AP African American Studies Course Hits a Political Roadblock at DCSD Board of Education Meeting

Tuesday night's (Nov. 19) Douglas County School District (DCSD) Board of Education meeting had all the hallmarks of a trite, small-town drama – a consent agenda, a handful of pulled items, and a bit of political theater. On the table were five proposed courses and programs, including one Advanced Placement (AP) option: African American Studies. Spoiler alert: only one course was scrutinized with the board majority’s magnifying glass, and it wasn’t any of the concurrent enrollment programs.

The Board’s decision to delay voting only for the AP African American Studies course and unanimously approving the others comes amid rising concerns about unchecked racism, discrimination and bullying in the district, as well as ongoing lawsuits over discriminatory and unlawful practices in DCSD. The decision only reinforces the perception that political considerations outweigh educational priorities and best interests of students here in DCSD. 

Let’s dive into what happened and why the decision on whether or not to offer AP African American Studies was postponed until the next DCSD BoE meeting, scheduled for Dec. 10.

The Consent Agenda That Wasn’t (Again)

You may recall last June, when the BoE’s consent agenda included policy discussions around ensuring that Board and District policies were in compliance with recently enacted Colorado Senate Bills SB23-296 and SB23-172, both aimed at strengthening protections against harassment and discrimination for vulnerable populations. After a coordinated effort from the usual suspects that follow far-right extremism and organizations bombarded the BoE with emails and during public comment, School Board President Christy Williams removed the discussions from the agenda. She was met with agreement by her conservative counterparts and pushback from the minority, who cited putting the district at risk for additional lawsuits, lack of transparency, and politicization of a non-partisan issue. The majority voted to remove the agenda items anyway in a 4-3 vote.

Pretty much the same thing happened Tuesday… Although the annual review of courses, textbooks, and programs typically sails smoothly through the consent agenda, Williams decided to remove the “Approval of Course and Program Proposals”  agenda item for further review and discussion. 

She specifically called out the AP African American Studies course, and said that she hadn’t had time to read up on it and didn’t feel ready to answer emailed questions from constituents or participate in a discussion at the meeting. General practice is for board directors to ask staff and professional experts to help with answering these types of questions and for board directors to prep staff who will be asked questions at the BoE meeting, but it appears Williams chose not to follow protocol. She did mention that she had already notified the teacher (who spoke during public comment a few minutes earlier) that she needed her to explain the course to her in more detail. We found this to be tone-deaf at best, and oblivious white privilege in action. (Also noting that the AP African American Studies course overview that Williams did not have time to review offers a chat feature, specifically to answer questions about the course.) 

Not surprisingly, the other majority board members lined up in agreement, and despite thoughtful and fact-based dissent from the minority board members, Williams’ motion passed 4-3. Among the five proposed courses, four were concurrent enrollment options with local colleges. After Director Valerie Thompsom inquired what was to become of the courses that weren’t AP African American Studies, Williams quickly made a motion for a vote to approve the other four, and they were approved with no additional discussion. 

AP courses, for those who skipped high school or forgot the drill, are college-level classes designed by the College Board (yes, the SAT folks). It has historically been viewed as an example of academic rigor, and African American Studies is a relatively new addition, focusing on African American history, culture, and contributions, which is also a big part of American history. But in today’s politically charged climate, "rigor" and "culture" seem to translate to "hot topic."

A Brief History of AP African American Studies

If you think this AP class was just about Malcom X and jazz, think again. The AP African American Studies course had a rollercoaster of a rollout. It faced edits and backlash from conservative figures, with terms like "systemic" and "intersectionality" being scrubbed from its early drafts. The controversy mirrors broader debates on Critical Race Theory (CRT) and its alleged infiltration into schools – a buzzword that’s often misapplied but still manages to rile up certain partisan groups.

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis became part of a national backlash when the course was being developed in 2022, citing “critical race theory,” “wokeness” and pushing a “political agenda.” The College Board released a revised the course outline on Feb. 1, 2023, coinciding with the start of Black History Month. The course was developed with input from a development committee of 24 professors and teachers, and included: “collection of syllabi from Introductory African American Studies courses at prominent departments of African American Studies nationwide, including 11 HBCUs, all 8 Ivy League Institutions, and 20 public flagships. Also top of mind for the College Board were the political limitations in at least 18 states over how teachers can discuss topics of race and racism in K-12 schools. Ultimately, DeSantis and the Florida State Department of Education rejected the course outright in late 2023.

In Georgia, conflict over approving AP African American Studies marked one of the first major statewide cases of the divisive concepts law impacting educators’ work directly. The Georgia law contains an explicit exemption for AP and advanced courses, and the class is now offered in multiple districts across the state. 

In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin issued an executive order banning schools from teaching divisive concepts (including CRT) on his first day in office. After six months of review, the state’s education department ultimately found that it did not violate Youngkin’s controversial executive order. 

Here in Colorado, we have been fortunate to not see divisive concepts legislation enacted, although the state has not been immune to national and local far-right extremist organizations like Moms for Liberty and Colorado Parent Advocacy Network (CPAN) pushing for it. 

DCSD had avoided having to deal with a Moms for Liberty chapter until recently, when State Rep. Brandi Bradley (also a DCSD parent) and activist Schume Navarro (who lost her school board election bid in Cherry Creek School District in 2021) launched one in Douglas County a few months ago.

Cherry Creek School District was actually the first school district in Colorado to offer AP African American Studies, when it became available at Overland High School in the 2023 spring semester. Since then, the course has been made available at other Colorado high schools in districts like Boulder Valley School District, Denver Public Schools, and Poudre School District. Making it available to DCSD students through the proposed course at Highlands Ranch High School would be a groundbreaking signal that the district is taking its stated intentions to be more inclusive seriously, and courageously aligning with educational equity policy ADB and other district policies to promise inclusive and positive school culture and climate for all.

Flashbacks to the 2021-2022 School Year

For long-time DCSD observers, this isn’t the first time that the district has faced allegations of politicization.

In fact, the 2021 school board election that ushered in this current board majority can be directly tied back to huge amounts of outside money being funneled into the “conservative” (GOP-led) side of the race. And with the outside campaign contributions came messaging and rhetoric denouncing public safety mandates, concern over racism and Black Lives Matter, diversity-equity-inclusion (DEI) and CRT.

Once the current board majority took office, one of the first things they tried to do was get rid of the Equity Policy. Fortunately, the enormous pushback from administration, staff, and the community stopped them from being successful, but over time they did manage to dilute much of the policy’s intended protections with political jargon. Next, they fired Superintendent Corey Wise without cause and did so illegally by breaking Colorado Open Meeting Laws. Multiple administrators who were highly respected in their fields resigned in protest. Several lawsuits and attorneys (they hired and fired a few) later, they had spent more than $1 million, defending their agenda and actions. Controversies continued through the following school year (a disturbing lawsuit against the district for racial discrimination, which led to the resignation of a respected BoE director and subsequent replacement with an unqualified and far-right extremist – all of this culminated in a failure to pass desperately needed MLO and Bond initiatives that fall), and the one after that (former President Mike Peterson resigned and refused to recuse himself from participating in electing new officers after the 2023 BoE election, ensuring the three remaining “Kids’ First” directors would be remain in power, which resulted in the appointment of another partisan director to replace Peterson’s position), and here we are, almost halfway through the 2024-25 school year, and little has changed.

This scrutiny of the addition of the AP African American Studies course is pretty much on brand for these majority board directors who are often justifiably accused of political grandstanding.

What’s Next?

For now, we wait. The Board is set to revisit the vote on Dec. 10 (sooner, via special meeting if waiting until the next board meeting will cause delays that would prohibit students from having enough time to be able to enroll). Will this delay serve as an opportunity for meaningful discussion and understanding? Or will it simply prolong what feels like a preordained decision?

One thing’s for sure — Tuesday’s meeting made it clear where the majority members’ priorities lie. We’ve said it before, and we’re saying it again… when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.