Duty to Inform Parents

Taking back our schools

On Thursday August 31st, Westwood’s Board of Education meeting, did not disappoint! The board voted to pass policy, P-9244 - “Parental Notice of Material Circumstances”, which was intended to add an extra layer of support for parents and their role within the public educational system and keep the lines of communication open between parent and school. The board’s majority presented as confident in it’s decision making and very well informed on the topic, whereas two members, Mr. Garcia and Ms. Peck, continued to express a sense of confusion and inability to understand the value in passing the language.

Old Policy: Controversial Issues

Board Member, Mrs. Cooper, opened the meeting using her time to clear up inaccurate information that had been published in a recent article in The Record. The article covered the “Controversial Issues” policy for Westwood and claimed that it was “new”, however it was created in March of 2007 with the help of the company called Strauss Esmay. Through the years, this company has provided working policy and consultation to over 570 districts since 1972.

The current Board of Education expanded language within that policy which required parents be notified about issues not included within the curriculum, being discussed in the classroom. Mrs. Cooper finished her remarks by saying the intention of the policy revision is to “include parents in the education of their child and to allow them to make decisions for their family”. Mrs. Cooper went on to add that she was advocating for the local districts to have the “autonomy to decide” a parent’s role in the notification system. She put a strong emphasis on the rights of parents and emphasized the purpose of the policy is to declare the statement that, “in this district parents have an extra level of rights.” She felt that parental rights are meant to “protect children and the sanctity of the family and that parents do not have to coparent with the state”.

WATCH HERE!

New Policy: Duty to Inform Parents

Later in the meeting, Jason Garcia made a motion to table the first reading of the Duty to Inform Parents Policy 9244. He asked why the board felt that they needed these revisions. Ms. Peck also asked what extra layer of protection is the policy putting in that we are missing? After some further back and forth Mr. Garcia asked for them to “table the policy”. Mr. Garcia expressed concern over lawsuits that Manalapan, Marlboro and Middletown were currently facing, filed by the New Jersey Attorney General. Garcia requested more time to review the policy and to see what happens with the the court cases in New Jersey and wanted more time to discuss district goals. He made it clear that he did not want to put the district “at risk” by passing this policy but quickly back-pedaled by saying that he is a “strong advocate” for parental rights. (Spoiler alert: He is NOT!)

Ms. Cooper objected to Mr. Garcia’s claims and further explained that the courts did not side with the Attorney General, but rather “punted” the issue to next level. She stated they they “deferred the decision” while continuing to advocate for the first reading to be moved forward. She explained to Mr. Garcia that district’s are “at risk” either way for lawsuits and asked him on multiple occasions if he “ranked parental rights as the priority over financial risk”? Mr. Garcia avoided the question and did not answer, but ultimately asked for the policy to be tabled again. Many districts value safety from state lawsuits over standing up for parental rights and the safety of children, this is why so many districts DO NOT have policies like Westwood.

WATCH HERE

Ms. Peck added to the discussion that, “safety of children is first”. She continued to object by saying that “all the things listed already have policy”. She said that she, “has faith” teachers will follow policy. She explained that guidance counselors and nurses can be contacted because the teachers are “taking on added liability”. She went on to say, “it’s not the teachers responsibility" to call the parent and tell them” if a student should talk about committing suicide, teachers are there and “reach out to professionals already”.

Ms. Fenarjian joined and said that she “was not seeing that the teachers had to make the phone call themselves”. And clarified that the policy did not say that. Ms. Cooper added that she wanted “to create an environment where parents did not have to coparent with the state”. Ms. Peck objected again by saying that the board was was putting themselves in the “line of fire” and “opening up to litigation”. She added that “we have policy that protects children and we hire professional to do jobs that do these things. Why put ourselves at risk of $100,000 in litigation fees if we already have this in place?”

Ms. Cooper countered by saying that “financial burden is a risk either way”. Not telling parents information about their children can also “create a liability” for the school. She stated that lawyers can file “personal civil lawsuits” if information is withheld from parents also. She gave an example of the case in California where the courts sided with parents on anything related with their children. She stated again that she she wants to “protect children and families”.

The policy was eventually voted on and passed, but no thanks to Mr. Garcia and his “support for parent’s rights”. He decided to take the coward’s way out and abstained from the vote and Ms. Peck voted no! Parents, they are not on your side, they are on the side of the state.

Here is the link to the complete policy that was passed. And below is a excerpt that summarizes the general idea of the policy:

Duty to Inform: All school staff members (certificated and non-certificated personnel) and administrators shall take all necessary steps – including notifying appropriate school administrators (e.g., the Principal and/or his/her designee) – to immediately, fully and accurately inform a student’s parent(s) whenever such staff member is made aware of, directly or indirectly, any facts or circumstances that may have a material impact on the student’s physical and/or mental health, safety and/or social/emotional well-being, including, without limitation, the following: substance use; tobacco/vaping use; alcohol use; firearms; peer/academic/athletic pressures; school performance; eating disorders; suicide; self-harm; anxiety; depression; fatigue; isolationism / anti-social behaviors / social withdraw; truancy; theft; vandalism; unlawful activity; violent or aggressive behavior; pornography; gang affiliation; obsessive behaviors; familial/cultural challenges; harassment; intimidation; or bullying.