Desert Sands superintendent apologizes after staff object to district guidance on Mahmood v. Taylor ruling

Superintendent Dr. Kelly May Volmar apologized publicly at the Desert Sands Unified School District board meeting Tuesday after employees said a district email about the U.S. Supreme Court's Mahmood v. Taylor decision overreached and harmed staff and students. The apology came after multiple employees in the public-comment period told the board the district's guidance, which asked principals to postpone instruction on potentially controversial topics, applied districtwide rather than narrowly to the pre-K through fifth-grade students targeted by the ruling. "By preemptively asking educators not to educate about history as well as large swaths of our community, you're denying their history in existence," said Amy Douglas, who identified herself as a 21-year district employee. "This ruling affects pre K through fifth grade. So why tell the whole district to stop teaching supposedly controversial topics?" Dr. Kelly May Volmar, the district superintendent, said the intent of the communication was to avoid catching teachers off guard and to protect students but acknowledged the message caused hurt. "If our communication made you feel any less than the amazing individuals that you are and marginalized and undervalued in any way, I apologize," she said. Another employee, Danny Oswood, who said he is an educator entering his 27th year, told the board the district's directive amounted to exclusion. "You are telling them that their very existence, my very existence, offends a group of families, so we just have to disappear for a little while," he said. "We're not a controversial topic. We're people with lives worthy of being recognized and appreciated." Speakers at the meeting cited state laws and guidance while criticizing the district's wording. Douglas and Oswood referred to the California Healthy Kids Act of 2016 and guidance from the California Department of Education, saying the district's message exceeded the limited scope of Mahmood v. Taylor and could conflict with existing state requirements for inclusive instruction. During public comments the board president asked the superintendent to provide the Friday letter containing the guidance to the board, and trustees later requested the communication be distributed to the board for review. No formal policy change or vote was announced at the meeting. Why this matters: Districtwide suspension of inclusive instruction could affect curricular delivery across grade levels and has immediate implications for staff morale and interpretation of state law. Board members, employees and community members expressed that any written clarification should be distributed in the same channels used for the original guidance. What happens next: Trustees asked the superintendent to provide the Friday letter and said they would follow up; speakers requested a rescission in writing. The board did not take formal action to rescind the guidance during the meeting.