause of the problem, not the symptom.
And then there’s the question of effectiveness. Does testing students deter drug use? This question is harder to answer, but if we look at recent studies the effectiveness is within the statistical margin of error meaning that we simply don’t know. Seems like a lot of money to spend on something we aren’t even sure if it works or not.
The district should be transparent, open, and honest about policies and their implementation. The other piece of this puzzle is the board working together with the community and not the two against each other. At the end of the day, I believe the district and the board have the best interests of children at heart and we should work together to meet those goals. We should lead by example and work together to solve tough problems. We might not always agree on how to get there, but I feel that we can always be amenable to finding solutions that represent all parties and foster an environment of growth and kindness.