ANALYSIS: Well-meaning, Overly-Corrective Revisions
Policies and regulations written to address the abuses of a lone individual rarely lead to better process.
By Martin Davis
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
The battle over book challenges in Spotsylvania County has drawn a lot of media attention, and it has significantly damaged the relationship between parents, teachers, and administrators.
Following the election in November 2023, the newly constituted Spotsylvania School Board has correctly spent time undoing some of the previous Board’s more-controversial work.
On Monday night the Board is set to take another step in that direction and approve via its Consent Agenda another significant change; this time to how library books may be reviewed and challenged.
The idea behind the regulation is a well-meaning course-correction to a bad policy; however, what is before the Board is flawed. Consent agenda item 9.08 (Approval of Revisions to School Board Regulation IIA-R) makes two critical mistakes:
It appears to have been shaped principally to address the problems caused by one individual — Jen Peterson. As such, it unnecessarily curtails the rights of parents to raise concerns to principals and school leaders.
Though properly placed on the consent agenda — regulations fall under the superintendent’s purview and do not require public review — the extent to which this issue has roiled Spotsylvania and the degree of changes these regulations introduce, make it prudent the Board insist on at least some community feedback.
The Board has that authority. Board Chair Lorita Daniels tells the Advance via text message that “regulations may be presented to the Board as informational items unless the Board specifically requests a different type of action.”
Regs Require Flexibility
The new policy appears to be written specifically to address the loopholes in the previous policy that allowed Jen Petersen to abuse the book review system and level a legion of challenges to books on the schools’ library shelves.
Petersen is one of 11 people across the county identified by the Washington Post last year as a serial book challenger. She filed at least 71 challenges and was responsible for at least 35 books being removed from the shelves.
A course correction is in order, as Petersen’s reckless behavior consumed vast amounts of staff time and public tax dollars to cater to her quixotic crusade. As written, however, Regulation II.A.R, in clipping Petersen’s wings, could unnecessarily stifle healthy dialog between schools and parents and students.
As we reported on Friday:
The regulation [II.A.R] states that … “Procedures should conserve limited staff resources and discourage the monopolization of the challenge process and require complainants to submit complete, substantive challenge requests.”
It also states that only one challenge can be in review at each school building at any time, and only one challenge can be at the division-wide review level at any time.
Individuals would be limited to four challenges within a school year and will not be allowed to file a new challenge until the previously filed challenge has been decided.
If only one book at a time can be challenged in each school, one could easily see Petersen organizing a team of parents to challenge a different book in each of the county’s 30-plus school libraries, wasting principals’ and parents’ valuable time, and fiscal resources.
What, then, of parents who have other concerns? Perhaps parents with medical expertise who have concerns about a title that addresses mental health or physical health in a way that is potentially damaging; or Hispanic parents who may have concerns about a book with overtly racist depictions of immigrants?
Their voices could potentially be effectively locked out.
Such are the unintended consequences when regulations are written to address one specific bad actor.
How, then, to curtail people like Petersen?
One solution might be to force the petitioner to assume some of the responsibility for the challenge.
If a book is challenged for sexual content and is deemed by the review committee to be appropriate for school libraries, don’t allow the same petitioner to challenge another title on the same grounds.
Petersen intentionally gummed up the system by filing multiple complaints on the same grounds. Such a change would force the petitioner to be more selective in what’s challenged, and decrease the odds of serial filings.
Bypassing the Public
Though Regulation II.A.R does not require a public hearing, the magnitude of the change being introduced, as outlined above, makes a public hearing prudent.
Beyond this, the regulation has not been in the hands of Board members long enough to be properly vetted. The Advance has learned that the committee’s work on the regulation was completed in late August; however, Daniels is just now putting it on the agenda. Moreover, the Advance has learned that the Board members — save the one who served at the committee — did not have access to the document until the day that the agenda was made available to the public last week.
Failure to put this in Board members’ hands sooner is a disappointing continuation of the former Board’s practice. That Board, headed by Kirk Twigg and then Lisa Phelps, often would not communicate with the then-minority members (Nicole Cole, Dawn Shelley, and Daniels) about what was to be placed on the agenda.
The regulation will significantly alter the way the school system handles parents’ approach to grievances about the library system. Though placing it on the Consent Agenda is technically correct, this is an instance where the Board needs to give the public a chance to weigh in. Certainly Board members need more time to review it.
Be Better
Following last year’s election, this publication wrote the following:
As difficult as the past two years have been for those who have had to deal with the Spotsylvania School Board, celebrate tonight and savor this hard-won victory, but don't misunderstand the voters’ message.
There are many parents in the county with legitimate concerns about the content of books and what is taught in the classroom.
The new leaders in Spotsylvania should not forget this. Parents’ and students’ concerns - whether you concur with them or not - deserve to be heard and taken seriously.
This regulation change — whether intentionally or unintentionally — sends a clear message to those with a vested interest in the school system. Your voices will be heard, but on our narrowly defined time schedule.
It’s a disappointing change of course for a Board that, though far from perfect, to this point has taken a number of steps to restore order and responsible policy.
Be better. Pull this document from the Consent Agenda, bring it before the public, and deliver a policy that serves the entire citizenry of Spotsylvania, rather than just addressing the bad-faith actions of one citizen.
Local Obituaries
To view local obituaries or to send a note to family and loved ones, please visit the link that follows.
Support Award-winning, Locally Focused Journalism
The FXBG Advance cuts through the talking points to deliver both incisive and informative news about the issues, people, and organizations that daily affect your life. And we do it in a multi-partisan format that has no equal in this region. Over the past year, our reporting was:
First to break the story of Stafford Board of Supervisors dismissing a citizen library board member for “misconduct,” without informing the citizen or explaining what the person allegedly did wrong.
First to explain falling water levels in the Rappahannock Canal.
First to detail controversial traffic numbers submitted by Stafford staff on the Buc-ee’s project
Our media group also offers the most-extensive election coverage in the region and regular columnists like:
And our newsroom is led by the most-experienced and most-awarded journalists in the region — Adele Uphaus (Managing Editor and multiple VPA award-winner) and Martin Davis (Editor-in-Chief, 2022 Opinion Writer of the Year in Virginia and more than 25 years reporting from around the country and the world).
For just $8 a month, you can help support top-flight journalism that puts people over policies.
Your contributions 100% support our journalists.
Help us as we continue to grow!
You know, for someone who always seems willing to look the other way on transgressions from some (ie the Trump cult/klan) - you sure do bandy words around like bad, abuse, reckless, etc. pretty casually in this editorial.
Is it abuse if she is following the rules of the system? Is it necessarily bad if she is following her heart and convictions? Reckless to care about an issue enough to question something?
Like you, I doubt I agree with the vast majority of her stances on this issue. And I have concerns regarding the way this policy was developed without open discussion or debate. As well as the unnecessary costs to a system with limited resources. And question the standing of someone who does not live in a community to be deciding which books are available to the children there.
All valid concerns. And I hope Spotsy will give them due consideration.
But is it really necessary to subjectively demonize this person whom you've likely never met just because it fills out your editorial as something righteous?
I know it's an opinion piece. But wouldn't an objective, analytical one carry more weight than one so based on subjectivity?
If you're going to say in other editorials that comity, equivocation, non-judgement, yada, yada, yada must be maintained no matter what core principles of this republic are being systemically destroyed by our neighbors all in the name of making themselves "great" again - whatever in the hell that means - (and you do) as long as they'll come to your basement to make a podcast every week, why is this unmet person any worse?
Has she been convicted of a multitude of felonies? Found to have committed sexual assault? Threatening to jail her enemies? Tortured children? Etc.
You've studiously given a pass to those who chosen to align with such values; what, pray tell, has this lady done that is worse?
Just wondering......