Grants Pass SD 7 board debates instructional materials policy wording, gender identity and a 25‑day review

The Grants Pass SD 7 board spent a policy-session hour reviewing proposed revisions to its instructional materials policy, focusing on whether to embed statutory language, add the phrase “gender identity” after “gender,” and how a proposed 25‑day public posting for selected school library titles should work.

The session opened with the Chair saying the OVA update (Item 3.0) would be discussed. An OEA representative summarized the union’s written evaluation and cautioned that the document reflects the union’s point of view and flagged parts that might prompt union action if not addressed: “This is OEA's evaluation of the policy to this point,” the OEA representative said. Several board members agreed union comments are advisory, not the district’s legal opinion, and discussed whether a partial statutory quotation in the draft could be problematic.

Board members cited ORS 336.067 as the likely source of the disputed language and debated whether to include the statute verbatim in policy or to cite it in the legal‑references section instead. One member urged: include the full ORS or move it to the end, noting that “if you're going to put it into the policy, you should have the whole thing and not just bits and pieces.” Other members said many district policies incorporate partial statutory language and that removing it for consistency would be difficult.

A recurring point of contention was whether the draft’s selection criteria should reference the district’s “unique values, needs and priorities.” Some members warned that language could invite First Amendment challenges (citing the Pico line of cases) and recommended simplifying or removing the phrase; others argued the wording simply reflects local control and is common in school‑district policy. “When you talk about materials have to align with our local community, I struggle with that because from an education standpoint I want our materials to be broad ranged,” one board member said.

Debbie, a board member who raised concerns about omissions, argued the draft omits “gender identity” and urged adding it to the protected categories drawn from OSBA model language. “Gender identity is what’s missing,” she said, and other members agreed to add the words “gender, gender identity” or to reference the OSBA model language. Several members noted the ORS wording does not include gender identity, so adding it would be a deliberate choice that departs from the statute.

The board also discussed a proposed 25‑day public posting for titles that have been selected for school libraries but not yet made available to students. Members disagreed on whether the 25‑day period is simply an informational public notice (allowing parents to see what will appear on shelves) or whether it should invoke a separate reconsideration or challenge procedure. Staff and some members said the policy as written publicizes selections for 25 days but does not change the existing challenge procedure; others called for clarifying language in the administrative regulation (AR) about what happens during the 25‑day window.

Staff committed to draft AR language and to add a legal reference to ORS 336.067; the board scheduled further policy work and readings (a policy meeting on July 1, then first and second readings in July/August) to finalize text and AR language. A consent‑agenda motion at the start of the meeting was moved by Member Schmidt and seconded by Member Devel Sackis; the transcript records the motion and second but does not include a vote tally or formal outcome.

The board paused briefly for a community note—a member announced a family member’s hole‑in‑one—and then adjourned. The policy discussion will resume at follow‑up meetings, with staff to return recommended editorial fixes, an ORS reference in the legal‑references section, and AR language clarifying the 25‑day posting and any reconsideration steps.