This and That, April 16, 2025

School Board Elections

Director Joe Mizrahi has filed to run to keep his seat in region 4. He has two challengers, one new. His challengers are Nadia F. Goforth and former candidate Laura Marie Rivera. 

There are two people running for region 2 and three people running for region 5. 

Currently, there is no one running for region 7 which is Director Brandon Hersey's region. He has said he isn't running. I had thought there would be multiple folks running here. 

The last day to file is Friday, May 9th.  

Seattle Schools and Human Resources

From the Seattle Times:

The Washington state attorney general’s office has filed a lawsuit against Seattle Public Schools, accusing the district of failing to provide reasonable accommodations to its pregnant and nursing employees across various schools over several years.

The suit alleges that the district failed to provide flexible restroom breaks, modified work schedules and the option to sit more frequently. 

The suit also alleges that the district violated the state’s Healthy Starts Act, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant and nursing employees, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination, which prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy and related conditions.

Under the Healthy Starts Act, Washington employers have to allow on-the-job flexibility for nursing and pregnant employees, such as more frequent or longer bathroom breaks and cap items that pregnant workers can lift at 17 pounds.

Before the suit was filed, the attorney general’s office raised these concerns with the district but was unable to resolve the matter through discussions. 

The lawsuit, filed in King County Superior Court, aims to award restitution to all affected employees.

So....

- Who made these choices? Principals were told to do this to employees?

- The article says there is no district policy on "handling employee’s pregnant-accommodation requests." How can that be? 

 - One comment says these situations are NOT addressed in CBAs because "the Union wouldn't bargain something already addressed in state labor regulations or law." Is this true?

 

Washington Parental/Students' Rights

Man, is this one confusing. I had understood that a "parental rights initiative" got passed in the Legislature last year. But apparently, there were already laws in place for some of it and Dems found some of the language "too broad." But now (from the Seattle Times):

Two Democrat-sponsored bills that modify the initiative continue to move toward the governor’s desk despite repeated objections from Republican lawmakers. Throughout the session, the debate has developed into a broader discussion of Washington’s public school policies around inclusive learning environments and students’ access to mental health care. 

In addition to modifying the initiative, Democrats are taking the opportunity to direct the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and local school boards to prioritize students’ right to privacy, safety and a learning environment free of discrimination. The effort comes as the Trump administration has threatened to pull federal funding from schools with diversity, equity and inclusion programs alongside a slew of actions targeting transgender people and “gender ideology.”

The two bills would "add, remove and alter" certain rights. Well that's as clear as mud. One item I find troubling:

Lawmakers have also engaged in extensive discussion about the timeline at which parents should be notified about on-campus events including if their child is the alleged victim of a crime or is removed from campus without authorization. 

The House adopted amendments to the Senate bill, including one that would require school districts to publish a list of medical and mental health services available to students without the consent of a parent or guardian. Other amendments focused on restoring or modifying the timeline in which parents are notified about certain events on campus involving their child or receiving copies of records. 

 I have to ask the question, "Who truly benefits from this?" There has got to be a less confusing way to keep parents in the know about what is happening to their students while at school. 

 

From Vox, a story about a "Don't Say Gay" law. 

This law was in Florida and was found to be unconstitutional with confusing restrictions on what teachers can say about sexual orientation or gender identify. There was even confusion if teachers could reference their spouses. 

Now, however, the Supreme Court will hear a case that could impose a regime similar to Florida’s original Don’t Say Gay law on every public school in the country. The plaintiffs in Mahmoud v. Taylor — a group of Muslim and Christian parents — don’t specifically ask the justices to ban discussions of homosexuality or gender identity from classrooms. Instead, they seek a right to be notified if their children are about to be taught from certain books they claim contain LGBTQ themes, as well as an opportunity to opt those children out of the lessons.

To grant this request, they want the Court to embrace a legal rule that would place such heavy obligations on teachers who discuss these topics that it is unclear whether they would practically be able to do so. Furthermore, even if public schools tried to comply with these disclosure requirements, they are so burdensome that doing so would likely be impossible.

It is quite odd that the highest Court in the nation decided to weigh in on this case before the lower courts have even determined what the case is actually about, especially given it’s not even clear that these books have been used in any classroom instruction whatsoever.

The Court’s decision to prematurely take up the Mahmoud case, however, is consistent with the current crop of justices’ past behavior, which has favored religious — especially Christian — causes. 

That is weird except if you consider that the majority of the justices are Catholic and, of that majority, most went to either K-12 Catholic schools, higher ed Catholic schools or both. 

Becket’s brief seeks to bypass the normal litigation process and instead impose a new obligation on public schools. Schools, they argue, must notify parents if their children will receive “instruction on gender and sexuality in violation of their parents’ religious beliefs,” and give those parents an opportunity to opt their child out of that instruction.

If it were possible to limit this obligation solely to the plaintiffs in this case, then it might at least be logistically feasible for schools to comply with Becket’s proposed rule. But the Constitution does not permit schools to provide a service to people with anti-LGBTQ religious beliefs that it does not also provide to any other person of faith.

The danger in this (because of course if you open the door for one group...)

If a school gives a particular accommodation to people with one set of religious beliefs — the belief that their children should not be exposed to literature with LGBTQ characters — then it must provide this same accommodation to any other person with a religious objection to how the school operates.

If Becket’s rule were implemented, in other words, every public school would have to provide advance notice to any parent about any lesson that might offend that parent’s religious views. But, in a nation as religiously diverse as the United States, it is simply not possible for public schools to comply with such an obligation.

Be careful what you wish for....

Parents would be deluged with paperwork informing them of every minor detail of any upcoming lesson. Teachers would face the impossible task of tracking which students must be shielded from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which students cannot be assigned an ID number, which students must be excused from lessons on the civil rights movement, and which students must never read a book where two women hold hands.  

As Justice Robert Jackson warned in a 1948 concurring opinion, “if we are to eliminate everything that is objectionable to any of these warring sects or inconsistent with any of their doctrines, we will leave public education in shreds.”

What the Supreme Court should not do is hand down a blunderbuss of a legal rule — one that could very well throw every public school in the country into turmoil — based on a half-baked legal theory constructed by lawyers who don’t even know if their clients’ rights were violated yet. The highest Court in the country should actually bother to figure out if the Constitution was violated before they declare anything unconstitutional.