Proposed revisions to a Lehighton Area School District policy covering partisan, political, or social policy advocacy by district employees sparked discussion Monday regarding its scope and potential impact.

According to the policy draft, its purpose is to maintain neutrality and balance in classroom instruction.

“The Lehighton Area School District Board of Directors recognize that neutrality and balance in classroom instruction are desired in order to create an optimal learning environment and atmosphere of inclusiveness, where all students are welcome,” the document states.

It further emphasizes that “employees should not, during assigned work hours, advocate to students concerning their views or beliefs on these matters.”

Definition of social policy

During the meeting, Lehighton resident Carrie Vail raised concerns regarding the inclusion of “social policy” in the updated policy language.

“Adding social policy might be a little bit problematic because social policy includes things like discouraging use of drugs and alcohol and tobacco and teen pregnancy programs, bullying, lots of different wellness topics,” she said. “So there’s just a lot of things that can fall under that, and if you are considering them, like if you have any programs to discourage them because they’re harmful, then that can be considered advocacy.”

Board members debated whether the term “social policy” should remain in the policy.

“Social issues being discussed in a history classroom or any social studies environment is one thing, as compared to playing or hanging posters advocating for social issues,” said board member Jeremy Glaush. “Perhaps maybe though, we should find a way to define that a little better.”

Political influence

Director Duane Dellecker cited personal experience as a reason for supporting the policy.

“During the last election, when I wasn’t running for anything, I caught high school students in my yard screwing around with political signs,” he said. “And when I nailed one of them to the wall, they told me flat out, their teacher told them to get rid of these signs. Our teachers should not be engaged during school time in any kind of political facets, period.”

District teacher Mike Lusch challenged the notion that teachers are engaging in political advocacy, emphasizing that proper channels exist for reporting misconduct.

“I know you referenced an event that happened last year,” Lusch said. “All of our teachers are aware of their responsibilities in their classrooms and are aware of what are do’s and don’ts. If a situation would arise where there is an alleged incident where a teacher went to that ‘don’t’ area in relation to politics, my hope would be that you would contact the school district so we can investigate.”

Next steps

Superintendent Jason Moser addressed procedural questions regarding potential modifications to the policy before the second reading.

“If the changes are not substantial in nature, meaning they don’t change the actual overall intent of the policy, things can be changed between a first reading and a final approval,” he said. “I think if we’re going the route of trying to define what is actually intended by one of the terms that is in the policy that’s currently written, to me that is not a substantial change of the intent of the policy, but rather a clarifying language piece.”

The policy draft outlines several specific prohibitions, including displaying signs, banners or paraphernalia advocating for partisan or social policy issues; distributing advocacy materials; and directing students to participate in advocacy activities.

However, it provides exemptions for “instruction and study concerning partisan, political, or social policy issues when directly relevant to the curriculum and appropriate to classroom studies.”