Local school districts pass resolutions against inclusivity bills, with most saying they already do enough

Local school boards have passed resolutions in the past week against two proposals moving through the state Legislature dealing with challenges to books and promoting inclusive coursework.

Central Valley, Mead and Deer Park school districts passed similarly worded resolutions opposing the proposals, citing local control and existing policies making the bills redundant. The Mead School board unanimously passed its resolution Friday, and Central Valley and Deer Park on Tuesday, also unanimous. In Deer Park, director ReBecca Fouts was absent from the meeting.

“We’re already doing the things they want to require,” Deer Park board president Eric Keller said. “We don’t need more Legislation coming down on top of us to make sure we do that.”

If passed, one bill would require action from several government entities. Other than requiring it to be inclusive, it doesn’t outline specific curricula.

Local school boards would have to adopt inclusive curricula in accordance with a new model policy from the school board member’s organization, the Washington State School Directors Association, by June 2025, per the bill. Under the proposed model policy, curricula and instructional materials would have to include histories and perspectives of historically marginalized groups, including queer people, Indigenous people, women, people from diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds, people of various socioeconomic statuses, people from different religious groups and people with disabilities.

School boards would have until October 2025 to update their policies in accordance with model policy updates.

Additionally, the state Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction would update its learning standards to include the histories, contributions and perspectives of queer people and create an inclusive curricula database.

The second bill the districts are opposed to pertains to challenges and prohibitions of instructional materials in classrooms.

Under the proposal, school districts wouldn’t be able to deny instructional materials on the basis that they have to do with a protected class of people, unless it’s discriminatory.

School boards would also have to adopt policies summarizing the guidelines on books in classrooms and libraries selected by school staff, requiring that challenges on the materials be submitted in writing to school staff, detailing resolutions and allowing challenges to be appealed to the superintendent.

Decisions on challenges would remain for three years.

Local control was the central concern boards have with the proposals, with districts arguing policies on the books already accomplished the intent of the bills.

“We already have systems in place in Central Valley, and we have our strategic plan, we have all the work that led up to our strategic plan and we have our goals of wanting our kids to feel like they belong,” board member Teresa Landa said. “We have what we need; we don’t need oversight, we don’t need more Legislation.”

Central Valley this year adopted a new strategic plan with an emphasis on fostering a culture of belonging at their schools.

The cost to carry out the inclusive curriculum bill were also a concern in Central Valley; it would cost the district money, according to the bill’s financial impact statement, though they don’t know how much.

“It would require staff for both of us to meet these bills,” school board president Pam Orebaugh said, referring to the local school district and the educational service district. “I cannot imagine reviewing every last aspect of our curriculum and changing it; that would require numerous people honestly just for our school district just to ensure we meet it, even if we already are.”

The Deer Park school board also cited desires to maintain local control in its passage of the resolution.

The board at Spokane Public Schools did not file resolutions opposing the bills, and president Nikki Otero Lockwood said she doesn’t expect them to follow the other districts’ lead. The district has been discussing legislation this session and in the past, but in her four years, they’ve never filed a resolution for or against any state proposals.

“There’s a lot of legislation that happens every year that school boards don’t support, but we don’t make resolutions about every one,” she said. “I don’t see the point.”