Milford again tables policy curbing 'controversial' issues in schools, citing work to come

The proposed policy found new language Monday night.

Milford school board's contested spring proposal — first introduced as a revised district policy to limit the presentation of "controversial" or "sensitive" issues across its schools — still drew a crowd to Milford High School, under a new version titled: "Policy with Regard to Adherence of the Curriculum." ACLU of Delaware gathered some 20 people outside ahead of the meeting, with weather pushing 94 degrees, in protest. More opponents swelled in public comments.

Just ahead of those comments, though, board member Adam Brownstein shared more context on the policy's genesis than he had to date.

He told the crowd of over 100 that this effort relates to one student complaint, wherein a Jewish student claimed they "felt threatened, unsafe and unsupported" due to the presence of a Black Lives Matter flag. Brownstein connected this in part to a since-removed graphic posted by BLM Chicago on October 10, 2023 — displayed briefly in the meeting — wherein the group used an apparent Hamas paraglider and Palestinian flag to share it stood with Palestine. That local branch of the national organization had removed the post within the next day.

"It should be clear to everyone here why this complaint warranted some kind of action," Brownstein said, speaking for the student's parents.

But the auditorium carried no shortage of dissent, with nearly two hours of public comment landing almost entirely against the policy.

Ultimately, the board again tabled its measure for more work. This time, the body moved to delay revisions for another month or "until such time that we can form a group consisting of board members, teachers and community members," Brownstein said, about three hours into open session.

"So we don't all have to go through this again."

As public comment pressed on, some speakers said the policy was "bullying teachers" and promoting fear. Others described a "right-wing laboratory." But overall, most speakers questioned what the policy could mean for education, students' ability to navigate complex subjects, as well as the expression of diverse viewpoints.

"I think it's a good opportunity, a good learning opportunity, for students to realize that they may be upset by something, anxious about something that they see, offended — but this is life," said Clara Licata of the Southern Delaware Alliance for Racial Justice, noting a wide range viewpoints within large movements like Black Lives Matter.

As the board's new policy reads, its purpose would be to "establish guidelines for teaching the curriculum while protecting students’ mental health, and minimizing distractions, which result from adults silencing dissent or explicitly or implicitly imposing their personal beliefs."

In other words, the policy looks to control how certain issues are approached, discussed and presented in the classroom. It also appears to limit expression of personal opinions or beliefs, particularly of district teachers.

For now, it didn't advance.

"Despite the recent amendments to Policy 6103, we believe that its passage would signify grave violations of both staff and students' First Amendment rights and would potentially subject the Milford school district to costly litigation," warned Mike Brickner, ACLU-DE executive director, in his own public comment.

Brownstein, even after he had told the crowd he heard their opposition and felt prepared to vote down the measure, stayed firm in his belief the proposed policy would not limit speech or discourse.

According to the newly revised, but tabled, policy No. 6103 :

• Educators, or anyone on district staff, may not display any "decorations of a political/ideological nature." However, per the policy, that excludes something "on their desks in a manner that does not attract attention," as well as the U.S. flag, state flag, school district symbols, university flags or U.S. military-related flags.
• Instructional materials must align with curriculum. That means, they are "appropriate to the maturity and developmental levels of the students," as well as "current, significant and of interest to students," according to the policy. This is not further defined in the policy.
• Educators must "allow the equal and unbiased investigation of multiple sides of a topic," but "point out the possibility of errors in statements of students and writers and the possibility of alternative points of view."
• While these teachers and staff "have the right to express their opinions," they must ensure students know it's an opinion and cannot use their teaching position to "further personal political aims or opinions."
• If such staff have any doubts on "the appropriateness of discussing certain controversial/sensitive issues in the classroom," the policy dictates they defer to an administrator.

Difficult to grasp? Some onlookers would agree.

Different school board turmoil: What's going on in Christina? Catch up as board pushes out superintendent, faces FOIA probe

'A chilling effect' in Milford

ACLU-DE already penned a letter to the board last month, calling for complete abandonment of the policy update.

"Many staff members may feel a chilling effect from bringing up any topic that could be construed controversial and would be hesitant to share certain important educational information," Brickner wrote on June 13. "For example, history shows us that the instruction of evolution, slavery, climate change, health sciences and other core educational topics 'arouse strong reactions.' Educators might feel forced to avoid these topics ."

In its next meeting, June 17, the school board tabled the measure , planning further revisions to a policy not changed since 1982. The product of such tweaks came to the floor Monday.

ACLU-DE again called it overbroad, vague and likely to "unconstitutionally chill" First Amendment rights. The civil liberties organization told the crowd the updated policy threatens protected rights of expression, in broad strokes — from lesson topics and materials, to messages and images that express political or religious beliefs. It also looks to compel certain speech, Brickner said, as teachers would have to navigate how to present multiple viewpoints.

The state's largest teachers union, Delaware State Education Association, also spoke against the measure.

"We have heard concerns from educators that this policy will create a culture of fear in classrooms and in turn, negatively impact student learning and student achievement," said Stephanie Ingram, DSEA president. "Proposed Policy 6103 is vague and places a significant burden on educators and threatens their ability to serve their students."

As public comment continued, some speakers appreciated the added context from board members — but still felt that "It's too risky. It's too expensive. It's too vague. It's too reckless," as one Milford parent and educator, Michael McCain, put it. Echoing other public comment, he said he believes that flag issue could have been handled at the school or classroom level.

Board President Scott Fitzgerald and some other board members didn't want to waver.

"I don't like bullies, and I don't bully easily," Fitzgerald said ahead of the final motion, unhappy with the treatment of two speakers who spoke in favor of the measure all evening. "So, I we might be tabling this policy — but I don't know if this will be the end of discussion."

Free speech in school? Milford school board initially tables measure aimed at limiting 'controversial' subjects in class

Contact Kelly Powers at kepowers@gannett.com and follow her on X @kpowers01.

This article originally appeared on Delaware News Journal: Milford again tables policy curbing 'controversial' issues in schools, citing work to come