The Student Press Law Center asked New Voices advocates, including those working to implement recently passed laws, to reflect on their recent accomplishments and lessons learned. Other posts in this series can be found here.
Cindy Reves is the adviser of McKinley High School’s student newspaper and the Hawaii state director for the Journalism Education Association. She has been the driving force for New Voices in the state.
A version of this post — Cindy’s reflections on advocating for changes to the state Board of Education’s student media policy — was originally published June 22 on the Hawaii Scholastic Journalism Association’s website.
On May, 23, 2022, Gov. David Ige signed the Hawaii Student Journalism Protection Act. The law requires the Board of Education to align its student media policy with the law. Exactly two years later, a policy draft was before the full board.
I was in the room with several student journalists at the May 23 BOE general meeting to testify on the policy draft. We testified that there were some revisions we would like to see and we would support the board taking time to make those revisions.
However, we also testified that we would support the policy without our suggested changes but requested to be involved in the next step to make sure our issues are raised then.
(The policy, as passed, is now available on the BOE’s website.)
Before testifying, I assumed the policy would be approved as was and that the time and effort it would take to get myself and my students to the meeting would have no impact on the policy language.
I’m stubborn, though, and wanted the DOE and BOE to keep hearing what I had to say. And I wanted McKinley’s student journalists to see, and participate in, the process of government.
My assumption was correct. The policy passed as was, with one exception. The board changed the name of the policy to School-Sponsored Student Media Policy, rather than School-Sponsored Media Policy, per my request.
Our presence and oral testimony did, though, have an impact — an impact on me, my students and the next steps in the policy process. The BOE meeting room was full on May 23. Many were there to testify regarding issues related to the Maui fire. The Maui item preceded the journalism item on the agenda, but the board and the Maui testifiers kindly let the journalism item go before them because student journalists were testifying and the Maui testimony was expected to take a long time.
I testified first on the journalism item and to my surprise, the crowd applauded. They applauded again when the first student testified. A board member then instructed the audience that they don’t typically allow applause but would in this case. My stubborn head had brought me to this meeting but the support I felt in that room reminded my heart that what we are doing matters.
Even though the policy approval process is now complete, it still matters to reflect on it. I was not happy with the process or some of the rationale presented by the DOE and BOE to support approval of the policy draft. I also learned some things I will take with me in future interactions with the DOE and BOE.
I have had two experiences with approaching the BOE to propose a revision of Policy 101-9, almost a decade apart. Both started well, with positive meetings with someone at the DOE talking to me to get a better understanding of the context of my request. Both experiences then went into a bit of a black hole, with decisions being made by people I had never interacted with.
The first experience ended with my receiving an email from a DOE employee I had never talked to telling me his research found there was no need to revise Policy 101-9 and my request would not be sent on to the BOE. I then moved on to the legislature and now there is a law telling the DOE and BOE that the policy does need to be revised.
I knew going into my second experience that my request would not die inside a DOE black hole. However, the DOE staff presenting the draft to the Student Achievement Committee were people I had never spoken with. And while I was allowed to testify at SAC, I was not asked any questions and thus could not respond to any new information I heard in the committee discussion.
In the materials presented to the Student Achievement Committee on May 9, the DOE provided statistics to show they reached out to the community and found 85% of the respondents were either “satisfied” or “strongly satisfied” with the draft of the policy. They gave more details about these respondents:
- 3 administrators
- 5 teachers
- 33 students representing 16 high schools
- 2 student media advisers
- 3 parent/community members
These numbers might indicate support for the policy revision. They do not, however, tell the whole story.
I was one of the two student media advisers who responded to the survey. While I indicated I was “satisfied” with the draft, I added a list of requested changes. So a better way to look at this particular stakeholder feedback is that HALF of student media adviser respondents requested changes to the policy draft.
The student respondent data lacks relevant details. Of those 33 students from 16 high schools, how many were actively involved with scholastic journalism? How many of them have received instruction on scholastic journalism law?
The four McKinley student journalists who testified at the May 23 BOE general meeting and requested changes were, unfortunately, not a part of that 33. That is my fault. My students knew about the law, but I did not provide the class time I should have to educate my students on the finer points of this policy and let them speak their mind earlier in the process. I was focused on getting the draft before a general meeting and getting my students to be physically present to that meeting. (As an aside, being physically present at most BOE meetings requires a teacher to request permission and get coverage to miss school hours and requires students to miss other classes and have a field trip form.)
I now see that was the wrong focus. In the future, I will focus on getting stakeholder voice and presence in the committee hearings before the general session.
Two of those McKinley student journalists are returning to work for The Pinion in school year 2024-25. In their May 23 testimony, they asked to be involved in policy implementation. Now that the DOE staff who presented the policy draft and the BOE members who approved the draft have seen these students, and me, in person, I hope that our voices will no longer get swallowed in the results of a broad survey. The BOE took a break after the journalism item was addressed. DOE staff and BOE members approached my students and I in the hallway and thanked us for our presence and testimony and vowed to include us moving forward.
In my oral testimony at the May 23 meeting, I chose not to use my time to discuss my complaints with the stakeholder data. A community member who testified via WebEx, however, did criticize the policy creation process.
In justifying her decision to approve the draft as was, one board member defended the work the DOE and SAC had done. I know the DOE worked hard. The DOE showed me the first draft in fall 2022 and I was given the chance to tell the DOE how terrible it was. The policy presented to the Student Activities Committee was no longer terrible. So I know the policy draft was positively impacted by my early feedback. That fact and the fact that the 85% satisfaction data is misleading can both be true and acknowledged.
This same board member further justified her decision to not make the revisions suggested because two years had already passed and the BOE needed to comply with the law. She didn’t want to send the policy back to a committee and out for community input again. I, too, didn’t really want to have to go back to committees and drafts, but I also think that it shouldn’t have taken two years to get a draft before the board and therefore using the length of the process as a reason not to incorporate feedback from stakeholders doesn’t sit well with me.
The reality is that the board has approved a revised Policy 101-9. And that policy is far better than what it replaced. The next step is policy implementation and the DOE has already reached out to me to be involved in the process.
Much of what I think needs to be focused on is on record through my and my students’ testimony. One new item I have requested the DOE to address is the possible misunderstanding that FERPA applies to student journalists and that parent consent is required for school-sponsored student-produced media to publish student names and photos. Contributing to this misunderstanding is the Student Publication/Audio/Video Release Form. We are requesting that this misunderstanding be cleared up via a statement on the DOE website and on the language of the release form. If you are a public school student-produced media adviser, we would like to know what you think your administration thinks about parent consent and student journalism.
Video of the oral testimony to the BOE is available here. The relevant testimony, including from Cindy, students, the Student Press Law Center and others, starts around 1:04:00.