Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Instructional Materials Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board holds first reading of instructional‑materials policy; adds parental objection route after Mahmud v. Taylor
Summary
The governing board held a first reading of proposed revisions to Policy IJ and Regulation IJR to add a written parental/legal‑guardian objection process for instructional materials and activities, citing the Mahmud v. Taylor decision and ASBA guidance.
The Catalina Foothills Governing Board held a first reading of revisions to Policy IJ and Regulation IJR (Instructional Resources and Materials) to implement procedures described in recent legal guidance, including the U.S. Supreme Court decision cited in the packet (Mahmud v. Taylor) and related advisory material. The proposed changes add explicit language that a parent or legal guardian may object to an activity or learning material based on an assertion that the material is harmful to the family's beliefs or practices in morality or religion; the regulation continues to allow objections based on sexually explicit content, violent content, or profane language.
Presenter Cheryl Castro noted that "This is a legal requirement" while summarizing the changes and said the district added clearer headings and procedural steps to the regulation. Major points in the proposed documents include:
- Parents or legal guardians must submit written, specific requests for access to or objection to instructional materials; the regulation clarifies requests should be submitted to the principal's office and digital resources may be viewed on school premises during school hours. - For materials being considered for adoption, the regulation establishes a preview and objection process; for currently adopted materials, parents may request access and may object to an activity or material. The principal, in consultation with the superintendent or designee, will determine whether a student will be removed from the activity; the principal will inform the parent of the decision and provide reasons if the decision is to not remove the student. - If a student withdraws from an activity, the regulation states that no grade penalty will accrue for the student because of the removal, though the student may not be able to make up certain experiences; the regulation also allows parents to request an appeal to the governing board within 10 calendar days after receiving a decision from the superintendent.
Board members asked several operational questions. They sought clarity on expected lead time for objections and staff explained the regulation does not impose a hard lead time because doing so would impose unrealistic requirements on teachers' preparation timelines. The board discussed how schools will provide comparable alternative assignments or supervised spaces (library, study hall) while a student is removed from an activity and whether alternate assignments should be reviewed by a principal prior to use. The board also raised concerns about student‑generated content (for example, peer presentations) and whether such material falls within the regulation; staff said student‑produced work generally does not fall under the district's adopted curriculum/materials process and that the district will consult counsel and refine the regulation before the second reading.
Cheryl Castro noted the district worked with Arizona School Boards Association guidance and consulted district legal counsel while drafting the revisions. The item was a first reading and will return to the board for a second reading after staff addresses operational questions and refines language on student‑generated content and notification/appeal procedures.
