Significant changes to Florida’s public schools could be coming down the pike. HB 1467 just recently made its way out of the House Education & Employment Committee. And since it isn’t overtly about a hot button issue like Critical Race Theory, it will likely go under the radar with very little input from the general public.
That would be a mistake.
The proposal consists of several components. At first glance and without much perusal, there is a danger of conflation.
As with most bills, the more that gets packed into them, the easier it is to pass controversial things without much scrutiny. In the case of HB 1467, two very different ideas have been paired together: public involvement with the selection of books and instructional materials in schools and school board member salaries.
Those two things don’t belong together.
The first part of the bill requires schools to make information about the books on reading lists and classroom instructional materials available for more intensive review and more public involvement. Parents would then have more access to the material that children engage with in the classroom.
I understand the impetus. I’m not sold on the necessity.
What students are encountering in class is not a mystery to an engaged parent. Parents are welcome to talk to teachers and administrators about the content of the material presented in schools. It isn’t being withheld. But if legislators think that making it even more accessible to parents via a website will encourage more parent involvement then perhaps it is a worthy cause.
The bill also touches on what is found in school library media-centers, requiring published procedures for how books are removed or discontinued and creating committees with parent and community members that advise school boards on how these books are chosen.
Critics of the bill are concerned that people from outside of a given county could then inject themselves into local school board decisions about material. In addition, questions are being raised about how this affects standards across the nation, warning that it could create serious differences in the types of material students are given access to. In turn, this would affect college and scholarship opportunities, potentially placing some students at a disadvantage.
The other question that needs to be addressed is whether or not this puts us on a slippery slope toward censorship. Nothing is apolitical, despite what backers of the bill contend.
Public involvement and parent access to school instructional materials is definitely worth investigating. Anything that creates more parental involvement is a good thing. But it shouldn’t be accepted without clarifications and clear cut standards that ensure that we don’t slowly back our way into “Fahrenheit 451.”
Parents should be a part of the conversation about the instructional materials in schools. But we need to be mindful not to acquiesce to politically motivated censorship.
The other provision, the one that would do away with school board member salaries, should be a nonstarter.
Here’s why: the job of a school board member is not easy. It requires considerable understanding of law and negotiating often unfunded mandates from both state and federal authorities. It’s a public position – one that can face a considerable amount of public scrutiny.
That’s the philosophical rationale for paying our school board members.
But there are far more practical ones.
By doing away with school board member salaries, the new requirement for participation on that level is now independent wealth. We want our school board members to be up to date and well read on what is happening at the highest levels of education. We want them to be plugged into our schools, to understand the contexts that our kids are coming from, to be in tune with our teachers.
That isn’t a hobby. That’s a job. And people get paid for doing jobs.
It’s hard enough to run a campaign for a school board seat without significant financial support. Making it even harder for the average person to pursue a seat at the table should not be the way of public education.
Supporters of the bill argue that salaries create a financial incentive for people to run for school board as a launchpad to become career politicians and that paying school board members negates parental involvement.
First things first. School board salaries are derived from a formula based on county populations. In Florida, the lowest paid school board member rakes in about $26,965; the highest comes in at under $50,000.
Given the amount of work, time, and commitment involved in the responsibilities that come with the job, I hardly call that a financial incentive.
Secondly, paying school board members in no way erodes parental engagement in their childrens’ education. Quite frankly, the argument doesn’t make sense. Nothing precludes a parent from running for school board. Nothing stops parents from attending meetings, voicing concerns, and being heard. In fact, most school board members would love more engagement from parents, not less.
HB 1467 is predicated on a desire to keep politics out of schools. But let’s be honest, nothing is apolitical today, particularly public schools. They are beholden to state and federal requirements and receive state and federal money to conduct their operations. Public schools, by nature, are a part of the political conversation.
We need to protect our students and our schools from unnecessary political discourse. But to pretend that they won’t get caught in the crossfire of the political nature of our society today is unrealistic. Introducing opportunities for politically motivated censorship and axing school board member salaries doesn’t accomplish the goal.
Cortney Stewart is a 2003 graduate of Lecanto High School. She has bachelor’s degrees in political science and international affairs, a master’s degree in intercultural studies and is currently working on her Ph.D. in international conflict management. She most recently spent two years teaching and training students, teachers and government officials in Baghdad, Iraq. Email her at seeing [email protected].
