Homeschoolers spread Valentine’s smiles

policy language that is too broad or undefined; and inject rather than limit personal bias into the schools, just focusing on the personal biases of those in powers.

Chiara Hoyt, speaking on behalf of the Powhatan Chapter of the NAACP, said the organization “vigorously” opposed the proposed changes. Expecting prior parental notification for any controversial subject that comes up is “both problematic and unrealistic.”

“Teachers cannot be expected to teach a full curriculum at any grade level if they cannot be trusted to speak with children about race, gender, religion or anything that falls under the category of ideology, all of which remain undefined and essentially act as a moving bar that can be manipulated to fit the needs of whoever is implementing this policy,” she said.

“There appears to be a movement afoot to ensure that our children are not exposed to anything a subset of adults deem controversial, but I would argue that it is not controversy we seek to avoid, but control that we are seeking to exert,” Hoyt said. “This is, however, a misguided and fear-based approach that will not lead us to the outcome any of us seek.”

Powhatan High School teacher Nashae Jones said it feels like her lived experiences as a black woman are in themselves considered controversial and that minority students are going to feel ostracized for simply being who they are. She spoke against the “unerring push for censorship” of books, especially since the “majority of the book challenges involve titles that showcase minorities and people who are part of the LGBTQ community.”

“The policy and other policies such as these bring educators to a moral crossroads. It is abusive to expect educators to compromise their morality to kowtow to bigotry and fear,” she said. “I have been asked multiple times to see the other side of things, and I am sure that people have been asked to see the other side of things before. But we are talking about racism and homophobia and bigotry and I won’t.”

Fellow teacher Greg Ownby said it is almost impossible not to talk about controversial issues when you teach history and government, and the proposed language is so vague that it has teachers living in fear of getting in trouble for being a decent teacher.

Ownby pointed out that he is up for recertification this year and to be allowed to continue to teach, he had to know how to use an AED, perform CPR, use an EpiPen, be able to recognize child and abuse and report it, recognize dyslexia, handle blood borne pathogens, protect his students if an active shooter attacks the school and get them to safety if there is a tornado.

“If you can trust me to do that, you should trust me to be able to teach,” he said.

Former school board member James Kunka asked the school board to leave the policy alone, saying nothing has changed to warrant including this targeted language except the makeup of the school board. He said he was a school board member for nine years and the board never felt the need to change this policy. “It served us.”

His wife, Heather Kunka, who is a teacher, shared a story about her cousin, who went to a Catholic school and felt different from her classmates and alone. She committed suicide. “This is how our students react when the adults in their lives can say nothing. Her life is gone. I expect the school board to protect all children – every single one of them. It is your job. Open discussions about controversial issues save lives and create a better society. Leave the policy alone,” she said.

Bilal Raychouni, who is in his first year teaching at Powhatan Middle School, said teaching subjects like coding, robotics and game design, there are parts of their histories that would be considered controversial because of the experiences of their creators. He talked about how smart and inquisitive his students are and how he has been losing sleep over a fear that “whatever I teach, they will find the six degrees that separate my subject from something that could be considered controversial and will get me kicked out after less than a year of teaching.”

“How am I expected to bring my best when I can’t be my best? I want to appreciate my school board, but I show up every day for my kids. I need you to show up for me,” he said.

Board discussion

During the discussion on the policy by board members, Vicki

Hurt said the intent of the policy was never distrust of teachers or to get them in trouble. It was focused on “controversial issues coming in to the classroom where not appropriate.” She said parents have a right to know if their “students’ education is deviating from the published curricula and the standards of learning provided by the state.” She also talked about the need to be “laser focused” on recovering the learning gaps still being felt because of the COVID-19 pandemic and not get bogged down in controversial issues unrelated to the class.

James Taylor noted he had read through the comments and heard what speakers said during the meeting, with people worried the proposed policy would limit freedom of speech, fosters bias to insensitive opinions and harm instructional freedom in the classroom. None of those things are what he intended in the proposal, he said.

Instead, he cited a culture that is hypersexualized and traditional beliefs and values being “under attack on every front.”

“Perhaps this culture war would be OK if it was only relegated to adults, but there seems to be an intentional strategic targeting of young students, of children, the next generation in all these areas,” he said. “I see part of my role as sitting board meeting as a gatekeeper, as a protector of this generation that we are tasked with the stewardship of their education. Setting policy is largely the way we do that. We set policies to protect students so that they are safe when they are here and they get a good, fine education.”

Valarie Ayers said she has been against the proposed policy language since it was introduced and wanted it removed. She refuted a comment Hurt made that “we are all the same,” saying everyone has a different lived experience and “we can’t make a policy that pretends like everyone is the same.”

She pointed out controversial topics and parental rights are spelled out in Policy IIA, which the board recently worked on in a workshop and is expected to vote on next month. She also said Powhatan teachers are highly educated professionals who “know beyond a shadow of a doubt what they are allowed or supposed to teach.”

Out of respect for all of the people who took the survey about the policy and the community members who came out to speak at the meeting, she made a motion to remove the language Taylor had proposed. She said there was nothing else to talk about; “the people have spoken.”

After hearing the comments from the public in the survey and public comment period, Kim Hymel also said she wanted to remove the language.

Both Hurt and Taylor wanted to delay the vote to clean up the language and make it better.

Ayers instead made her motion to take the new proposed language out, saying she didn’t want to leave it in the policy even for that night.

The board then had its 3-2 vote in favor of taking the new language out. It was followed by a failed 2-3 vote in the same split when Hurt made a motion to revisit the policy in a work session. Only Taylor supported that motion.