In 2021, in order to gain a better understanding of what was being taught in public schools, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty made open records requests to the nine largest school districts in the state. They asked for materials from several English and social studies classes which utilized terms including “1619 Project”, “white privilege”, and “systemic racism”. The Appleton Area School District was among the districts WILL filed Freedom of Information Act requests with, and in response to the request AASD provided materials from courses taught by 10 different teachers.
When I learned about this, I submitted by own request for the materials AASD provided to WILL. Because the records had already been compiled, I was not charged for this request, but AASD did charge WILL $351. Were the request to be expanded beyond the 10 teachers WILL requested records from to all AASD teachers it would cost over $30,000 to fulfill.
There is a limited avenue to see at a $0 cost what specifically is being taught in AASD classrooms, and that avenue seems only available to parents of students who are currently enrolled in that specific class. When I asked Steve Harrison, the Assistant Superintendent Assessment, Curriculum and Instruction, how community members not enrolled in a class could review materials, I received no response. It appears that if a person is a parent of a student who may be interested in taking a class but is not currently enrolled in that class or if a person is simply a taxpayer and member of the general public the only way to gain access to classroom materials would be to file FOIA requests and pay money to be provided those materials.
The public can get a free partial view of what is possibly being taught in classrooms by reviewing AASD’s standards and curriculum; however, as I learned in talking with Assistant Superintendent Harrison, the curriculum that is posted on the District’s website is not the only source educators can draw material from, and, per Mr. Harrison, “Additional resources may be used if they align with the instructional standards/outcomes of the course.”
Additionally, he stated, “Per Board policy, supplemental materials (books or other non-print materials used within the context of the instructional program which are not included in the definitions of educational materials or textbooks) do not require Board approval.”
When I asked if there were any rules regarding how much course material had to come from a set textbook vs how much could come from supplemental outside sources, I was told, “Board policy doesn’t dictate the extent to which textbooks are used other than being ‘the book or set of materials which serves as the foundation of the content of any Board-approved course.’”
It’s also not clear what the boundaries are around what teachers are allowed to do or what resources they are permitted to direct students to. One would presume there are some areas in which it would be preferable to direct students to secondary rather than primary sources, but that does not seem to be the case. I commented to Assistant Superintendent Harrison, “I expect there must be some sort of boundaries around what teachers are allowed to do. To use an extreme example, I’m assuming that a teacher who had a course that touched on the progression of racism and white supremacy in the US would not be allowed to direct students to the Daily Stormer website even though that site might hold some research value as a direct source about the subject the students were studying.” However, he did not give a clear confirmation that was the case. I went on to pose that thought to him explicitly as a question, but he did not answer.
Beyond that, it does not appear that the District is maintaining any sort of systematic oversight or tracking of the supplemental materials teachers are utilizing in their classrooms. Assistant Superintendent Harrison explained, “Supplemental materials may change frequently due to the nature of teaching and learning, which is why having a centralized repository of such items would prove to be challenging.”
It appears that the main avenue for oversight and review of in-class materials is parents of students enrolled in the class. Per Mr. Harrison, “Board policy indicates that parents and guardians have the right under the Federal Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) to inspect, upon request, any educational materials used as part of the curriculum for their child(ren). The option is always open for a parent to object to a specific educational material being used with his/her child as a part of the educational program. The parent has the right to judge whether certain materials are acceptable for his/her child. However, no individual or organization has the right to limit other students’ access to materials which are a part of the District’s educational program. Should a parent or guardian find any of the educational materials objectionable, this must be communicated to the child’s teacher and an alternative material will be provided.”
He went on to note, “However, no individual or organization has the right to limit other students’ access to materials that are a part of the District’s educational program.”
I have included PDFs of the course materials below as well as the text of my questions and Assistant Superintendent Harrison’s answers.
As you may recall, back in September of 2021, Assistant Superintendent Harrison gave a presentation to the Board of Education on the differences between Critical Race Theory and Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction. It was stated in that presentation that CRT is “a theoretical framework used mostly in higher education. It is a practice. It is not an Appleton Area School District K-12 curriculum or course.”
At the time I commented that AASD’s leadership and the members of the public who were concerned about CRT seemed to potentially be talking past each other. In the presentation, Mr. Harrison used a much more rigid definition of Critical Race Theory than the more colloquial meaning members of the public tend to employ. His presentation focused on CRT’s origins as an academic discipline; whereas members of the public often use the term more informally to refer to a variety of practices and beliefs that are viewed as having been influenced by or derived from Critical Race Theory. I suspect that some members of the public would view parts of the course materials turned over in response to WILL’s open records request as falling under that more colloquial understanding of CRT.
Question: I was wondering if you can tell me how many teachers utilize or reference 1619 Project materials in their classrooms.
Answer: Thank you for your question. To the best of my knowledge, since 1619 materials aren’t currently part of the Board approved materials for any of our courses, we do not currently have any teachers using these in classrooms as Board approved texts.
Question: Thank you for that reply. Is there a place on the AASD website where all of the approved materials are listed?
Are works from Howard Zinn and the Zinn Education Project among the Board approved materials, and, if so, do you know how many classes utilize those materials?
Answer: Works from Howard Zinn and the Zinn Education Project are not among the Board adopted materials. Board adopted materials for each content area can be found within the curriculum documents located HERE.
Question: I had an opportunity to look over the curriculum standards on the AASD website you so kindly directed me to.
For classes with textbooks, do all of the materials in those classes come only from the textbooks or do teachers use supplemental materials from outside the textbook also? If so, how are supplemental materials decided on and approved?
Answer: Per Board policy, supplemental materials (books or other non-print materials used within the context of the instructional program which are not included in the definitions of educational materials or textbooks) do not require Board approval. The selection of educational materials, including textbooks and supplementary materials, is the responsibility of the professionally trained and certified personnel employed by the Appleton Area School District. The obligation for coordinating and maintaining qualitative standards in the selection process rests with the Assessment, Curriculum, and Instruction (ACI) department administrators who have the duty to make educational materials selection recommendations.
Question: It looks like some classes don’t even have textbooks, Social Problems (3510) being one example. In that specific instance, Newsweek and the Post-Crescent are listed as the textbook/resources for the class. Does that mean the teacher can only assign reading material from those sources? Also, in the absence of a textbook or a set curriculum, how is the content of the class determined and what does AASD do to maintain uniformity between Social Problems classes taught by different teachers?
Answer: Although the primary resources/textbooks approved by the Board serve as the main resource for supporting instruction, they are not necessarily the only resource used by teachers. Additional resources may be used if they align with the instructional standards/outcomes of the course.
The content for all courses (regardless of whether there is a Board approved text or not) is based on the academic standards for the course. This is also what guides the uniformity for delivery of instruction. For example, although students in different sections of a course may have different teachers and learning activities, the academic standards for the course for which the learning outcomes are based upon are the same. As we continue to move forward with updating our courses through the standards-based course design process, we are also working to develop common summative assessments. In doing so, this will ensure that students taking the same course, but from a different teacher, have the same assessment. As a result, this will better assist us in progress monitoring student outcomes.
Question: Thank you for that response. Is there any sort of internal oversight or tracking of what supplemental materials teachers bring into the classroom? And, short of spending thousands of dollars on open records requests, is there a way for the public to see what supplemental materials teachers are bringing in the classroom and what outside resources, websites, etc. teachers are directing students to?
I expect there must be some sort of boundaries around what teachers are allowed to do. To use an extreme example, I’m assuming that a teacher who had a course that touched on the progression of racism and white supremacy in the US would not be allowed to direct students to the Daily Stormer website even though that site might hold some research value as a direct source about the subject the students were studying.
I’m also wondering if there are rules regarding how much course material has to come from a set textbook vs how much can come from supplemental outside sources.
Answer: Supplemental materials may change frequently due to the nature of teaching and learning, which is why having a centralized repository of such items would prove to be challenging. In the past, I found myself as a classroom teacher using different supplemental resources to support the same learning outcomes for different class periods based on the interests, reading levels, and dynamics of my sections. With that said, Board policy indicates that parents and guardians have the right under the Federal Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) to inspect, upon request, any educational materials used as part of the curriculum for their child(ren). The option is always open for a parent to object to a specific educational material being used with his/her child as a part of the educational program. The parent has the right to judge whether certain materials are acceptable for his/her child. However, no individual or organization has the right to limit other students’ access to materials which are a part of the District’s educational program. Should a parent or guardian find any of the educational materials objectionable, this must be communicated to the child’s teacher and an alternative material will be provided.
With respect to your second question, Board policy doesn’t dictate the extent to which textbooks are used other than being “the book or set of materials which serves as the foundation of the content of any Board-approved course.”
Question: Thank you for that explanation. When I had asked you how many teachers utilized or reference 1619 Project materials in their classrooms you had responded by saying “To the best of my knowledge, since 1619 materials aren’t currently part of the Board approved materials for any of our courses, we do not currently have any teachers using these in classrooms as Board approved texts.” But, based on what you are now indicating, it sounds like any number of teachers could be utilizing those materials regardless of whether they are Board approved or not.
So, are there AASD teachers who are utilizing or referencing 1619 Project, Howard Zinn, or Zinn Education Project materials in their classes?
Answer: If teachers were utilizing or referencing 1619 Project, Howard Zinn, or Zinn Education Project materials in their classes to support their instruction based on the academic standards for the course, they would be doing so as supplemental materials. Similar to any other supplemental resource as defined in Board policy, I would not have a record of who is or isn’t referencing specific materials.
Question: Thank you for all of your answers. I just have a couple more and then I should be done. Are teachers trained in how they are supposed to respond when a parent of a student asks to review classroom materials? I can’t go into detail, but I was told by a parent that they had asked a teacher to provide the instructional materials that would be utilized in a class their child was enrolled in, but the teacher never did. I didn’t get a sense that this was malicious or intentional stonewalling on the part of the teacher, but I am wondering if maybe teachers are not as aware as they possibly should be as to what their legal responsibilities are.
Answer: Information relating to educational materials is shared with staff at the start of each school year as part of the annual staff policy and handbook review. Although I cannot speak on behalf of the teacher in question, all teachers are required to review the information within the annual staff policy and handbook review at the start of each school year.
Question: Could you lay out what steps a parent ought to take to (a) submit a request and (b) ensure that it’s processed in a timely manner?
Answer: Parents and guardians have the right under the Federal Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) to inspect, upon request, any educational materials used as part of the curriculum for their child(ren). The option is always open for a parent to object to a specific educational material being used with his/her child as a part of the educational program. The parent has the right to judge whether certain materials are acceptable for his/her child. However, no individual or organization has the right to limit other students’ access to materials that are a part of the District’s educational program. Should a parent or guardian find any of the educational materials objectionable, this must be communicated to the child’s teacher and an alternative material will be provided.
Question: Finally, what options are available for parents and non-parent taxpayers to review classroom material if they do not have a student in a particular class?
Answer: Any adult resident of the District, any parent of a child enrolled in the District, or any employee may raise an objection to materials used in the educational program. An objection to educational materials should begin with a contact to the office of the school within the attendance area in which the adult resident lives, the child’s teacher, or the employee’s supervisor.
The school official or staff member receiving a complaint from an adult resident of the District, any parent of a child enrolled in the District, or any employee shall try to resolve the issue informally. The school official or staff member shall:
1. Explain the District’s selection procedure, criteria used for selection, and the qualifications of those who made the selection.
2. Explain the place that the material in question occupies in the educational program and its intended educational use (in the event that the official or staff member does not have knowledge of this information, a person who does, such as the department leader or media person, shall be involved).
3. If the person raising the objection is not satisfied with the initial explanation by the staff member, the complainant shall contact the principal regarding his/her objection and schedule a meeting.
4. The principal will meet with the complainant to apprise him/her of the District’s selection policy, criteria for selection, the reason for the selection, and the judgment of other outside professionals in the education field, such as reviewers, regarding the material. Appropriate District-level personnel shall be consulted for their expertise, which may contribute to a resolution of the issue.
5. In the event that the complainant is not satisfied after the meeting with the principal, the principal will inform the complainant of the Materials Review Process and provide the Request for Reconsideration of Educational Material form – Educational Materials Review Committee. This form must be completed by the complainant and returned to the Superintendent. The principal will forward any records relating to the complaint to the Office of the Superintendent.
Question: I apologize if I worded my final question in an unclear manner. I do appreciate the thorough nature of the answer, but it didn’t exactly answer my question which was how are parents and taxpayers who do not have students in a particular class able to access and view the materials being used in that class?
Answer: He did not respond.
Question: I’m working on a post about the use of supplemental materials in the classroom. I had a couple questions that I wanted to give you the opportunity to answer so that I can make sure I am accurately representing things.
Are there guidelines around when a teacher should be directing students to secondary sources as opposed to primary sources? To use an extreme example, my thought is that a teacher who had a course that touched on the progression of racism and white supremacy in the US would not be allowed to direct students to the Daily Stormer website even though that site might hold some research value as a direct source about the subject the students were studying, but perhaps that is not the case.
Secondly, how are parents and taxpayers who do not have students in a particular class able to access and view the materials being used in that class?
Answer: He did not respond.
Be the first to reply