Reconsidering the EFA/EFB Challenge Process
Let's bring back sanity to the book reconsideration process in Conroe ISD.
As with many school districts today, ours here in Montgomery County, Texas continues to debate its book policies. As in, which books can be used for either instructional use by educators or found for student self-selection in libraries. In Texas schools, these are commonly known as Board Policies EFA and EFB.
I wrote a deep dive on these policies last school year, after hundreds of titles were removed from Conroe ISD classrooms and libraries following a change in EFA/EFB to include language restricting “sexually explicit” material. This was in line with Texas law, HB-900, Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources (READER) Act. You can read the full write-up below, but note it is a long read:
I originally planned to write a second part to that post, but there are still debates and decisions being made that makes it difficult to discuss and predict what will happen next. Perhaps after our board elections this November, we will have more to discuss.
As of August 2024, the Board is considering new changes to these policies, one of which may include adding another layer in the appeals process. Watch this below:
Essentially, Conroe ISD is having to roll back some of its book policies due to them enabling the removal of a vast array of books, many of which are used in AP Literature. Frank Strong breaks down why this is important in his latest post here:
For today, I wanted to brainstorm on ideas to update our existing EFA/EFB policies, as it relates to challenging those books (a.k.a., reconsideration). This includes the informal and formal reconsideration processes.
Is there a policy where inappropriate books can be properly challenged (and potentially removed), while still maintaining the freedom for young minds to read important books that teach empathy, understanding, or difficult-to-accept truths (e.g., slavery or sexual assault)?
Can this be accomplished across the different grade levels, making sure age-appropriate material is only available to those students who are mature enough for it? With how American politics are working nowadays, pleasing everyone is an impossible task; but we can challenge this assumption, seeing as how we all have to get along (right?).
Based on this, I decided to write-up drafts for potential EFA/EFB policy changes, and then sent them to our school board. I will also be sharing this post in the social media groups where I know candidates for school board will see it.
For these changes, I wanted to accomplish the following goals:
Focus solely on the reconsideration process, not changing the definitions for inappropriate material, as these are already well defined in Conroe ISD EFA/EFB policies. It is difficult to navigate what is, or is not, inappropriate material when much of today’s debates on book content is arguably subjective and driven by bias or agenda than literary merit.
Find solutions to end the one-at-a-time book challenges at the board level (i.e. Level 3), attempting to find a method in which the school board can take back their valuable time and discontinue the frequent public battles where individual book titles must be debated. Boards should be focused on policy, not deciding where every stop sign must be placed.1
Put the responsibility of managing books back onto the District’s professional staff, making sure the Board is focused on policy. If staff are not following Board policy, or the requirements of the policy are not clear, that is a separate issue that the Board should address, rather than playing whack-a-mole with every book title.
Add solution for “reverse challenges”, specifically building a method for informal reviews to be reversed, using the existing formal reconsideration process.
Here are the redlines for my changes, which you can review yourselves. The summary is below:
Summary of Changes
Brings back ‘Guiding Principles’ for challenges, which includes language that a parent’s ability to exercise control over instruction extends only to his or her own child. These were removed in 2023.
Requires any book reconsideration, informal or formal, to be requested from a verified District resident. This is due to the fact that District administrators are not required to verify if someone challenging a book actually lives within the District.
Removes the ability for ‘Any District resident’ to be able to submit an informal request, limiting informal reviews to parents, students 18 or older, or a District employee. ‘Any District resident’ must submit all challenges via the formal request, but it would require costs associated with processing the request, similar to Public Information Requests.
Removes the ability for informal reviews to be requested by a Board member, requiring Board members to submit formal reconsiderations.
Limits informal or formal reconsiderations to be one resource title per request, and each person can only submit one challenge every 60 days.
Establishes that informal reconsiderations can now be challenged using the formal reconsideration process, where a parent, student, or District employee can “reverse challenge” the removal of books that occurred via the informal review process. Reverse challenges cannot be requested for completed formal reviews.
Completed reconsideration reviews are kept for three years instead of one, so that books that are removed or remain cannot be challenged every year, providing cost and time savings for the District and Board.
For appeals, brings back Level 2 for the reconsideration process.
The Level 2 hearing officer confirms that the proper policies and procedures were followed during the original reconsideration request. Level 2 would determine if the reconsideration should be sent back to a new Level 1 committee, with a shortened reconsideration checklist, or to close the appeal. Once completed, the challenger can then appeal to Level 3.
For Level 3 appeals, requires that the Board majority first vote to accept the appeal to Level 3. If the Board declines to hear a Level 3 appeal, the appeal is closed with no further action.
Regarding Board members who wish to challenge a Level 2 decision (on behalf of the original challenger), requires that during a normal Board meeting that a majority of Board members request a Level 3 hearing for challenges that did not pass Level 2 reconsideration. This assures that the Board is aligned in discussing certain reconsiderations, and not driven by one person. This also spreads out the process and gives both the Board and public time to review the necessary materials being challenged.
Other Ideas (not in redline)
For Level 2 appeals, create a Book Reconsideration Committee appointed by the Board that meets as needed. Could include AP Literature students.
For Level 2 appeals, utilize the SHAC in some manner.
Limit the number of appeals any individual or entity can make within a single school year.
Closing
I should note that I purposely added many changes, perhaps unnecessary, to throw in as many ideas as possible. My hope is that some of these could be useful for the current or future Board members.
There is much more to look at with this, and if I receive any comments back from the Board or this year’s candidates, I will share those in a separate post.
Thanks for reading.
Quote from AJ Crabill interview on book challenges by title: “This is like the difference between debating the placement of a single stop sign versus debating about safety. The job of the board isn’t to pick and choose where to put stop signs. The job of the board is to get underneath arguments about stop signs and figure out, OK, what is the community value that is really at stake here? Safety.”