The Davis School District board unanimously approved new instructional materials during a July 21 meeting, concluding a debate over whether teachers should be required to provide parents with advance notice for books containing potentially sensitive topics. The discussion highlighted a divide among board members regarding the balance between parental notification and the potential for micromanaging classroom instruction.
Debate Over Parental Notification
The debate centered on a specific business item regarding instructional materials, specifically whether the district should implement a formal requirement for teachers to notify parents via email before covering books with touchy content. Board member Julie Powell suggested that even for books approved by review committees, a parent warning should be included if the content is deemed risqué. She cited the novel "The Fault in Our Stars," recommended for grades 10 and above, as an example where a warning might be appropriate. Powell noted that while such books are not prohibited, a direct notification would be appreciated by parents.
District Best Practices
Teaching and Learning Director TJ Strain, who presented the information to the board, characterized such notifications as a "good practice" rather than a necessity. Strain stated that the district currently encourages teachers to keep parents in the loop by sending notes home or including information in unit disclosures. He noted that most teachers already utilize the syllabus or beginning-of-the-year materials to inform parents about upcoming reading assignments, such as "The Fault in Our Stars."
Defining Sensitive Materials
Assistant Superintendent Dr. Logan Toone clarified the distinction between controversial topics and prohibited materials. Toone emphasized that there are no sensitive materials in the specific book discussed, noting that "sensitive materials would prohibit it from use in schools." He added that a board directive to mandate a letter home would be considered "abnormal" given the standard process for approving instructional materials, which typically flows through the established departmental channels outlined by Strain.
Parental Responsibility vs. Micromanagement
The discussion revealed conflicting views on the responsibility of parents versus the district. Board member Michelle Barber suggested that the responsibility for reviewing content should remain with parents through the existing syllabus system. Powell countered that parents are unlikely to read every syllabus, especially in secondary schools where students may have up to eight different classes, making direct email notifications more practical for families.
Superintendent Defends Current System
Board member Emily Price expressed concern that a formal requirement would constitute micromanagement and added unnecessary workload for teachers. Similarly, Superintendent Dr. Dan Linford defended the current system, stating that the district expects parents to read syllabuses and does not view the review of multiple syllabi as micromanaging. Linford, drawing on his own experience as an English teacher for seven years, noted that most teachers are trained to communicate via syllabus or disclosure statements.
Utah State Legal Framework
The discussion takes place against a backdrop of strict state regulations regarding instructional materials. Under Utah Code Section 53G-10-103, effective May 7, 2025, "sensitive materials" are prohibited in school settings. The law defines sensitive material as content that constitutes objective or subjective sensitive material, with objective sensitive material specifically referring to pornographic or indecent material as defined by state law. The statute mandates that public schools and local education agencies must prioritize protecting children from the harmful effects of illicit pornography when evaluating materials.
Legal Standards for Reviewing Materials
The state law provides specific definitions for instructional materials, which include any material used to deliver curriculum or support learning, regardless of format, such as textbooks, handouts, videos, and digital websites. The law also outlines the process for challenging materials, allowing employees, students, or parents to initiate a review. If a material is found to be "objective sensitive material," it must remain inaccessible to students. The statute also includes provisions for "subjective sensitive material" and allows for parent consent in specific instances, such as concurrent enrollment courses.
