On SPJUSD Recent Policy Non-Update

To all the people within the Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified School District (SPJUSD):

Something that the SPJUSD does as a part of their regular work is to update their Board Policy Manual (which you can access online at https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/Policy/PolicyListing.aspx?S=36030473). To do this, they receive mandated and/or optional policy changes from the California School Boards Association, which keeps track of changes in the law, in scientific and social research, and in best teaching practices.

An occasion for such a policy update came before the board at its June 10 meeting, for a first reading, and again at its June 24 meeting, for a second reading and potential vote. Between the two of us, we attended the discussion of the proposed updates at both meetings.

In the updates presented to the board were two that relate to classroom instruction: Science Instruction; and, History-Social Science Instruction. The first was already present in the board’s policy manual; the second would have been a new addition to the manual. It needs to be noted that both recommended policies were presented as being optional.

It was evident to us, at the June 10 meeting, that there was immediate animus toward these two recommendations: added wording in the Science Instruction policy; and, the entirely new History-Social Science Instruction. At that meeting, one of our school superintendents recommended that, before a decision was made by the board, teachers should be consulted for their input.

Between the two of us, we sent a letter to each board member, urging their adoption of the recommendations, and also an e-mail to each board member, asking to what, specifically, they objected. We received no response. So, at the June 24 meeting, we again raised the question.

The first rationale presented was the somewhat specious argument that adding the 606 new words included in the two recommendations would make the policy manual (which, physically, is contained in four binders — but also available online) too long. The next rationale was that, in regards to the Science Instruction, people are divided about climate change, and, therefore, to state that science education should focus on “the place of humans in ecological systems, the causes and effects of climate change and the methods to mitigate and adapt to climate change” would be inappropriate. The third rationale given was that our schools should teach children how to think, not what to think. The new policy relating to History-Social Science Instruction was never addressed.

Again, one of our superintendents urged the board to delay making a decision until teachers could be consulted. However, that advice was completely ignored, a motion was made, seconded, and passed by a vote of 3-1 (with one member absent). The motion was to adopt the Science Instruction policy without any of the recommended changes (thus, changing nothing in the district policy manual), to not adopt the History-Social Science Instruction policy, and to adopt the remaining (uncontroversial) policies.

What is intentionally omitted from the board’s policy manual is as important as what is included. It tells the teachers, students, and community what the board members believe, how they think, and how they want to shape what our students learn. In this case, they have clearly stated that the scientifically-based reality of climate change and its impact on all of us is not to be discussed, and that an “appreciation of different ethnicities, the wise use of natural resources, and the personal management of personal finance” are not appropriate learnings for our students. Additionally, and, in our opinion, possibly the most important reason behind the board’s vote, is the fear that students will be taught to “foster critical thinking” and to “develop…their skills in chronological and spatial thinking, research, and historical interpretation”. These are essentials for today’s students who will be our leaders, care-givers, creators and producers of the next years. These are essential tools for the curious, who will be the problem-solvers of many of our conundrums.

If anyone would like to read for themselves the entirety of the recommended policies, you can ask for them from the district/county office of education, or, alternately, we would be happy to share them with you.

Finally, some might ask why, since our daughters graduated from Downieville High School more than twenty-five years ago, any of this matters to us: “You don’t have children in school, so why do you care?” Our answer is that, according to the end-of-the-year enrollment report, we have 416 children in these schools.

Linda & Paul Guffin

Downieville