The Conejo Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) has posted the agenda for the board meeting on Tuesday evening, starting at 6:00 p.m. at the CVHS building behind the district offices located at 1402 E. Janss Rd in Thousand Oaks. Here are some noteworthy items on the agenda. These items are not comprehensive.
ITEM 2E – PUBLIC COMMENTS (General)
This is the time when anyone can speak on any topic for 3 minutes. Board president Betsy Connolly has stated that she reserves the right to limit speakers to 2 minutes if there are more than 12 speakers during public comments. Speakers must fill out one of the blue speaker cards and turn it in before public comments start.
There is also the opportunity for members of the public to comment before each individual agenda item.
ITEM 5B Civic Center Fees
This topic has been controversial due to the fact that Conejo Schools Foundation (CSF) has been getting a special deal on facility fees and CSF Executive Director Cindy Goldberg is also a member of the CVUSD board.
There is a particular controversy this week because the new fee schedule withholds the names of all the organizations so that the public cannot see which organization is getting which deal. This is public information and cannot be hidden from the public in this way.
ITEM 5C – Sex Education Update
There is an attachment to this agenda item that is a email from a member of the public that contains a submitted agenda item. It is appears that the community member submitted a fully written agenda item. Why was it not put on the agenda as its own item? Past practice of the board president is to put public submissions on the agenda as their own stand-alone item.
The item calls for a vote on changing board policy to state that sex education and gender theory will not be taught in grades K-6. The superintendent has publicly stated this, so it should not be objectionable to the board to make this promise official with a board vote.
ITEM 5D – Instruction/parent involvement
This agenda item is concerning because it appears to restrict parental rights. It is proposed to change “parent involvement” to “parent engagement.” It is not clear why.
It is also proposed to change “parent/guardian” to “stakeholder” in one part of the policy. Since this policy is specifically about parent involvement, this is a strange change to make and appears to be an attempt to reduce parents’ rights to be involved in instruction decisions.
- Staff Writers