DSD Sensitive Material Policy open for Public Comment
This week the Davis School Board met and discussed their Sensitive Materials Policy. This policy is a good start, but needs some adjustments. It is now available for public comment. Please visit this link, read through the policy and share your thoughts with the DSD Board via the email link. The Board needs to know what your priorities are, and where we need to adjust the policy. You are welcome to share this link with friends and neighbors as well. Public feedback is available until 11:59 PM on August 14, 2022. Please make sure you send in your comments before then! The Board will discuss comments received and vote on the policy in their meeting on August 16. I encourage you all to attend and will send out more details as we get closer.
https://www.davis.k12.ut.us/district/administration/policy-manual
(Click on “41-202 School Library Media Centers Policy”. If anyone needs help finding the policy, they can do a search on the homepage for “policy” and it should be the first one to pop up. They can also do a google search for “Davis School District policy.” It is also found under “quick links” on the home page then by clicking “policy manual” from the District website.)
I have gone through the policy and made notes of my thoughts below. This includes my efforts to explain some of the legal jargon, and to share my opinions on various aspects of the policy.
I’ve noted the section of the policy where applicable:
There are two committees outlined: one is called a School Library Committee (or “School Committee”) who is responsible for the selection and maintenance of library materials going forward. They do not conduct reviews of library materials. They are tasked with approving or rejecting new materials selected for that school library. This committee has at least five members, and could include more: one administrator, one librarian, and at least three parents. (2.1.6) One parent from the school community council, one from the school’s PTA/PTO, and one appointed by the school librarian. This last one is concerning to me—why have the librarian responsible for choosing a parent? That seems to create favoritism and a lack of representation. Additional parents are selected by a lottery process.
This lottery process is concerning as well. I question the validity of a lottery because it leaves too much room for questionable practices, so what if we just had a list of parents who sign up for the committee, and go through them in order of when they signed up? It could be more transparent than a lottery and provide clarity of practice for all patrons. We could have a list on the website of parents, listed by first and last initial so as to keep anonymity as much as possible.
2.1.7: The School Committee can also include two students, with parental permission. This makes me nervous. I’m absolutely in favor of students learning about and maintaining their school libraries, but I am not sure this is an appropriate use of their input, and I worry that they would feel pressure from the school administrators, teachers, and parents.
2.3: an online catalog that is accessible to everyone is a great idea! I appreciate the work and information that will be supplied in this catalog. We need the Board to make sure it is easy to find on the District website.
an online catalog also makes it easier for parents to prevent their child from accessing material that the parents deem inappropriate (3.2.1). There is a simple process outlined, and I think this is a great solution for individual decisions.
Section 4 is where the Sensitive Materials Review Process is outlined. Read it carefully!
This is where the second committee is mentioned. It is called the “Review Committee”
(as a side note: I love using the term “request” rather than “challenge”—it decreases any antagonism and enlists the intelligence of those serving on the committee, rather than pitting requesters against committee members!)
All review requests are handled at the district level, by a Review Committee of no less than 7 people. Those seven people include:
a facilitator selected by the District Teaching and Learning Director (I believe the Director is currently Belinda Kuck, so she would be selecting the facilitator). The facilitator oversees and supports the process, but does not vote.
one administrator from the district or school, selected by Ms. Kuck
one licensed teacher who is teaching English Language Arts or another relevant subject, selected by Ms. Kuck
one librarian, selected by Ms. Kuck (because she selects all the employees on the Review Committee, I hope she will rotate through interested employees)
at least four parents
one parent nominated by the school community council. Those names go into a “pool” and two parents are selected by lottery. Again, I think it would be better to select parents in the order that their names are submitted, and keep the process transparent and clear. (and again, list them with just their initials for public view, the district can maintain the list with their full names.)
parents can submit a request to serve on the Review Committee each year. Two parents from that group of interested parents are selected (again by lottery, which I would advocate changing to be from a list in order of recommendation, or date submitted, or something similar). If there aren’t enough parents interested, remaining spots will be filled by the pool from the community council.
Ms. Kuck will determine how many Review Committees are needed to process the requests received. They can choose to serve for more than one review or be disbanded at the conclusion of a review.
I’m not sure giving the Committee the option to choose is a good idea. I realize that we don’t know the extent of how many requests will be received, or how many parents will want to participate. I think it would be better to set up a predictable term limit for the Review Committee (maybe two reviews, since each has the potential to take 60 days each?) and then disband and create a new Committee as the requests demand. This facilitates community involvement and prevents one Committee from making all the decisions.
4.2.1: Parents can only request reviews for books at schools where their children attend. Employees can request for schools where they work, district employees can request for schools where they have stewardship, school board members can request for the whole district. This is fine, and makes sense.
4.2.2 c:Each parent can submit up to two requests per year. That means that if you have multiple books at your school, you will need to find some friends to coordinate the requests for that school.
4.3: I appreciate that they included a timeline. I believe it is longer than the committee probably needs, but it seems better to be safe and give the committee appropriate time to thoroughly review the book. I appreciate that the policy includes verbiage so that if the review process is taking longer than the timeline provided, communication is prompt with the person who submitted the request (4.3.1).
4.3.2: At the board meeting on Tuesday, August 2, 2022, the Board voted to remove the “Restricted” option, so the materials reviewed would either be kept or removed. This is a great idea and streamlines the process for everyone, and also removes a huge burden that our librarians would have to shoulder to make a “restricted” action work. I would encourage everyone to comment to that end, and ensure the removal of the “restricted” option happens.
4.3.3: Some books might be ok at a high school level, but not at the lower levels. I’m fine with that. The second part is a great idea— that the decision to remove a book would apply to all schools in the district.
4.3.5: I’m not sure this is going to be included, as they mentioned at the Board meeting that the three year limit was from an earlier process, but it is worth questioning in your comments. Because parents have a 2-book limit, if one gets retained, I think the parents would have to decide if it’s worth using their second one for another request, or requesting another book. I don’t think we need the 3-year limit. Again, worth mentioning in your comments so that it is on the District’s radar.
4.4.2 and 4.4.3: patrons can submit written comment on a material under review within the first 15 days of its review process. This is a great way to involve more parents and community support for questionable materials.
4.4.3 through 4.4.10 are wonderful descriptions of the laws and rules by which the review committee’s decisions must be made. I am grateful that they are articulated so clearly!
4.5.1: This is one of the items that I think could be changed. If a book is under review, I think it should be removed from circulation until the Review Committee’s decision has been made. I don’t think we should allow students to access questionable materials while it is being reviewed. I would suggest the books be pulled off ALL schools’ shelves for the duration of the Committee’s review process.
4.6.1: a person submitting a request can include on that request to remain confidential. GREAT IDEA!
4.6.2: a Review Committee member can also request their name remain confidential. ALSO A GREAT IDEA!!
4.7.1: Committee decisions can be appealed, and the Davis School Board will be the appeals committee. That decision will be made in a Board meeting that is open to the public.
4.7.13 (it says 4.6.13 but I’m sure they mean to have a 7 there): this is another issue—the three year limit. I don’t think we need to worry about that, and if it becomes an issue, as this policy is a work in progress, it could be added later. Again, it’s worth mentioning so that it will be removed.
5.1.1: The District will maintain a library media website with the forms available. Hopefully it will be easy to find!
Overall, I think this is a good policy, and I’m excited to see it in action and see if the committees formed can be balanced and function for the good of our students.
PLEASE send your comments to the DSD Board before August 14th! You can use the link on the District webpage or email them to: policycomment@dsdmail.net
Please share this with your friends and neighbors—it is critical that we all contribute to protect our children!!