After dispute with parents, St. Louis Park school board wants state to clarify how far challenges can go

The St. Louis Park school board is calling on the Legislature to make it clear that protected classes of people portrayed in school materials — whether defined by race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation, among other categories — can’t be a reason for parents to seek alternative instruction for their children.

The board resolution, approved unanimously at the Feb. 28 meeting, follows a legal dispute over whether families in the school district may choose not to have their children exposed to books with LGBTQ characters. State law currently gives parents the right to review school materials and make “reasonable arrangements” for alternative instruction.

Under threat of lawsuit, the board agreed last month to grant the requests of six Somali Muslim families to take their children out of story times using such books. But at their Feb. 28 meeting, board members said that while they intend to follow the law, they also believe it needs to be changed.

“The way this law currently reads means that someone can opt out of anything for any reason,” said Board Member Anne Casey. “If protected classes aren’t excluded, someone could come in and say, ‘I don’t want my child to learn about people of color. I don’t want my child to learn about Jewish people. I don’t want my child to learn about people with disabilities.’ ... That does not sit well with me.”

The resolution offers guidance to St. Louis Park teachers on what materials parents may review, and the process for reviewing these materials — and makes clear that teachers should not review materials on a parent’s behalf to screen for possible objections.

The resolution specifies that areas not subject to parental review include classroom discussions, teacher lesson plans, classroom decor and library material not being used for instruction. It holds that any parental objections must pertain to specific materials, and that blanket objections “will not be accepted.”

Board Member Virginia Mancini, who introduced the resolution, said that as a reading teacher she has learned that forming trusting relationships with students is critical — which she said means creating classroom environments that reflect their lives.

“Kids will not read unless they see themselves, unless they can relate to it,” she said. “What we’re saying in public education is that everyone matters, and everyone is equal. I am not interested in telling people that they’re not welcome. I’m only interested in making warm, inclusive environments for children.”

Kayla Toney, an attorney with the First Liberty Institute, a conservative Texas-based law firm focused on religious freedom that represented the Somali parents, said that one of her clients was told they would be notified in advance of any materials relating to the LGBTQ community. District officials said that agreement was reached for one student and that the district generally won’t review materials or provide advance notice of what parents might find objectionable.

Board Vice Chair Abdihakim Ibrahim, who was absent from the Feb. 28 meeting, issued a statement last week saying that he supported “our district’s commitment to equity and inclusion.” He clarified later that he did not support the resolution and would have voted against it if he had been there.

“People opt out for so many reasons,” he said. “So why is it different when the Muslim and Somali community are opting out?”

Fatuma Irshat, one of the parents who had requested alternative instruction for her children, said the board’s resolution demonstrated “hostility toward religious parents like me, and toward any parents who would like to know what their children are learning in school.” Parents will continue advocating for the right to review curriculum and opt out of lessons that contradict their religious beliefs, she said.

“The school board is making its hostility toward our clients clear,” Toney said. “They’ve even admitted that they would rather hide what they are teaching from parents than provide them advance notice like the law requires.”

It was not immediately clear whether a change in the law has broad support. Gov. Tim Walz’s education bill, introduced Feb. 21, includes a prohibition on banning books from school and public libraries but explicitly states that it doesn’t intend to change the parental curriculum review statute.

Kat Rohn, executive director for OutFront Minnesota, said that a number of metro school districts in recent months have seen an uptick in opt-out requests, from schools in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hopkins, Apple Valley and Ham Lake.

“We’re not expecting that there will be a change in the law based on timing and how these conversations are evolving before the end of this session,” Rohn said. “There’s not a clear easy fix for it.”

However, Rohn said, OutFront Minnesota would likely advocate for better guidance from the Minnesota Department of Education.

“You need to be able to have classroom conversations about people’s varied religions, LGBTQ identities, race and ethnicity,” Rohn said, citing Minnesota’s antidiscrimination laws. “You can’t just have people opting out broadly of those topics for classroom discussions without it causing harm to those diverse communities.”

About the partnership

This story comes to you from Sahan Journal, a nonprofit newsroom dedicated to covering Minnesota’s immigrants and communities of color. Sign up for a free newsletter to receive Sahan’s stories in your inbox.