Central Bucks Policy 321 restricts inclusive education.

Policy 321: “Partisan, Political, or Social Policy Advocacy Activities” is a misguided attempt to solve a problem Central Bucks does not have and will be detrimental to the quality of education provided to children from kindergarten to high school.

A policy fundamentally based on banning, removal, and exclusion CANNOT create welcoming and inclusive learning environments for all children. If passed, it will likely:

Restrict factual and open discussions about current events, American history, race, gender, sexual orientation, and more:

  • The new draft of the policy bans the “use of speech, conduct, or symbols to support or oppose a particular point of view or belief about partisan, political, or social policy issues or matters.”

  • In pursuit of “neutrality and balance,” the policy leaves teachers powerless to moderate disagreements between students, to oppose hate speech, to protect vulnerable students, to foster respect for unfamiliar arguments—in short, to teach.

Stifle classroom culture and learning:

  • The policy states that its purpose is to “create an optimal learning environment and atmosphere of inclusiveness” by restricting what teachers and students can say, raise for discussion, assign, do, advocate for, and even put on the walls of the classroom.

  • The language is so vague as to provide no direction to staff. The implication appears to be that teachers and others must guess what anyone at any time might dislike and avoid that. This effectively guarantees a boring and spiritless classroom.

Fail to prepare students for the real world:

  • “Neutrality” and “balance” are far less important than curiosity, mutual respect, and good listening skills. By presenting students with a bland and sanitized view of the world scrubbed of all controversy, we fail to prepare them to ask critical questions of ideas they will surely encounter in the future. Instead of removing all potential stumbling blocks of differing opinions, we should encourage teachers to present a wide variety of views to their students.

Perpetuate a hostile and fearful learning environment for many:

  • The previous draft of the policy conflated matters of identity, such as gender, with matters of values and political affiliation. The new draft eliminates language about the specific populations that will remain unprotected and unsupported.

Incite harassment and witch hunts against teachers:

  • How is the policy to be enforced? How are teachers to be reported? Presumably students are to turn in their teachers for infractions? Then it comes down to the teacher’s word against the student’s, lacking all context. The policy creates an adversarial relationship between teacher and student where there must be collaboration and mutual respect for learning to occur.

Expert’s condemn Policy 321

Here are our four main areas of concern:

  • The support and acknowledgement of gay & transgender students will be severely limited.

    Policy 321 eliminates classroom display of symbols of inclusion, including Pride flags, which LGBTQ+ students depend on to feel welcome and supported at school.

    Removing Pride flags eliminates a potential ‘safe space’ for LGBTQ+ youth. This will negatively impact learning and can further embolden bullying. This is especially important considering the 2021 PAYS survey results that show there was a 73-116% increase in bullying related to gender, and a 80-122% increase in bullying due to sexual orientation.

    It also reveals to all of our students and our community that Central Bucks does not support diversity and inclusion. Is this really us? Our schools should be embracing differences and teaching an inclusive curriculum which matches the world around us.

    Additionally, although revised Policy 321 removes specific references to gender identity and sexual orientation, based on previous Board comments, we still believe they take the position they are “partisan, political, or social policy issues or matters” not people. Being gay or transgender is not a political statement and up for debate, it’s a persons’ identity and should be respected.

    Read what the Ed Law Center has to say

  • Classroom discussion & connections to learning will be restricted.

    Policy 321 bans the “use of speech, conduct, or symbols to support or oppose a particular point of view or belief about partisan, political, or social policy issues or matters.”

    For example, if students are reading the Great Gatsby and struggling to connect with something that happened to fictional people a long time ago, teachers can no longer encourage engagement. They are now restricted to discussing only the content of said book.

    Policy 321 will prohibit teachers from drawing on their own experience, current events or from sharing stories that the kids can connect to the curriculum — so the book can mean something.

    The curriculum only matters to kids when they see its connection to reality. Educators know they must show kids the value and meaning of what they’re learning in order to learn it. Otherwise, it renders learning as superficial and purely academic.

  • The joy of learning will be replaced with fear and condemnation.

    Our kids learn best in environments with low fear and high trust. Creating a safe environment to talk about tough issues, and helping kids of all backgrounds feel welcome, increases trust and ensures that schools can be a ladder of opportunity for all students.

    Additionally, since:

    • cultural celebrations
    • discussion of current events
    • sharing of family events

    all fall outside of curriculum, they risk being censored too. What fun is school without the sharing of community, relationships and life?

    This can undermine our kids’ education by limiting their ability to learn about different communities and cultures and their contributions to America’s success and progress.

  • The honest education we all want for our children will be squandered.

    Policy 321 requires that all classroom instruction be presented in a “balanced” or “neutral" manner. Some topics simply aren’t balanced or neutral.

    This vague requirement makes it very difficult for educators to facilitate critical lessons, potentially without ‘fault’. It could serve to censor important discussions on difficult topics such as political, historical, and contemporary issues essential to learning and critical thinking.

    For example, discrimination and racism happens in America today and we should be able to talk about this in schools. Any instruction in service of “balance” or “neutrality” when it devalues human beings only serves to discriminate.

    This can limit our children’s ability to understand current events and learn the life skills necessary to navigate these complex situations.

Read about the origin of Policy 321

Here are the subject areas that will likely be impacted:

  • Social Studies

    • Social studies is the obvious course area that covers "partisan, political, or social policy issues" that are "directly relevant to the curriculum," but how does a teacher know when they cross the line into having "the purpose of advocating concerning a partisan, political, or social policy issue"?

    • What if a student says slavery in colonial America was justified, or internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was the right thing to do, or the Holocaust didn't happen? Is a teacher allowed to push back on that?

    • What if a student says Christianity is the cause of all conflict in America? Or that the church has been guilty of promoting sexual abuse and genocide?

    There are many views that are not balanced and cannot be balanced, that teachers must take a stand against—or we are failing to protect some of our kids. Again, the policy’s vagueness means all of this will work itself out at teacher risk in real time, preventing no harm, inflicting much harm.

    • Since the exemption still requires that "instruction or study is not for the purpose of advocating concerning a partisan, political, or social policy issue," social studies teachers cannot have mock debates or role-playing assignments where students are divided into groups and asked to develop arguments for one side of an issue.

  • Current Events

    What is considered "directly relevant to the curriculum" and, therefore, exempt from the prohibition? Can there ever be discussion of current events? They would not be part of the approved curriculum.

  • Art and Literature

    • Literature and art are often about "partisan, political, or social policy" issues.

    • In English class or art class, what's "directly relevant to the curriculum"?

    • "Instruction or study" may not be "for the purpose of advocating concerning a partisan, political, or social policy issue," but isn't that often the primary purpose of art and literature? Is an English class assignment asking students to write a persuasive paper taking a position on the message conveyed in a novel for that purpose and, therefore, not permitted?

    • Can teachers assign a historical speech for students to read, analyze, and discuss? If we read The Gettysburg Address, must we also read something Jefferson Davis wrote? Is Kennedy okay? What about Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream”? In the interests of balance, must we give equal time to George Wallace?

    • If a student's essay or artwork advocates on a partisan, political, or social policy issue, may a teacher provide feedback and suggestions, or does that run afoul of the directive that teacher "shall not direct or encourage students to write, address, or distribute advocacy materials related to any partisan, political, or social policy issue"?

    • It is standard practice to assign a Letter to the Editor or Op/Ed piece to students, who then choose a topic they are passionate about and marshal their arguments accordingly. This is directly forbidden in Guideline #5. Are students to be limited to the most bland “controversies” in their persuasive writing?

  • Student Clubs/Groups

    • What about school debate clubs/teams that are outside the curriculum? Teachers cannot advise or assist students there since teachers "shall not direct or encourage students" regarding advocacy related to partisan, political, or social policy issues. Even if part of the curriculum, the exemption still requires that "instruction or study is not for the purpose of advocating concerning a partisan, political, or social policy issue," which would be the precise purpose of a debate class.

    • Similarly, what are teacher advisors for other non-curricular student groups supposed to do. If a student group wants to oppose proposed revisions to a school board policy and they ask the teacher advisor for suggestions, does the teacher have to remain silent?

    • If the students want to distribute flyers (which is protected by First Amendment) advocating against the proposed revisions, and ask the teacher for an opinion, would the teacher have to remain silent?

  • Classroom Décor

    • The personal family picture exemption from the prior version has been deleted. How do you know if a photo is prohibited "advocacy"? Photographs, like any artwork, may convey different messages and be interpreted differently by different viewers. Is a photo of a teacher with their same-sex spouse advocating about partisan, political, or social policy issues or matters? What about a photo of a teacher with their opposite-sex spouse? What if that teacher's intent in displaying the photo is to protest against gay marriage rights?

    • Teachers in high school often post college banners. Is that now controversial? What about college posters? What about HBCU’s? What about if a college poster has a rainbow flag in it?

Policy 321 would restrict teaching and make it difficult to prepare students for college and adulthood. Read what a college professor say high school students lack when they come to college: 

“I think that the new high school graduates I see (and sophomores with no previous lit classes) most lack close reading skills. Often they have generic concepts and occasionally they have some historical knowledge, though perhaps not as much as they should. I find that they are most inclined to substitute what they generally think a text should be saying for what it actually says, and lack a way to explore the intricacies and interests of the words on the page. Sometimes the historical knowledge and generic concepts actually become problems when students use them as tools for making texts say and do what students think they should, generalizing that all novels do X or poems do Y. Usually the result is that they want to read every text as saying something extremely familiar that they might agree with. I see them struggling the most to read the way texts differ from their views, to find what is specific about the language, address, assumptions etc.” (Tamar Katz, pers. com., 17 September 2001)

Our children deserve an education that fosters learning and belonging, challenges them, and teaches critical thinking.

Our proposal:

  • Offer staff development to all teachers on handling sensitive topics with skill and grace.

  • Refrain from passing punitive policies that do nothing to prevent problems and only address punishment once problems have arisen.

Our vision:

  • We believe in schools where ALL kids can thrive and learn. All kids must feel welcome and all teachers must feel safe to teach.

  • Our teachers are professionals with years of experience fielding all sorts of issues. If they need help to do this better, offer it in the form of continuing education.

  • Kids cannot learn civics, critical thinking, empathy, good listening, or self-inquiry in classrooms that have been sanitized of all potentially controversial topics and views. Our kids need us to bring the world to them in skillful, age-appropriate lessons. 

  • Neither teachers not students “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Watch our Facebook Live Q&A with the ACLU & Educators and learn more about Policy 321 and the ACLU’s discrimination complaint.