District 518 Board tables classroom display policy following public comment

Nov. 2—WORTHINGTON — In a move that acknowledges deep community concerns, members of the District 518 Board of Education opted to table action on proposed policy 606.1 during a special meeting Thursday morning.

The policy, brought forth by Superintendent John Landgaard, has sparked debate over expression and inclusivity in the classroom.

Several staff members, as well as parents and other community members attended the 7 a.m. board meeting, where Landgaard intended to present the first reading of the policy, which aims to regulate classroom materials considered controversial.

Landgaard explained the intent of the policy was to guide future handling of classroom expression and address parent concerns that surfaced after a dispute over flag displays in a high school classroom.

"Policy 606.1 addresses external pieces of curriculum, or symbols, or things that either tie or don't tie to the curriculum, and hopes to address the issue that has popped up with parent concerns," Landgaard said. "This would be a policy which guides how we address things in the future."

He then proceeded to advise school board members that they did not have to listen to public comment unless a motion to do so was carried by board members.

"We don't have to actually allow them to speak," Landgaard said. "It's a board decision. They'll need a motion, and they get two minutes to say what they need to say."

District 518 Counselor Carrie Adams, as well as Equity Advocates Group co-founder Jesse Nitzschke, were among district staff to provide testimony at the meeting, speaking on the potential mental health repercussions for students and emphasizing the need for a policy fostering "inclusivity rather than exclusion."

"When we say we welcome all, do we really mean all? And when we do, how are we showing that? When students enter our buildings, is there representation for them," Adams asked, "People who come from marginalized groups ... are not included in all. We know what happens in history with those groups. I caution us to tread lightly in this direction.

"I've worked in this district for many years and am very proud — we have wonderful diversity," she added. "I fear this policy is moving us in a direction where we can't value and appreciate that diversity in an open manner. We have staff and students alike who are now fearful because of what has happened within the last month or so. It's heartbreaking to see that happen within our district."

"If a student doesn't feel safe in their natural environment in school, or like they can't talk with their teachers, it could lead to severe mental health consequences later down the road," added Nitzschke. "We all need to support students, and this is tying our hands a bit. We need to ask ourselves, why is the identity and self-expression of students and teachers being considered a controversial topic?"

Gillian Singler, a parent, highlighted the potential for the policy's broad language to lead to censorship and a non-inclusive environment, counter to the district's mission.

"This policy's use of the ambiguous phrase 'controversial issues' ... allows a potential complaint to frame social inclusion as 'controversial' — goes against the district's own mission that claims to want 'all learners to be successful citizens,'" Singler said. "The ability to engage in meaningful interactions about controversial issues should be one of the defining characteristics of citizens who will someday vote in a democracy."

"Passing a policy limiting the expression of any topic considered 'controversial' is not a neutral approach; It is an exclusionary approach," Singler shared.

Board member Erin Schutte Wadzinski questioned the rush to implement new guidelines, advocating instead for a careful review and suggesting edits to provide clearer guidance for administration.

"I received calls and messages throughout the weeks from various perspectives on this particular topic, and the main message I heard is 'please take a close look at this' for one reason or another," Schutte Wadzinski said. "There's a lot of responsibility put on building administrators in this new policy. If that's the type of policy that we are going to support, I think it's necessary to give those admins very specific guidance so that they feel they are equipped to take on that responsibility."

Schutte Wadzinski went on to propose the Tinker Test for use in the discussion, a criterion set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court following the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.

The test proposes questions such as, "Did the speech or expression of the student materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school?" and "Might it reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities?"

"The Tinker Test provides administrators with a guide to approach challenging issues ... expressions can be limited in schools if those expressions materially or substantially disrupt the ability to learn and succeed in schools," Schutte Wadzinski said. "My hope in doing this is that it provides additional guidance to administrators and to find some middle ground for the board that isn't moving the needle in one direction or another."

Adding to the critique, board member Tom Prins echoed the sentiment for a more considered approach, suggesting the policy should first pass through the board's instructional committee.

"Can we table this instead of acting in a rush? Have actual discussions on rewriting this policy?" Prins asked.

Board member Matt Widboom further added to the uncertainty with moving forward so soon, stating, "I don't like reactionary policy, and that's where we're at. I heard from all kinds of folks, and almost every one included the word 'side.' There's only one 'side' in education, that side is to educate our kids, and that has got to be the goal of this."

Board discussion underscored the complexity of balancing inclusive educational environments with diverse viewpoints. Steve Schnieder advocated for fairness and inclusion of all perspectives, while Schutte Wadzinski proposed a draft of a gender inclusion policy for future discussion.

Amid calls for a measured approach, Prins and board treasurer Lori Dudley motioned to table the policy discussion, advocating for further input from the school community. The board agreed to continue discussion at the Instructional Committee later in the month, and to schedule an evening listening session to better accommodate public engagement.

Landgaard acknowledged the need for continued refinement of policy, indicating an understanding that adjustments may be necessary over time as the district evolves.

"Policy, no matter how well you do it, will continue to be adjusted in the future. The goal of the policy is to get it as close as you want to the beginning, but there will be adjustments. Times change," Landgaard said. "You won't get it 100% right the very first time."

The call for a task force and the inclusion of building principals in the conversation points to a more bottom-up approach to the policy's development.

Education Minnesota-Worthington President Jodi Hansen, among others, has pressed for the involvement of those who are on the front lines of education, insisting that their insights are crucial for crafting effective and practical guidelines. Other members voiced concerns about the potential for bias in the hypothetical committee's composition.

"I don't want to overload the committee with people with a fixed opinion," Schnieder later cautioned.

The board's next steps will involve careful planning of the listening session and a subsequent instructional committee meeting to ensure a diverse range of voices are heard.

In the interim, the pause on policy 606.1 provides an opportunity for reflection and dialogue that Landgaard states will "hopefully create a situation where everybody is happy in the end."

In other business, the board:

* Discussed the potential expansion or sunsetting of a cooperative agreement with Heron Lake-Okabena. The current cooperative agreement stems primarily from low local participation numbers, according to Landgaard.

Joni Reitmeier, coach for the Worthington SWAGs gymnastic team, advocated for the continued inclusivity of athletes from other districts, as their own school facilities do not have the resources to have their own programs such as for hockey or gymnastics.

"The Worthington kids don't see the others as competitors," Reitmeier said. "They see them as teammates."

A motion was made by Schnieder and Prins to proceed with the expansion request.

* Discussed revisions to the facility rental rate forms. Landgaard suggested further adjustment and discussion. A motion was made by Schutte Wadzinski and Prins to keep the document as is, with Widboom being the only dissenter during the vote.

* Discussed the option of repairing the existing ice arena or beginning construction of a new one. Landgaard reiterated that no financial commitments have yet been made by the school district.

Widboom said leading the ice arena effort "should not be the role of the superintendent," and suggested forming a new organization for support of the issue.