At the last board meeting, board member and chair of the policy committee Josie Barnhart introduced a motion to disband Student Voice, a group organized in 2022 to provide students a chance to be a part of policy conversations.
Barnhart made her motion during a discussion about whether to allow Student Voice to weigh in on proposed new professional standards of conduct, which critics have said could be politicized against teachers or used to micromanage their lesson plans. Rather than allow Student Voice to present to the board's policy committee, Barnhart moved to eliminate the group altogether.
The vote failed for a lack of a second — and the board later voted 5-2 to allow Student Voice to present, with Barnhart and board member Pat Bradford dissenting.
During Tuesday's policy committee meeting, Barnhart apologized, not for her behavior, specifically, but for “how Tuesday [January 9] went.”
High school junior Aparna Dhulipala had five minutes to detail to the board their research about 7205, more specifically, about Section Z which outlines what teachers can or can’t discuss in the classroom.
Student Voice reported that of the 60 students they interviewed, a majority of them (60%) opposed the policy entirely or had selective concerns about the 13 tenants of it. (*Note, you can find the students' research at the bottom of this report.)
Of the 33% of students who supported the proposed policy in its entirety, 40% said it would ensure a ‘neutral class environment’ and 40% said it would ‘prevent discrimination.' Another 20% said they were unclear as to the reason for their supporting it.
Dhulipala said that students “generally suppor[t] the idea that educational setting should be a neutral space where there is a balanced and impartial learning experience” and that they “generally suppor[t] efforts to ensure that all students are treated equally and fairly, and that no group is portrayed negatively or stereotypically in teaching materials and discussions.”
For the majority of students who took issue with Section Z, 56% said it could comprise educational integrity, 31% said it would prevent analytical dialogue, and 14% said it would take away professional autonomy.
The group recorded one student who addressed two concepts forbidden by Section Z (numbers 7 and 8 in the section's list of 13). Number 7 is "a meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist," and number 8 is "the United States was created by members of a particular race or sex for the purpose of oppressing members of another race or sex."
The student said, "the wording of points 7 and 8, in particular, is questionable, as it disregards the United States' history of slavery, the role that racist ideologies played in the formation of the country, and continued issues of systemic racism.” Other students, she said, want to “acknowledg[e] the importance of having uncomfortable conversations.”
Dhulipala highlighted another student who said, “ignoring our mistakes from the past will only open up room for error in the future. Students need to be taught the truth about our country and its history, whether good or bad.”
At the end of Dhulipala’s presentation, she said that based on the data they had collected Student Voice suggested that the board needed to review, points 7, 8, and 11 — which forbids discussing the idea that "the rule of law does not exist, but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups."
Student Voice asked whether these were necessary to include because “the majority of student surveyed took issue with [these] on the basis that it prevents student exposure to important historical concepts, limits opportunities for critical thinking and discussion in the classroom, and prevents teachers from exercising their professional judgment and expertise.”
Board Member Stephanie Kraybill called Section Z “an intimidation factor” for teachers and staff, saying it put them “on notice” and that this policy language wasn’t based on any state statutes.
"I don’t want our teachers' professional judgment being called into question, being doubted, [...] They know what they are supposed to be doing," Kraybill said.
Kraybill sent WHQR the guidance she received from the North Carolina School Boards Association on Section Z. A spokesperson for NCSBA said they don’t have a policy like this one, but Cabarrus County has a similar one — and Camden, Pitt, Moore, and Lee counties have some iteration of the language found in this section.
Barnhart disagreed with Kraybill, saying that the policy allows for “flexible fidelity” and that the proposal wasn’t meant “to be an attack, but it’s an expectation” that staff would follow these guidelines.
She added that this policy helps to prevent teachers from overstepping boundaries.
“The reality is our staff have to ensure that our teachers are in line with what they are supposed to be doing. [...] To have a policy in place that proactively lists things, I don’t think is a bad thing to do,” Barnhart said.
Kraybill also asked for clarity as to what “flexible fidelity” was — Barnhart said the committee “had reached their time” discussing 7205.
Ultimately, Student Voice's suggestions weren't incorporated and the policy moved forward as written in a 2-1 committee vote, with Kraybill dissenting. It's now headed to a full board vote in February.
At one point, board member Pat Bradford asked Dhulipala directly why the students had a problem with point 8 — banning discussion of the idea that the United States was, essentially, founded to oppress a particular group. Bradford said having this line in the policy would prevent “lone person or five lone people from teaching these things.”
Dhulipala responded, “Ms. Bradford, I’m not an expert on what the school district is or isn’t teaching; I was just here to report what the students were concerned about in this policy.”
Bradford also stated without evidence that schools don’t teach civics, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution anymore. Right after that, Kraybill asked Chief Academic Officer Dr. Patrice Faison if they taught these subjects, and she responded that the district does.
After the meeting, Dhulipala sent the following statement to WHQR: “I am grateful that the board gave us the chance to present at the meeting today. Student Voice tried our best to accurately convey the opinions of the student body to the board, and it was rewarding to be able to share the information that we worked hard to collect these past few weeks. I hope the board will take it into consideration as they continue to deliberate on Policy 7205.”
The policy committee also voted to send policies about the selection of instructional materials (3200) and parental inspection of and objection to instructional materials (3210) for a full board vote in February.
January 2024 Student Voice survey by Ben Schachtman on Scribd
