Confusion and concern filled the room on Monday, Feb. 23, as the Battle Ground Public Schools Board of Directors debated whether to rescind Policy 1821, a standards policy for individual school directors adopted in October of last year.
The proposed removal of Policy 1821, introduced by Board Director Debbie Johnson, was placed on the agenda as an action item. Johnson said she intends to replace the current policy with a newly written version she believes is more clear and legally sound, though the proposed replacement was not included in the meeting materials.
Policy 1821 requires each board member to annually review the Washington State School Directors’ Association individual school director standards and assess their own conduct. It also outlines six major functions for collective board evaluation, including values and ethical behavior, leadership, communication, professional development, accountability and commitment to education for each and every student.
Johnson focused her concerns on language within the final section titled “Commitment to Education for Each and Every Student,” which includes prioritizing belonging and access, honoring diverse experiences and removing barriers to success.
“The statement in the policy says ‘Commitment to Education for Each and Every Student.’ The section represents a great legal and philosophical risk. This (introduces) compelled speech, promoting race-based decision making (and) encouraging ideological conformity. It conflicts with the parental rights law RCW 28A.605.005 and there’s a risk (of) viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment,” Johnson said.
The full policy referenced by Johnson reads as follows:
Individual school directors prioritize the success of each and every student in their district by:
Johnson, who said she provided staff with a replacement policy, emphasized that she was not opposed to standards, only to the way they are currently written. A potential replacement policy was not attached to Monday’s board meeting agenda, which only included the potential removal of the current policy.
“I'm not saying that we don't need a policy and I'm not saying that we don't need to be held accountable, but we … also all vowed, we made a vow to the state and to the public. So we are already held to a standard already,” she said. “The National Directors Association also has standards that we are held to, which is beyond this policy, so we are already held to a standard already.”
Board director Lorri Sibley questioned where the policy conflicted with state law.
“I don't see any of those things that you mentioned (or) where those things would be, that this policy would go against those … things,” she said.
“Well, the phrases are not unlawful, that's not what I'm saying,” Johnson responded. “I'm just simply saying these (areas) could be misunderstood or … make this policy not a good policy.”
Board president Terry Tate signaled agreement with Johnson’s concerns, noting the current policy had been approved in a 4-1 vote in October last year under a previous board makeup. He suggested the measure may not have received sufficient discussion before it was adopted. Directors Sibley and Marshall Marrott both expressed that rescinding the policy so soon after its approval was unnecessary.
“I read through the policy, I have zero concerns on how it’s written,” Marrott said. “I think that it holds us to a standard, I think it’s well written, well thought out to put students first, I think it would be irresponsible … to rescind something that just got put in. I see no purpose for it, and I think it's a waste of time. We really do have … bigger fish to fry right now.”
When asked by Marrott, staff clarified that the legal team has already vetted the current policy.
Student representative Itzel Contreras Montiel, a senior at Prairie High School, urged the board to consider revising the policy instead of starting a lengthy process as the district recently failed a third levy proposal in February. By April, the school board will have to approve $20 million in cuts should the district fail to pass a fourth proposal before the end of the year.
“We should be focusing right now on our budgeting, what we need to keep and what we don’t need to keep and what students want,” she said. “So if we’re just wasting time on rules that already should be here … I don’t agree that there’s certain wording that kind of contradicts the policy, but if there’s certain language that you want to change to make it a more legal policy, even though it’s already gone through the whole process to be legal, we can do that. I don’t think it’s beneficial to just waste more time on a whole new policy.”
Board Director Chris Grewell preferred tabling the discussion until a future meeting, providing the board time to review the proposed replacement of Policy 1821.
During public comment, which preceded board discussion, several speakers said they were surprised to see the policy on the agenda given the district’s financial challenges and what some described as declining public trust.
“I’m here tonight to express concern about the proposed rescission of the policy regarding individual school director standards,” Mary Mendoza-Haensel, president of the Battle Ground Education Association, said. “These standards are not symbolic. They define the ethical expectations of board service. They state that the school directors place students’ needs first, commit to high achievement for every student, and treat individuals with dignity and respect. They also model high education standards.”
Joshua Wilde, a member of the school district’s Citizens Advisory Committee, said he was surprised to see the policy’s potential rescission on the agenda, noting that the discussion takes valuable time away from the district’s financial issues.
“The district is in troubled times. We’ve had a triple levy failure. There’s a lack of public trust. The district and its various institutions, the administration, the labor and the school board, students and parents are anxious about the future of our schools,” he said.
He noted that board directors weighed the possibility of limiting public comments to one meeting a month on a Monday during a Feb. 9 meeting, which he said would weaken transparency.
“Now we’re discussing … eliminating the ‘standards for individual school directors’ policy. I fail to see the issues with this section as its currently stated, and with all the legitimate issues that this district is facing, I was surprised to find this on the agenda.”
The meeting agenda’s inclusion of potentially rescinding 1821 and the absence of a replacement policy caused concern among some attendees. Local school district resident Aly Strappazon said maintaining a cohesive policy was important for community members to understand the values and ethical policies board members hold themselves to.
“What has changed (since October)? Do you honestly think eliminating this policy is good for students, for building trust with families and the community? I can tell you it is not. Students have a code of conduct that is clear and easily accessible to the general public. Why should the board of directors, who are elected by the community to make decisions about and for our students, be any different?” she asked.
The board voted 4-1 to table the discussion and bring it back at a future meeting. Sibley cast the lone dissenting vote. Student representative Itzel Contreras Montiel abstained, while student representative Toby Nguyen voted pro in an advisory capacity.
The public has not yet seen the draft of the proposed replacement policy Johnson referenced during the meeting. The Reflector reached out to Johnson for clarification on the specific language she believes conflicts with state law and to obtain a copy of her proposed replacement policy, but did not receive a response by press time.
