Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board deadlocks on motion to require multivariable calculus on campus after hours of testimony
Summary
After extensive public testimony from students, parents and teachers, the Palo Alto Unified board voted on a motion to direct the superintendent to offer multivariable calculus and linear algebra honors on campus; trustees debated governance limits and the motion failed.
The Palo Alto Unified board considered and rejected a board directive on March 17 that would have required the district to offer multivariable calculus (MVC) and linear algebra honors as dual‑enrollment classes on campus at Palo Alto High and Gunn for the 2026–27 school year.
Dozens of students, parents, teachers and community members testified in favor of bringing MVC back on campus during regular school hours. A student speaker said the courses are "really important for fields such as physics, engineering, artificial intelligence," and urged the board to restore on‑campus access so students need not take late, after‑school classes offsite. A Pali math teacher who proposed teaching the course said the two essential facts are that "dozens of students want to take it, and a teacher wants to teach it."
Trustees debated whether the motion improperly intruded on operational decisions that are typically made at the site and district‑administration level (scheduling, staffing, and collective bargaining implications). Trustee Salzman and others argued for setting clear board expectations and timelines while leaving implementation flexibility to the superintendent; other trustees said ordering a site to offer specific courses would override site instructional councils and principals and set an uncomfortable precedent.
After discussion the board voted; the motion to direct the superintendent to offer MVC for 2026–27, to allow sites to monitor demand thereafter, and to refer policy changes to the Board Policy Review Committee failed.
The discussion exposed a governance gap: the board has authority to approve courses but policy does not clearly specify recourse when site‑level leadership declines to offer a board‑approved course. Trustees directed staff to place relevant board policies on the review committee agenda and to continue working with sites on course offerings.
Next steps: staff will follow up on policy language and report back; students pressed for a timely solution in the 2026–27 scheduling cycle.
