Conejo Valley Schools parental choice book dispute status: Spinning the narrative, attacking board members, etc.

By George Miller

Are the Acorn and the Star being one-sided and unfair covering Conejo book list policy? Is parental choice “censorship?” Why are Progressive pressure groups apoplectic over it?


 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreword

The debate and arguments (some call it “BookGate”) surrounding the new Conejo Valley Unified School District book selection policy- BP6161.1.pdf  AR 6161.1.pdf permitting parental book selection opt-out for their children and a formalized role in book selection committees, have often been loud, nasty, vicious, emotional and sometimes offensive.

No matter which side of the issue one is on, it is evident that civil discourse and fair press coverage have gone by the boards and do not meet an acceptable level of professionalism, courtesy, respect and rational dialogue. While some have said that slanderous comments were made, it looks more like harassment and bullying- both cyber and public speaking.

Given their position on the issue, it’s not surprising that some opposition pressure groups and Progressive faculty are furious over the major book policy change made late last year. Local media Ventura County Star and The Acorn have both taken the side of the opposition editorially, but their news coverage has also been slanted toward them. Some bloggers and school newspapers have also sided with them. These parties have referred to the new parental choice policies as arbitrary, “censorship” and “religious extremism.”

But the fight has now escalated beyond just policy and is focusing on sometimes vicious attacks on board members, especially 13 year member and former President Mike Dunn, who has been at the center of culture change on the board. They have attacked his policies, qualifications and even him personally. They have also attacked some of the board majority’s supporters. Now, an opposition board member will attempt to win a vote to censure board member Mike Dunn on 2-6-18.

 

The Issues

We should first summarize the issues, before looking at the objectionable contentious debate, fights. name-calling, etc.

On the surface, the controversy is over what books can be used in the grade 9-12 curriculum and under what conditions. Some parents and board members object to books being used from the CDE (California Dept. of Education) state book list which are flagged for adult content and at least one other. The CDE cautions both parents and educators about certain books. The number of books with the annotation is 323 out of the 2,537 books listed for the 9-12 “grade span”. the District already requires opt-in for R-rated movies

Updated CVUSD policy 6161.1 is firmly rooted in relevant California Department Education Code (CDE). The new policy expands the opportunity for teachers to choose texts to use in their literature classrooms. The policy offers them a clear, unambiguous path to follow for approval of any book a teacher wants to add to the list which the CDE annotates as being “published for an adult readership and thus contains mature content.” The CDE annotation goes on to advise educators AND parents alike that, “Before handing the text to a child, educators and parents should read the book and know the child.” The policy also provides for selecting books not on the state list. Finally and most controversially, it recognizes and provides a path for parents to be informed of curriculum book selections and to opt their children out of these.

Recommended Literature List – Curriculum Resources (CA Dept of …

Literature Links – School Libraries (CA Dept of Education)

The school district has selected about 8 of these annotated books, which are rarely actually used. While the board does not necessarily wish to prohibit those, they want to allow, in fact have now allowed, formal parent/student opt-out and substitution of more acceptable works for those students. They also mandated parent/community involvement in selection of books. This obviously would place a heavier workload on affected teachers, but so far that has not occurred. Opponents feel this could have a chilling effect on book selection, as teachers might avoid those books which would stir controversy. To deal with that, we are told by a close observer to the process that Board Member Sandee Everett has offered to hire teachers or arrange for someone else to teach the students. The alternative assignment would be prepared by the district. 

A District-Superintendent Dr. Mark McLaughlin-appointed faculty committee to update the then existing policy ran into opposition from board member/reviewer Sandee Everett,. She believed that the draft policy lacked sufficient parental control. She drafted proposed changes to the policy, then negotiations broke down. An eleventh hour negotiating session made some changes that brought the two sides closer together, but still not in agreement. Everett walked into the 11-14-17 board meeting with a marked-up draft, which opposing board member Betsey Connolly argued about all evening, until a vote was forced to pass it around 11:15 PM, with Connolly dissenting, but after getting quite a few changes made to it. (Patricia Phelps was absent, but likely would not have altered the outcome of the vote).

Some faculty and outside pressure groups objected to this strenuously, asserting that teachers and staff are the experts, not parents or the board, who they say should butt out. They are insulted, believing that their professionalism has been questioned and that they know what is best. So, do the parents have a right to determine the education their children should receive? According to applicable state education code, yes, quite a bit. The board used that in their deliberations.

Opponents have called the new policy “censorship,” yet there is a clear unambiguous policy for selection, which includes community and faculty participation. Why is it not “censorship” if only faculty make the selection decisions? How is it “censorship” when parents decide what their minor children are exposed to?

Some faculty and outside policy opponents also believe that some of these rougher books would provide the children a better idea of what actually goes on outside the walls of academia (and their parents’ protection).

Think about it: the medical industry is required to obtain parental approval for medical procedures on children (except abortions). Many schools require parental permission for field trips and even certain in-school celebrations, such as pagan Halloween fetes. R-Rated movies shown in the district have an opt-IN requirement. So why would books be so different?

Opt-out advocate parents, groups and three board members: Mike Dunn, Sandee Everett and John Andersen, after reviewing state laws/codes and the situation, concluded that the state fully supports parental choice/involvement in curriculum and that they have just as much rights as teachers do to influence curriculum.  There are some minimum state curriculum requirements and some which are merely recommended.

Interestingly, we are told that parents have opted 26% of district children completely out of Conejo public schools, presumably for private or homeschooling. Policy advocates say such things as book opt-out would help to slow that down. Meanwhile, opponents, in marked contrast, claim that  it will drive more away, weaken the schools, harm the reputation and even the prosperity of the Conejo Valley. Neither side provides any credible support for their claims.

The REAL issues

Of course, the book list is just one aspect of a much larger issue, which is the real one in contention; namely: who runs the schools: the board/parents or the staff/faculty? According to state law and the current board, it’s the former, at least for such policy decisions. Some believe that a collaborative process may be best. The board and many parents believe that regardless of the outcome, the final opt-out decision is reserved for parents. This will result in a contentious upcoming school board election, which may become a struggle for the soul of the schools and who is in charge. It’s also expected to result in contentiontious school board meetings, such as the upcoming 2-6-18 meeting,

 

Example of curriculum notice

 

The Fight

As we mentioned previously, the fights over BookGate have become quite nasty, especially when proposed policy opponents realized that they were losing the fight. But both sides have at times been less than courteous and civil in this passionately hard-fought battle,

Opponents have accused the board members voting for the opt-out book policy and its supporters variously as: censors, religious bigots, tyrants, idiots, as well as failing to separate church and state, and more.

Some community leaders/teachers opposing the policy have seemingly gone over the top. Example: Stunningly, Paula Nathan, President of PTA opined on parents wishing opt-out:  “Teachers strive to provide our students with a well-rounded education to prepare them for the rigors of the world. Homeschool is always an option for those who do not want their children to have a free, public education by qualified teachers.” Multiple pro-policy people we talked to believe that and other of her utterances were out-of-step, elitist views. Think about it. The PTA President says do it her way or leave.

Some other policy-opposing combatants: board member Betsy Connolly, voted-out board member Peggy Buckles, not now so “Anonymous Mommy” blogger Jess Weihe, Unified Association of Conejo Teachers (UACT) leader Randy Smith, Jon Cummings’ left wing group Indivisible:Conejo, are some of the more vocal players on the opposition side.

The opposition groups bringing in the most people to meetings appear to be the teachers’ union and Indivisible: Conejo. Even minimal research quickly reveals the following about the latter from their page:

OUR VISION

Indivisible: Conejo is a nonprofit advocacy organization, centered in the Conejo Valley northwest of Los Angeles, that is devoted to battling Trumpism and advancing progressive causes and values. We take, as inspiration, the budding Indivisible movement, which now includes thousands of local organizations dedicated to encouraging and facilitating personal actions that exert direct influence on our elected officials.

OUR MISSION

Indivisible: Conejo is using the methods laid out in the Indivisible Guide, and others strategies as well, to fight against Trump and the Republicans’ agenda at the federal, state and local levels. We seek to ensure the defeat of legislation and executive orders from Washington that endanger the lives and livelihoods of women, immigrants, Muslims, racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ citizens, and other vulnerable communities.

We monitor the efforts and voting records of local city council and school board members who stand (and vote) against progressive values. We work with local, issue-specific advocacy groups, providing visibility and support for causes such as reproductive rights, voting rights, gun safety, climate change and the environment, and comprehensive immigration reform. Additionally, we encourage and support opposition efforts (including candidate recruitment) in congressional and state-assembly districts that neighbor our own.

A goal in their issues section:

Monitoring the agenda of, and participating in biweekly meetings of, the Conejo Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) board of trustees. Particular concerns include implementation of curriculum standards delineated under California’s FAIR Act, and recent attempts to introduce religious-based discrimination into district policy.

 

This looks a lot more political and seems far more organized than the advocates of the policy, who are a collection of individuals and also the grassroots Unified Conejo movement. Interestingly, the political parties and church pastors seem to have officially steered clear of this and not spoken out.

 

EXAMPLES of more fringe opponents’ offensive words/actions here.


It appears that Ms.Weihe (and some other opposition bloggers/groups) is scrubbing some of her pages now that more attention is being turned to her controversial writings. She seems to reserve a special disdain for long time Conejo Valley Conservative activist Cathy Carlson. In a Tina Fey-esque move, she staged the photo below, dressing up as an exaggerated version of Carlson, complete with Bible-at-ready. This is part of opponents’ attempts to link the new policy to religious extremism, which is quite a stretch.

Inline image

More words from the opposition’s leading blogger:

“BUT WHAT HAS ME ROLLING ON THE FLOOR IS THE REACTION to my Concerned Citizen halloween picture.

There are “holy fucks” and “she looks crazy as fuck in that photo” and “a real mom calls herself AM?” (NO, DAMMIT, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY I’M A FAKE MOM?!)

This seriously has to be the funniest shit I’ve ever seen. EVERY dollar of the more than $1,000 I raised to wear that costume was worth it. EVERY DOLLAR. Does this not prove how successful it was?! I’m kinda sad I chucked the wig now.

I mean, just picture it with me: this group of local women 1) thinks this is what I look like; 2) that I legit believe the signs I am holding up; 3) that I’m anonymous; and 4) that I want to lick the MOCV admin’s asshole.

Like this is all real. You know, some days Conejo Valley just lives up to its absolutely magical potential to be home to the most entertaining batshit insanity. I love it.”

We are told by Cathy Carlson that this photo which appeared on Anonymous Mommy blog shows signs being made and that Mustang Marketing management approves.

 

Signs were then used by Weihe to help spoof Ms. Carlson outside of CVUSD headquarters.

 

The REAL Cathy Carlson looks more normal and we daresay better-looking ….

 

 

Carlson is accusing Jess Weihe of Libel. When I asked her for substantiation, Carlson provided this to us:

George,
 
She recently posted a timeline on her blog, not Facebook.  Here is the link on her home page.  Go down to “Here is the story…” dated January 30, 2018.  She libels me by name, twice, saying I went to her place of business to get her fired.  And then that I called a second time to get her fired.  No.  I made complaints both times. First to Diane, thinking it was involving taxpayer money.  It wasn’t, so I told her it wasn’t my concern, but she had a big problem, in my opinion.  The second time I telephoned Scott, saying I didn’t think it reflected well on his company, since I was sure there were lots of Trump supporters that she was insulting during working hours at Mustang Marketing.  He said he supported and encouraged her, and he knew what she was doing.
 
Here is what I want to show a lawyer for a libel case:
 
Paragraph 6, a lie:  “Cathy Carlson visited my work and asked to have me fired because she disagreed with my opinions of the FAIR act. “.  No, I was shocked at her violent language.  I was concerned that she was also posting on social media on her Facebook account, insulting Trump voters.  She calls me a “trumpette” later in another post I will give you.
 
Paragraph 7: ” Cathy Carlson showed up to my work hoping to have me fired” Bizarre.  How would she know what a person is hoping for?  I had no conversation with her.  I never said to Diane that I hoped she would get fired.  I did say to Diane that this political activity during work hours might be problematic in her position as a Community College trustee and a fellow Republican.  I was sympathizing, not threatening Diane.  I said I don’t know what you are going to do.  I never said fire Jess.  I was merely calling this to her attention, and Diane thanked me and said she would discuss it with Scott.  Then we spoke of other things, certainly not 15 minutes on Jess Weihe.  Jess was sitting outside the closed door, in the receptionist’s chair.  She looked worried when I came out.  Eyes very large.  Not a bit like her selfies, of which she has hundreds.
 
Paragraph 8:  Not libel, but putting pressure on John Andersen, saying “silence implies complicity”.  No it doesn’t.  The wheels of government turn slowly. This woman is rash.  She wants things fast, like instant gratification from alcohol, and distractions from problems via movies and reality tv shows of her former jobs.  She is new to politics.  She admits she has a alot to learn. ( She wrote that this week in explaining why she won’t run for school board.)  John is the President.  She doesn’t understand the need for legal review, and the responsiblity John has to be fair in his response.  She wants revenge.  She has a post, saying she was worried about losing her job, because it has happened before because of her actions.  Gee, do you think????
 

Weihe and many of the Indivisible supporters are also opposing the move of the Calvary Godspeak Church to the Miller YMCA building in Newbury Park. They have variously attacked it for being inappropriate for the properly zoned neighborhood, then attacked on other shaky grounds, including these:

Anonymous Mommy
The other day I shared this article from the Acorn regarding the current escrow plans of the Miller Family YMCA.
 
There were a few commenters who felt that other commenters’ less than supportive reaction to the plans was an attack on Christianity… which I’d like to further explore. I’m sharing my thoughts on this reaction below, for those who missed it.
I’m going to posit why there is such an extreme reaction to this purchase (and not necessarily specifically just to those who are Christian, or affiliated with any other religion really)… but will not claim to speak for anyone else; rather offer what I’ve observed and read, which leads me not to be surprised by the reaction.
 
Personally, I don’t perceive the reaction as hatred against Christianity or Christians, but a distaste for extremism and individuals who have sought to blur the line between separation of church and state, through the use of elected positions and wealth.
First and foremost, I think it is a complete shame that a YMCA is being *potentially* (permit approval pending) replaced with a religious institution of any sort. In our area, we are not lacking for multiple places of worship, and it would seem like a community center (even if YMCA wasn’t the right choice) would be a better fit for use for the entire community, especially when you take into account that the City of Thousand Oaks funded $1 million toward the opening of this facility initially. To me that screams a large conflict of interest.
 
But diving in a little deeper, let’s start with fracking billionaire David Wilks, who is purchasing the property (for a million off the asking price!) David Wilks has previously donated toward Rob McCoy’s (current Godspeak senior pastor and Thousand Oaks City Councilmember) assembly run, which he lost before eventually taking his seat on the city council. As I noted in my OP, I find it rather convenient that a facility that was largely funded by the city is now being bought by a billionaire who has ties to one of the city’s Councilmembers, at a huge discount with plans to turn into a Godspeak Church.
 
Also worrisome to some, are Wilks’ ties to Westlake-based evangelical Republican political operative David Lane. Lane, who, among many things, is the founder of The American Renewal Project (ARP), which is run under the sponsorship of the American Family Association (AFA), an anti-LGBT hate group. It should be noted that The ARP is designed specifically to drive evangelical pastors into politics in an attempt to establish a Christian theocracy in America. Lane’s work has been bankrolled by the rabidly anti-gay and anti-Muslim American Family Association, which the Southern Poverty Law Center lists as a hate group. You might recall backlash when Angie Simpson, who ran for CVUSD trustee in 2016, and plans to do so in 2018, accepted a $5,000 donation from David Lane. This is why.
 
And now back to Lane… Wilks (discussed above) helps fund Lane’s American Family Association. David Lane is also a member of Godspeak, having done Godspeak podcasts with Rob McCoy. Now, if you aren’t familiar with McCoy, (and perhaps you are), McCoy, believes in banning abortion and gay marriage and putting prayer back in schools, and, according to Reuters, represents a tactical shift within a Christian far right seeking to regain its political influence after losing several big battles in the so-called culture wars.
 
I recently witnessed McCoy’s influence on policy in our public school system during the the board’s alternative assignment policy discussion and vote. People I’ve never seen at previous school board meetings flooded the meetings in regards to the policy discussion (attempting to frame the narrative this issue had to do with morals and parent choice — it doesn’t)… all of these new faces were encouraged to attend board meetings by McCoy, so I later learned. I’m not opposed to any members of the community attending board meetings, but what I found frustrating is that this group of people literally had no idea what they were angry about. They showed up uninformed and ready to be outraged, without actually knowing the context of the issue, simply because they were told to go and be angry. I found further interest in learning that extremist members of the “Unified Conejo” group were large fans and lecture-attendees of McCoy’s, often citing his lectures in their editorial pieces.
 
Anywho, what this all eventually leads back to is an alarming increase in influence and power by a very few select individuals who have used large $$$ to garner powers of position within the city and local politics to further advance one agenda.
 
So to me, it’s not necessarily accurate to simplify the reaction to “hating Christians.” I am an atheist. I don’t hate Christians, at all. I believe everyone has the right to practice their religion, as much as I believe everyone has the right to freedom from religion as well. To each their own… as long as we honor the separation of church and state. When individuals use their positions to insert their specific religious agendas to influence local politics and policy, and even benefit through cushy deals to open new facilities that benefit their agendas and mission, which are well documented, as opposed to the community as a whole, then we have a problem.
 
As always, I’m open to hearing different perspectives and takes and appreciate you taking the time to read and comment!
Here’s the original article I shared, and I’ll share some links in the comment that provide where I sourced information from in order to have this discussion.
 
**** Now, if I’m not mistaken, I believe McCoy has to abstain from voting on the permit because of the conflict of interest (but please correct me if I’m wrong). For those who are concerned about these plans, it would make sense for you to reach out to city council
members who will be deciding on this issue to respectfully voice your concerns in approving the permit.
 
Mayor Claudia Bill-de la Pena: claudia4slowgrowth@roadrunner.com
Mayor Pro Tem Andrew Fox: cnclmanfox@aol.com
Councilmember Al Adam: aadam@toaks.org
Councilmember Joel Price: jprice@toaks.org

 

Another vocal policy opponent opines:

Jon Cummings

PR head, employee, accused board member of threats

Board Member Mike Dunn responds:
 
Jessica Wiehe (Anonymous Mommy) is a cyber bully.  On 1/23 she attacked the school district.
 
       I wrote her boss, Scott Harris, President of Mustang Marketing an email encouraging him to stop her abuse.  I did not ask Harris to fire her.  I told Harris that if he was going to support Wiehe’s abuse that I would mention it whenever she attacked the school district.
 
       Harris replied, “I support Jess, as an employee and citizen, and her 1 Amendment rights even during the day (work hours)”.
 
      Slander, libel and lies and not protected speech under the 1 Amendment.
 
      Instead of discouraging Wiehe’s abuse and cyber bullying, Harris spun the issue to benefit his political agenda which attacks republicans, conservatives and Christians.
 
      I offered Harris mediation and a face to face meeting to resolve the abuse.  Harris refused.
 
      Wiehe is hurting the school district, our students and our local economy.
 
      Where in Harris’s fake news spin is there sympathy for all the people Wiehe has deliberately hurt for years with her slander and cyber abuse?
 
.
Sample opposition comment on CitizensJournal.us

WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT?

In what instance have K-12 educators tried to show ‘pornography?’ Do you consider ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ pornography? If you do, I’m afraid you not only gravely misunderstand the meaning of that word, but another one as well: education. Teachers assign **widely** accepted age-appropriate material that stimulates imagination, thought, critical thinking, and probably most important: an understanding of themselves, the complicated world around them.

I use ‘Catcher in the Rye’ as an example because I know it’s been controversial in the past for some. The greater question isn’t why your kid shouldn’t read it, but why **you** feel uncomfortable having you and your child explore those themes, (depression, anger, insecurity) emotions prevalent amongst youth.

Educators are trained to develop children’s minds. This is their job, and what they’ve chosen to (almost thanklessly) dedicate their lives to, for awful pay and – by evidenced by this thread – little respect. Trust them to select the material that will best educate our kids. They know what they’re doing.

– Monique McKenna, 1-25-2018

 

Policy advocates

Unified Conejo is a Christian Conservative group (MORE) which has led the charge for parental control and helped change the makeup of the board in elections.

We heard people from various walks of life advocate for the new policy at multiple board meetings we either attended or monitored remotely, although they were significantly outnumbered by opponents. But the real level of support is only as good as the last election results. The board majority which passed the policy won big. Opponents will work to try to change that in November.

 

The plot thickens

After months of the blogger’s attacks on him, culminating in a speech at a recent board meeting against him, Dunn last week contacted Weihe’s employer, Scott Harris of PR firm Mustang Marketing, drawing his attention to Weihe’s objectionable posts, saying he would mention that her employer supports and agrees with her, if Wiehe continued slandered/libeling him. People on both sides of the fight widely believe this was a significant blunder. Scott accused Dunn of First Amendment violations/intimidation.

What is interesting is that articles with Harris’ counterattack appeared so very quickly- within hours- in both the Acorn and Star. Mr. Harris somehow left out Citizens Journal from his call list, although we have previously published numerous business releases sent to us by his firm. Pieces followed on multiple TV and radio stations as well. The old adage about not arguing with people who buy ink by the barrel must apply to PR firms as well. Weihe claims that Dunn demanded that she be fired, which he emphatically denies.  Dunn’s opponents are really going after him and seem to think they have a kill shot here.

Their intent is to attempt to vote him out in the November election. All previous attempts have failed to gain traction beyond their supporters and compliant media outlets. Dunn intends to appeal to voters who approve of parental control, improvement of results and sound fiscal management.

 

Media Treatment

Local media The Star and Thousand Oaks Acorn have emphatically opposed the new book policy and its supporting board members. A look through the “Related articles” links below will help establish that.

Policy supporters pointed out a recent misquote in a Star article passage via an email:

“Dunn said in his email that he would mention the name of the company the woman works for if she spoke in public session at a board meeting and asserted that the company supported her political positions.

No that we endorse it, but his actual words we that he would do so if she slandered/libeled him. Dunn also claimed taht Harris suppored and agreed with Whie’s words.actions…

 

Related articles:

Conejo School Board releases final book selection/opt-out policy

Conejo School Board releases final book selection/opt-out policy

By George Miller- As reported last week, the Conejo Valley Unified School District board approved a new book selection and opt-out policy, or as they call it: “Selection and Evaluation of Instructional Materials.” It was a messy meeting, since the version submitted for approval by board member Sandee Everett was disputed, as the Superintendent’s committee […]

Conejo Valley School District passes new book selection/opt-out policy

Conejo Valley School District passes new book selection/opt-out policy

By George Miller- After a long, hard, bitterly fought battle, the Conejo Valley Unified School District board passed a sweeping new book selection and parental opt-out policy. Like last week’s meeting,  there was an overflow crowd. Opposition outnumbered the advocates and was composed mostly of faculty, some parents and lots of kids, mostly from Newbury Park […]

It’s about letting parents parent

It’s about letting parents parent

By Ashley Huizenga, February 01, 2018 – The time has come for a change. Our community has become divided among parents, teachers and those making decisions. A battle has raged for some time, and it is a fight for authority over our children. I believe that no matter how much I disagree with liberal points of […]

George Orwell’s Animal Farm, CVUSD’s BookGate, Our Children, and YOU!

George Orwell’s Animal Farm, CVUSD’s BookGate, Our Children, and YOU!

By Deborah Baber Savalla- Monique McKenna is a public school teacher. On January 25, 2018 she inserted herself into the ongoing CVUSD, (Conejo Valley Unified School District), School Board discussion about the Board’s new policy regarding 9-12 core literature texts. School Board policy 6161.1 is firmly rooted in California Department Education Code (CDE). The […]

Conejo School Board member Mike Dunn comments on BookGate, 1 Jul 2017

Do You Know What YOUR Child Is Reading? Parental Rights and Controversial Books in Public School Curricula 5 Sep 2017

When Is Literature Not Literature For Public School Students? 23 Sep 2017

Conejo Schools “BookGate” war continues 7 Oct 2017

Conejo resident employs religious and constitutional principles to dispute school district book selections 17 Oct 2017

Next Tuesday in T.O.: Who “owns” the children? Who sets school policy? 9 Nov 2017

JUST THE FACTS | Conejo Valley School Board Proposed Curriculum Policy | BookGate, 12 Nov 2017

Articles on Conejo Valley school books dispute- vote is Tuesday 11-14-17, 13 Nov 2017

Adult-rated literature for minor children at CVUSD – if parents want it 13 Nov 2017

Articles on Conejo Valley school books dispute- vote is Tuesday 14 Nov 2017

Conejo Valley Faux Book Banning Controversy: Just the tip of a dangerous iceberg 24 Nov 2017

Fairness Prevails on Conejo Valley Unified School District Book Controversy 21 Dec 2017

Round 2: Conejo School Board votes to accept … – Citizens Journal

Local activist says Conejo School Board vote on … – Citizens Journal

 


George Miller is Publisher/Co-Founder of CitizensJournal.us and a “retired” operations management consultant residing in Oxnard.


Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

5 Responses to Conejo Valley Schools parental choice book dispute status: Spinning the narrative, attacking board members, etc.

  1. Ivette Mikulasek February 9, 2018 at 1:45 pm

    Thank you for this article, you have just confirmed what I was thinking on the first place and I’m stunned how many people follow the media narrative without using their common sense

    Reply
  2. Cheryl February 7, 2018 at 12:29 am

    Thank you for providing clarity and facts thoroughly! Excellent resource! Too bad we can’t count on our local papers for this, so appreciate your publication.

    Reply
    • Ivette Mikulasek February 9, 2018 at 1:42 pm

      Agreed

      Reply
  3. Marty Jones February 6, 2018 at 10:18 am

    Hard to believe people are fighting to override parents’ wishes – parents’ wishes rule! Would a teacher be able to override parents’ wishes to not have their child participate in Halloween or Christmas events? Parents have the legal right to be fully informed of book choices and the legal right to opt out if they so choose.

    Reply
  4. William Hicks February 5, 2018 at 9:00 am

    If opponents had their way, parents would have nothing to say about what’s best for their children, and duly elected Board Members as well.

    Doe’s that make sense to anyone?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *