School Board says “NO-tify” to Parental Permission at January 20 Meeting

A common concern expressed by those who spoke at the January 6 public hearing both for and against Ricochet River, was parental permission for their own student. So why did the school board take a district review committee recommendation of retaining with parental permission, and change it to retaining with notification?

• Director West made a motion to retain Ricochet River with notification.
• Director Gillispie voiced his concern the book may not be appropriate for all students, and that parental consent be required on an “opt-in” basis as a condition of his vote.
• Director Merrick shared his opinion that the passages in the book are not appropriate for K – 12. He was the lone dissenting vote.
• Chairman Quilliam said he believes the decision is best left to the district review committee, then he voted not to accept the recommendation as presented by the committee.

What does parental “notification” mean? We don’t know, the board didn’t explain. The details were left to the staff to figure out, and they’ll “notify” us when they’re finished. In this case it is spelled “KNOW?-tify” meaning we don’t know what they decided.

What did the public think about this? Well, we don’t know that either, because the public was not allowed to address this issue even during the time set aside for citizens to address issues. At some point we expect the board, or more likely the staff, will notify us of how we feel about this.

Given the opportunity to speak:

• We would have pointed out to the board that in the West Linn-Wilsonville school district, Ricochet River is only allowed as an optional book in 12th Grade English.
• We would have again stated our position that while we believe the language is not appropriate, affirmative “Opt-In” consent from the parent should be required in order for a student to participate.
• And we would have suggested contacting Ricochet River author Robin Cody, about a soon to be released version of the book which has been edited to remove the language at issue. We commend Mr. Cody for listening to the concerns of those who have challenged his books (here and in other districts) and making changes to the language more appropriate. That way, there wouldn’t have to be parental “permission” or “notification”.

Permission is necessary only because these books are curriculum which contain objectionable language, particularly explicit descriptions of teenage sex. You can view the excerpts here.

You won’t find these excerpts on the district’s web site. In fact, this book was not listed on a “Team Agreement” sent home to students by teachers addressing the reading materials in their subjects, which both the parent and the student were required to sign and return. Other books were listed – Ricochet River – was not. It also was not presented or made available at the open house. Other books were presented – Ricochet River – was not.

Teachers have not felt it important to “notify” or get permission from parents. At the public hearing they described parental permission slips as “de facto censorship” because they may be reluctant to use a novel that requires so much “administration”. Getting consent from parents about their student reading explicit sexual content is “censorship”? Actually, it’s called “Consent-sorship”. Parents ultimately have the right to determine whether their student should participate. And while we may disagree on the appropriateness of the explicit sexual content, we can all agree that parents should be made fully aware of the content (not just notified) AND their consent should be required in order for their student to participate. That’s how it is handled in sex education classes. That’s how it should be handled when books contain explicit sexual references.

It is much easier to “notify” than it is to get “permission.” There is also a lot less accountability. Ricochet River was brought to the attention of the administration and English department at Clackamas High School two years ago, assurances were given that permission slips would be required, and it hasn’t happened. Who’s responsible for that? Perhaps we’ll be “notified” later – in this case the word is spelled ‘NO-tify” as NO effort was made to alert parents to the explicit sexual language contained in the book.

North Clackamas School District has no criteria or guidelines for selecting (or rejecting) supplemental reading material before it enters the classroom as curriculum. But now that we have brought it to its attention, the school board is close to finalizing the criteria and procedure for reviewing supplemental materials. Or, from what we’ve seen, “staff” is close to finalizing the criteria and guidelines. It currently doesn’t address the appropriateness of language, particularly excessive use of profanity and the explicit depiction of sexual content that started this process in the first place. The form and criteria is insufficiently vague. Oh, and staff also recommends that only future material go through the evaluation process, not knowing of any current curriculum which parents might find offensive.

The point is - the board is responsible for establishing a standard of appropriateness regarding language in curriculum, after seeking the opinion and involvement of the community, particularly, parents. Have you seen any effort made by the district to alert parents to this issue? Have you received your “Appropriateness for Supplemental Reading Material” questionnaire in the mail so the district may thoroughly and reasonably assess and determine the community standards and opinions regarding these issues? How about sending a letter home with the students, or better yet, posting the information on the district web site?

Chairman Quilliam has publicly taken issue with our efforts to publicize these issues, in particular, the New Excellence web site, saying its sole intent is to defame the district. We encourage readers to view our site. You can decide for yourself whether it is defamatory.

The web site serves a single purpose – to draw attention to objectionable language contained in books used as curriculum at Clackamas High School. Language which can not be printed in a newspaper. Language which can not be reported on television or radio reports. Language which would jeopardize an employer legally if it were allowed to be discussed in the work place. Language which Chairman Quilliam did not want presented at the school board meeting. In fact, since our presentation at the beginning of the January 6 public hearing, Chairman Quilliam has not allowed and has specifically prevented us from making any public comment, provide or seek clarification or even ask questions at school board meetings. In this case the word is spelled “NOT-ify” as the chairman does NOT want this explicitly sexual language publicly addressed.

The web site has become an effective way to inform parents and community members about the objectionable language in these books. The only thing defaming this district is the explicit sexual language in the books it chooses to retain.