Month: March 2023

When An Apostrophe Means So Much More

In the 2021 Newberg school board elections, a consistent refrain was that new candidates needed to “Save Our Schools,” returning students to the basics of reading, writing, and mathematics. Newberg citizens were told that educators weren’t teaching kids, too focused on politics and indoctrination to care about educating. 

A new school board would “raise the academic bar for all students,” according to a candidate’s platform, articulated in the Yamhill County Voters’ Pamphlet. “Let’s expect more and lets deliver,” the candidate wrote, perhaps forgetting that a high academic bar would require that Newberg students write grammatically correct sentences. 

Sometimes, it seems, an apostrophe matters.

No doubt you’ve seen the signs currently around Newberg, promoting a block of candidates for this May’s school board election, but using an apostrophe incorrectly (unless, of course, there really is only one parent in Newberg intending to vote for Chairperson Dave Brown and the other four candidates). 

It might seem pedantic and petty to point out this error, a simple typographic mistake we are all in danger of making now and then. But when a block of school board candidates are arguing that our students need to achieve more academically, and when these candidates insist that they are first and foremost about reading, writing, and arithmetic, then a misplaced apostrophe on numerous signs spread throughout the region really does matter. 

According to the Oregon Standard for English Language Arts, students learn the appropriate use for apostrophes in the second grade (page 17 outlines this standard). Of course, any high school language arts teacher will tell you that writers continue to struggle with the conventional English standards until they graduate, usually because they have failed to internalize the rules, because they are careless, or because they don’t edit well, if at all.

It’s also not entirely clear whether the school’s current communications team has not yet internalized the rules of Standard English, if they are careless, or if they don’t edit well. Bridge and Bolster LLC, which essentially received a no-bid contract in August 2022 to run the district’s communications department, consistently makes errors in its documents, from misplaced apostrophes to misspelled words to wrongly-identified employees in social media posts. As one district parent recently asked, “at what point will parents be frustrated enough to expect 7k worth of work?”

The parent went on to say that she has spoken privately with Bridge and Bolster, suggesting they do a closer edit, and several others on the Facebook post also mentioned discussions with the marketing firm, asking them to be more accountable for the taxpayer money they receive each month by communicating more clearly with their constituents. An educational enterprise having so many errors in their communications is embarrassing, a number of people have noted, especially when some of the students served by the district could provide stronger writing and editing skills.

Bridge and Bolster became a company only seven days before starting with the Newberg School District; you can read about its controversial hiring here. Its owners had zero experience providing direction and expertise for a complex communications department, one that needs to produce clear information to numerous constituents and through multiple channels. A district already in disarray needed professionals who can write clearly and correctly, and who can do far more than post on social media and shoot promotional videos for the district office.  

As one former educator said, “I’m more upset that most posts are about the adults in the district, instead of focusing on students, volunteers, academic scores or plans to move our schools and students in a strong direction. We are paying $84,000 that does nothing to inform parents of how our schools are educating our students and preparing them for life after high school.” 

A strong school district has an experienced communications team, connecting with parents in the district and celebrating the academic accomplishments of its students. A strong school board doesn’t need its district communication team cheerleading its efforts, because its hard work will be manifest in the success of its students. A strong school board will be transparent about who it hires–and about why an inexperienced marketing firm received a lucrative contract. 

A strong school board will be accountable, transparent, and competent, aware that even an apostrophe can be the difference between a parent’s choice, and parents’ decisions to vote for candidates that can serve the district well. 

The Problem with Timing (and with Start Times)

The first day of Newberg’s spring break brought with it several surprises: a skiff of snow on roads and yards, definitely unusual in late March. There was also an announcement from Newberg Public Schools: start times for the elementary, middle, and high schools would be earlier next year. 

For this current school board, the confusing nature of the announcement and the lack of transparency about how the decision was made is definitely not unusual. 

Actually, the district made its announcement just before 5 p.m. on Friday, letting parents know on their Facebook and Instagram pages about the change. The backlash was almost immediate: two days later, almost 240 comments have been made on the Facebook page alone, many of them by angry parents who feel left out of the decision-making process–parents for whom even a 20 minute shift in start times will mean disruptions for their children. 

The Newberg School District policy is clear: the superintendent is well within his right to make a decision about start times unilaterally, without the feedback of educators, parents, or even the school board. Yet for a superintendent and board who seem focused on parents’ rights, and who fashion themselves as “the parent’s (sic) choice” (at least according to campaign material), the lack of transparency about the change is troubling, especially when compared to past boards and past superintendents.

Ahead of proposed start time changes in 2021-22, the school board convened an ad-hoc committee: to study the data; comb through research on what early start times mean for younger children as well as teens; get feedback from the community; and make a recommendation to the school board for approval (even though, again, then-Superintendent Joe Morelock could have made a unilateral decision). 

If you look at meeting minutes from January 12, 2021, you can see their robust report, including links to research about sleep and mental health, as well as an explanation of scientific research on start times (the report starts on page 31 of an extensive board packet). The ad-hoc committee also met with community members on January 5, 2021, as well as compiling data from a survey sent to all parents in the district. In March of that year, Superintendent Morelock provided a final report to all families in the district, preparing them for the announcement about new start times.

This weekend, on the school district’s Facebook page, parents feared that a decision was made without their input, especially given the extraordinary hardship an earlier start and release time might have for working families and for children’s time with parents at home. In some comments, parents reflected on the struggle their children are already experiencing with early start times, and their concerns about kids waiting for buses in winter morning darkness. A number of parents asked Had anyone asked parents about how the changes would impact them? 

Apparently high school parents were surveyed near the last day of school in June 2022, but younger parents were not asked for feedback. Since then, there has been no follow up about how that survey data was used. Questions on the post about the lack of feedback regarding the school district announcement were met with confusing responses. 

One response from the school communication team noted the district was still compiling data, and thus couldn’t share it yet; but then, in subsequent responses, the same person said that the data had been compiled, but couldn’t yet be shared. Both answers were confusing, especially when the communications team seemed to be editing answers on the fly, making the decision seem even less informed.

A person who will no doubt be happy about the controversial decision is Chair Dave Brown, the self-appointed parent’s choice for reelection in Zone 6. In 2021, Brown tried to compel the board to choose earlier start times for high school students (and subsequently middle and elementary schools as well), despite overwhelming evidence that this change was unwanted by many parents and students in the district. His fundamental consideration seems to be high school athletes who might miss afternoon classes to travel to competitions, and whose practices would be affected by a later dismissal time.

The meeting minutes leading up to the decision in 2021 show in stark relief the one-time transparency of Newberg’s school boards, their integrity in communicating with the public, and their desire to make sure that all Newberg students were well served by the policies they created, including start and dismissal times for all schools.

Announcing an unpopular decision right before spring break is problematic. Being unwilling–and unable–to explain the data that informed the decision is also troubling. Refusing to consider the science of children and sleep, including studies released in the Newberg schools’ own report just two years ago, makes it difficult to understand why the change needed to be made at all. Except, maybe, for the benefit of Coach Brown. 

As we’ve said, the election on May 16 is about transparency and integrity and doing what’s best for students. But like snow falling on the first day of spring break, the decision about start times was not welcomed, not needed, and left huge parts of Newberg feeling left out in the cold.

Here, Right Matters

With Newberg’s school board elections less than two months away, the division and rancor in our community continues to build. James Wolfer’s decision to stop his campaign for Zone 6 board director this week, citing harassment at his job, highlights the attempts to silence people in Newberg who speak truth to power. 

We want to support Wolfer in his efforts to protect his family and his livelihood. We also want to grieve that this is what our community has become, where someone volunteering for a nonpartisan position in the Newberg school district can find his integrity as a police officer questioned, forcing him to make an untenable decision. 

In our sadness, it’s easy to give way to despair, deciding that the turmoil in Newberg will always be this way, or that we should use the same tactics of harassment and provocation that have been used to silence people in Newberg. It’s important to remember, in these moments, that in the words of Alexander Vindman, “here, right matters.” 

Here, right matters in an election that is not about progressive or conservative ideals, but about accountability, transparency, and competence, qualities to which we should all aspire, no matter our political leanings.

Here, right matters when fear-mongering about educators and about schools sows distrust in our teachers and the hard work they do. 

Here, right matters when board members claim to be “the parent’s choice,” even though a substantial number of parents do not choose a board director who seeks to silence them.

Here, right matters, and so we will continue to focus on what matters most in this election season: Accountability, transparency, and competence. Responding to harassment and smear campaigns by speaking truth to power. 

And also, voting for #JamesAnyway, who is the choice of this–and many, many other–parents.*

*Because James Wolfer’s name will continue to be on the ballot, voting for him rather than his opponent will send a strong message and, should Wolfer win, a replacement can be seated by the newly-elected board.

Who Sits at the Table?

On Friday afternoon, the Newberg Public Schools Facebook page posted a picture of a dozen Newberg-area business and government leaders enjoying lunch together at arguably the best restaurant in town, Rosmarino’s. The photo included Superintendent Stephen Phillips, Newberg Mayor Bill Rosacker, Newberg Councilperson Elise Yarnell, and Yamhill County Commissioner Lindsey Berschauer, as well as other folks representing Newberg’s business district, brought together with the premise of finding common ground and creating partnerships within Newberg.

Of course, Newberg is desperately in need of finding common ground and collaboration. This Rosmarino’s meeting was ostensibly intended to bridge a chasm between groups, and certainly that should be lauded. One potential outcome, as Councilperson Yarnell noted in the post comments, is a partnership with Commissioner Berschauer, bringing fentanyl addiction curriculum to local schools. This is an important initiative, and could make a difference in our community. 

And yet, the picture itself is tone-deaf at best. At worst, it serves as a reminder of who remains marginalized in our community and by our school board, providing a stark representation of who gets to sit at the table where decisions are made (and good Italian food consumed); and who is on the outside, impacted by decisions about which they have no say (like deciding how to spend the taxpayer money that presumably paid for a Rosmarino’s feast).

It’s not clear who initiated this dinner, or who received invites. As one Facebook commenter noted, tongue firmly planted in cheek, “I see so much minority representation and inclusivity in this photo. I forgot to mention that there are also many parents of Newberg students.”  In response, someone who attended the meal, Kristin Stoller, said she might have been the only person there with children in the Newberg school district. Every person in the picture was white.

If a picture is worth 1000 words, this one might have narrated an entire epic about the last few years in Newberg, when a powerful few make decisions in the name of “what our community needs,” marginalizing large swaths of the community in the process.

Fundamentally, though, if the leaders seated at that table wanted to provide healing for a divided community, there are easily-achievable steps they could take right now to begin building bridges:

  • They could talk directly to constituents who have asked to meet with them. School Board Chair Dave Brown, smiling at the table, has refused meetings with parents his board serves. According to one response to the picture, a constituent–and a community leader in his own right–has asked three times in the last month to meet with Brown, who says there’s no reason to meet because this person “is not a supporter.”
  • They could take accountability for some of the mistakes they’ve made. That includes the school board’s back-room planning to fire former Superintendent Joe Morelock, recently ruled unethical by the Oregon Ethical Commission. They could apologize for ways their own actions have hurt students, rather than consistently blaming previous boards for the mistakes this current board has made. They could admit that their decisions compelled over 100 educators to leave the district, rather than blaming the astounding exodus on national trends.
  • Chairman Brown could apologize for his grievance-heavy public comments. This includes the six-minute discourse he gave at a school board meeting less than three days before the Rosmarino’s luncheon, during which he railed against people in his district, while also obfuscating about when he filed his re-election paperwork.
  • Chairman Brown and other community leaders could publicly disavow the work of the Yamhill Advocate. That publication’s smear campaigns resulted in death threats against Councilperson Yarnell; it has continually asserted that progressives in Newberg are part of a mafia, intent on grooming children. As one Facebook commenter noted, “If Dave REALLY means that wants Newberg to heal, then he will distance himself & mention PUBLICLY that Carey Martell’s ‘shenanigans’ aren’t welcomed & are a detriment to moving forward in the upcoming May school board elections.” 

Without taking these steps, claims about building bridges seem like empty promises, a dinner at Rosmarino’s more of a campaign photo opportunity than a good-faith attempt to build bridges Newberg leaders themselves have burned. 

The school district’s Facebook page promises that there will be more dinners, and more conversations. Perhaps this is indeed the step forward the district needs to take. Will the next conversation have far more representation than the all-white, CIS-gendered diners at the last luncheon?

Because while who is at the table matters, it’s who is absent from the table that might matter more. 

What Do The People of Newberg Deserve?

​​Tuesday night’s Newberg School Board meeting was bookended by comments: in the meeting’s opening minutes, members of the public were given a chance to speak; in the meeting’s final minutes, the board itself was provided an opportunity to talk about the work they’ve done to make education better in the Newberg schools. 

Instead of talking about students, or highlighting the good work teachers have done, or even presenting information on the “improved academic outcomes” the board continues to vaunt, the school board’s comments were characterized by division and anger. The board also made clear that they themselves have been wronged, and not the students who have suffered through several years of a decimated school system.

The comments—those at the beginning, and those at the end—provide a good micro-narrative of the conflict continuing to unfold in our community, and of a board’s chair intent on gaslighting a community into believing he is a victim of a Newberg bullying campaign.

A public comment from Elaine Koskela, identified as a Newberg resident for most of forty years, addressed the divisions roiling our community, noting that school board meetings now strike a tone of fear and resentment, circling wagons around board supporters who are part of the in crowd, and alienating those who don’t proclaim appropriate fealty to the board. Koskela noted that students on the margins are often on the outside, their needs unmet by board decisions.

Later comments by Board Chair Dave Brown essentially proved Koskela’s point, as he argued that some ambiguous they has been on a campaign to destroy him and his fellow board members: that they are criticizing any decision he makes; that they want the school district to fail; and that they accuse him of hating some students, even though the board supports “every single student they come across, every single time.”

Brown’s language in and of itself creates a distinction between the board and their supporters, who are presumably doing everything possible for the students, and everyone else, who apparently cares little for students, and who want the school district to fail so that Brown and his fellow board members will also fail.

Other board members gave a compelling lead-up to Brown’s grievances, talking more about their work than the teachers and students they serve. One director reported that the board is finally “rowing in the same direction,” despite countless metrics that suggest that not everyone in the district is even on the same boat, let alone rowing in concord with the board.

Another director called out the Newberg Education Association, saying that the NEA’s endorsement of five school board candidates for May’s election—none currently on the board—is wrong, a reflection not of teachers’ dissatisfaction with board decisions, but of a union trying to manipulate teachers into voting a certain way.

Startlingly lacking in all the board’s comments is any kind of commendation of teachers, and the hard work they are doing. Or of students, and their achievements. Or of the school’s programs that have succeeded because of hard-working teachers, of dedicated parent volunteers, and of enthusiastic students. (Indeed, a director asserted that the planned creation of a Parent Bills of Rights is not a “negative,” as if those who are questioning the need of a new bill are somehow hoping to circumvent parent involvement completely.)

If the school board really is about student success and academic outcomes, they spend very little time during their comments talking about that, and a whole lot of energy addressing the ways a cabal in Newberg is doing them wrong.

In other words, they seem to be circling the wagons.

Director Brown, during his remarks, said “The people of Newberg deserve better. They deserve an open communication, and the parents deserve a school that’s transparent.” On this, at least, we can agree.

Millions in Funding at Stake: Will You Weigh In?

The Newberg School Board will hold its next meeting tomorrow, and according to the board agenda, there will be a discussion about “SIA.” The good news? The agenda suggests the discussion is “open for comments,” presumably from the public.

The bad news? The school board has yet to inform the public about what SIA is, how it impacts the school district, whether the board has even created a SIA plan, and what that plan looks like. 

Which raises the question: How will people be able to make comments, if they have been given no information about the initiative and the district’s plans for up to $5 million (or more) of funding SIA might provide?  

A bit of history: The Student Investment Account (SIA) funds are non-competitive grants available to all Oregon school districts. K-12 education funding in Oregon comes from state income taxes, lottery funds, property taxes, and federal funds. SIA funds fall under the Student Success Act (2019), which added $1 billion in funding per year for Oregon schools and students. According to the Oregon Education Association website, “This money could be used for  additional instructional time, providing mental and behavioral health supports, reducing class size, implementing a more well-rounded education, fully funding High School Success (Measure 98), improving school safety and more.”

In past applications, Newberg has allotted its SIA funds for reading specialists, behavioral counselors, drug/alcohol counselors, and other learning support efforts. (You can read past applications here.) Given this board’s lack of transparency and its inability to follow well-established OSBA policies, it’s not clear whether Newberg schools will receive this money. Given how strapped the district is financially, and the rumored cuts to important programs, it seems like leaving millions on the table would not be the best idea. 

The application itself requires significant community engagement, but the Newberg School District has offered no forums for engagement, beyond empathy interviews and youth surveys which were not rigorous nor equitable, and assuredly did not include representative populations that will be most served by SIA money: Spanish-speaking, special education, economically disadvantaged, and migrant families. For a board intent on providing “parents’ rights,” parents representing these groups have not been contacted, their needs not inventoried, in any systematic ways.  The law which created the SIA funds requires school districts to use public input to create their plans, and school boards to provide a place and time for public comment on the district’s SIA plan. But there is no plan available on which the public can comment. By now, the board should have at least posted their application online and have a paper copy available at the district office for people to review. There should have been at least one, if not two, presentations to the board about the SIA application, and an opportunity for parents to provide input before a final draft is due to the state by March 31. 

Now, the school board is asking for comments on an application no one has seen. There will be no opportunities to consider revisions to an application, if the community makes comments. With the application due at the end of March, and no more meetings scheduled this month, the community will have no idea what the final application looks like.

By way of comparison, Sherwood schools presented the first read of their SIA application in January, with the report and budget posted, and opened for public comments. Their budget is $5 million, and their planned apportion of the money is available on their website. 

It’s not clear why the Newberg school board has not followed a similar process, why they have not been transparent about the process they have followed, and why they are risking millions of dollars that might help those needing educational support in our district. Is this another example of incompetence? Are they refusing the money because of a politically-motivated attempt to cut ties with federal funding? 

As with many of the school board’s actions, this unwillingness to follow policy is baffling, especially with so much instructional  money on the line. 

So we want to know: will you weigh in? 

At the meeting tomorrow night, of course, but also at the May election. Because with millions of dollars potentially lost, our kids lose, too. 

Ethics Are Another Matter . . .

ACCOUNTABILITY

TRANSPARENCY

COMPETENCE

For the last two years, those who have opposed the Newberg School Board have argued for accountability, transparency, and competence in its operation. The firing of Dr. Joe Morelock at a November 9, 2021, meeting is emblematic of the board’s lack of accountability. Its lack of transparency. And its lack of competence, which led to multiple ethics violations. 

Finally, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission is taking notice.

The Newberg Graphic reported this week that the ethics commission has issued reports about the November 2021 meeting, affirming that the Newberg School Board violated state rules governing administrative boards when it chose to fire Dr. Morelock.

At the time, the board’s majority–Chair Dave Brown, Vice-Chair Brian Shannon, Trevor DeHart, and Renee Powell–failed to follow policies governing executive sessions, including notifying Morelock and other board members about the nature of the executive session. The three other board members, Rebecca Piros, Brandy Penner, and Ines Pina, were supposed to be notified alongside Morelock at least 24 hours in advance of the executive session, and were supposed to receive supporting material (including complaints made against Morelock) before the meeting.

Instead, the board majority violated Oregon administrative ethics by

  • Adding the executive meeting agenda at the last minute, notifying the board only 1.5 hours before the meeting and without supporting documents. (The rules dictate that notice needs to be given 24 hours in advance.)
  • Not telling three board members or Morelock what the nature of the executive meeting might be.
  • Failing to accommodate Piros’ visual impairment with material about the meeting that would help her participate (an ADA non-compliance violation).
  • Providing the board members with a packet containing the complaints regarding Morelock’s tenure as superintendent, and which presumably justified his firing.
  • Transgressing OAR 199-040-0030, which states that Morelock should have been given information about his termination and the complaints at least 24 hours, or one business day, prior to the executive session. 

The complaints themselves suggest the baselessness of Morelock’s firing, and were focused primarily on  vaccine mandates and why Morelock might refuse to apply the board’s flag ban. It was unclear how the complaints were gathered, or how Morelock himself was responsible to rectify them. You can read all the complaints in the complaint, including “Why have you let go of good substitute teachers that aren’t vaccinated but other school districts aren’t requiring vaccines?” and “Why don’t you have more control over your staff? They are out of control, and are not following policies/procedures.”

You can access the case information on the Oregon Government Ethics Commission here. The Newberg Graphic also covered the story here, although the heroic efforts of three board members–Piros, Penner, and Pina–is buried by the story’s lead. Each woman self-reported her attendance at the executive session at which Morelock was fired, making them complicit in the ethics violations. 

And still, they were left with an untenable choice that night. They could leave the meeting right away, well aware of the ethics violations. Or, they could stay at the executive session, knowing that they represented their constituents and that the wrongful termination of Morelock might jeopardize some students and educators they had been elected to represent. 

They chose to stay, even though that meant they would also face investigation by the ethics commission. 

In the end, Morelock was fired without cause, costing the district $175,000 in his salary for the year, plus another salary for the newly-hired superintendent. 

The four board members were not transparent about their actions on that night in November 2021 and now, over a year later, we finally know just how troubling Morelock’s firing was. Led by their chair and vice chair, the board acted in a way that was not transparent nor ethical. It could be that Brown and Shannon were merely incompetent when they failed to follow well-established policies, but either through incompetence or unethical behavior, they violated rules set in place for a reason. 

Does Newberg really want school board members who can’t model the kind of moral, competent, transparent leadership our children deserve? The election on May 16 should answer this question. 

A Super Update that isn’t Super

The issue of people without housing in Newberg has become another point of division in our community, turning neighbors against each other and stoking fear, with some citizens asserting that those who are homeless will make Newberg into “another Portland,” and that people without housing pose a particular threat to school children. 

Now, the head of Newberg schools seems to be jumping into the fray, reinforcing the notion that people without housing are drug addicts. For some people, the latest superintendent update brings to mind the efforts made last summer to ban homeless camps near schools–an effort spearheaded by (now) Mayor William Rusacker and City Councilwoman Robin Wheatley. Under the guise of protecting children, the initiative proposed by Rusaker et al. characterized those experiencing homelessness as dangerous predators, drug addicts and sexual offenders.  

In the Newberg school district’s latest video update, Superintendent Steven Phillips visits the Newberg Emergency Shelter and talks with one of its employees, Matt Bunn, who advocates well for the shelter’s work. In the interview, it is clear Matt understands the complex nature of homelessness, and he resists any attempt to flatten or demonize the lives of the people he serves.

And yet, despite what might be a positive intent, the video continues to dehumanize those who are houseless, tying those experiencing homelessness directly to fentanyl use, contributing to the fear-mongering rhetoric. This language is used to rally people to support a proposed ballot measure limiting the spaces where those who are homeless can exist in Newberg.

The video opens with statistics about fentanyl use, including the claim that “In Oregon, drug use is the primary cause of homelessness.” Even a quick search of Google shows this claim is not necessarily true: one survey says mental illness is the highest cause of homelessness in Oregon; the Portland Rescue Mission asserts that homelessness is too complex to indicate only one cause. Many studies show that over 50 percent of women and children needing shelter are escaping domestic violence, and one important 2021 study points out that “Homelessness is a Housing Problem.” This and other studies have concluded that a community’s cost of housing and inadequate housing supply is the number one indicator of whether someone experiences homelessness. 

By directly tying fentanyl use to homelessness in Newberg, the superintendent’s update fails to address the complexities of homelessness, and instead becomes one more way the school administration–in the name of “taking politics out of schools”–is making a political stand, one that will harm students in Newberg facing housing instability and the stigma of houselessness.

It’s also puzzling why the superintendent update would need to wade into this clearly political debate at all. Parents in the school district have yet to be informed about: 

  • Graduation rates
  • Enrollment numbers
  • The district’s financial picture
  • New curriculum adoptions
  • Educators’ professional development
  • Strategic planning
  • Plans for academic outcomes

One response on the school district’s Facebook page captures the frustration with the superintendent updates. A constituyente writes, ”Con todos los problemas que hay en las escuelas y el superintendente prefiere hacer videos. Ya pasó hoy por la High School o Mountain View? Ya fue a ver si hay alguna necesidad en alguna de las oficinas del distrito escolar?”  (“With all the problems going on in the schools and the superintendent prefers to make videos. Have you been to the High School or Mountain View today? Have you already gone to see if there is a need in any of the school district offices?”)

A fully transparent and fully functioning school board and its district administrators would do well to inform the community about what is happening in its schools and programs. It might consider the impact of houselessness on its students, and it might address potential solutions the school district can provide to help students find stability in the classroom, especially when life outside of school hours is unstable. 

A school board and administration that stigmatizes those who are houseless by insisting the “primary cause” of homelessness is drug addiction (specifically fentanyl use), and who ostensibly support an anti-homeless agenda in Newberg, is being political, no matter what they say about wanting to save schools.

A Parents’ Rights Committee? Not So Fast

At the Newberg School Board meeting Tuesday night (2/28), an excellent case was made to halt plans for the district-wide “parents’ rights committee,” a plan that had been announced less than a week ago, ostensibly by the school board itself.  (We had some questions about that announcement, which we published here.) 

The people making the case against the committee’s construction? The Newberg School Board.

The most compelling argument was made by Director Raquel Peregrino de Brito, who asked that the board consider a parents’ rights policy written in 2007 and revised by the school board in 2017. You can read about the KAB policy Peregrino de Brito references here. According to the director, having a new committee to consider parents’ rights will continue to “swirl conflict” in the district, and that it might be better to work with an existing policy, rather than create something new out of whole cloth. 

We couldn’t agree more. But Director Peregrino de Brito’s comment was also puzzling, as she had, in a fall board meeting, used her public comment time to read a statement proclaiming November as parents’ rights in education month. It could be that the director herself realized a fundamental problem with a parents’ rights committee open to any parent who wants to join: namely, that some parents will advocate for the rights of children who the board has assiduously tried to marginalize the last two years. 

Earlier in the same meeting, the Newberg School Board made an even more powerful case for the redundancy of a parents’ rights committee, when Elise Yarnell and Dr. Jeri Turgesen presented on the Newberg schools’ wellness center. The presentation reflected the powerful and transformative work the center is doing to combat our community’s teen mental health crisis, and significantly, the center’s representatives showed how integral parent input is to the center’s ongoing work. 

At one point, Director Brian Shannon asked whether the health center notified parents about their children’s visit to the center, after wondering about the center offering gender transition services (the answer is no, they do not). Dr. Turgesen not only reaffirmed the law (that children under 14 seeking care need parental approval), but also that in every case, save for when a child might be endangered, the parents are part of a student’s wrap-around care. 

“My absolute goal, and the goal of the clinic, is to involve family members at every encounter,” she said. “If they have imminent risk or safety concerns for why families can’t be involved, we will work with that. But our goal is to absolutely have family involvement.”

The presentation clearly undermines any argument about parents’ lack of rights in schools, showing that in students’ most vulnerable moments—when they are having a mental health crisis, for example—parents are intimately involved in care. They are invited into students’ progress toward healing, just as they are invited to partner with teachers to help students’ educational progress.

As the meeting drew to a close, Superintendent Steven Philips reiterated that parents’ rights are an important part of the educational process. This is true—and he’s already heading a district where parents have ample rights. Convening a new committee to craft a parents’ right policy seems superfluous and divisive. By the meeting’s end, even he seemed less sure about the need for the committee, his own board making a compelling case that such a committee was unnecessary. 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑