اینترنت

برچسب: parental

  • Orange Unified becomes sixth California district to adopt transgender parental notification policy

    Orange Unified becomes sixth California district to adopt transgender parental notification policy


    Packed crowd anticipates discussion on Orange Unified Parental Notification Policy on Sept. 8, 2023.

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

    In a unanimous 4-0 vote, the Orange Unified School District passed a policy Thursday evening that would require school officials to notify parents and guardians if their child asks to use a name or pronoun different than what was assigned at birth, or if they engage in activities and use spaces designed for the opposite sex.

    The policy, which has now percolated through a half dozen California districts, has its origins in Assembly Bill 1314, proposed by Assemblymember Bill Essayli, R-Riverside, which was denied a hearing at the state level in April.

    Rocklin Unified School District passed such a measure Wednesday. Previously, Temecula Valley Unified (Aug. 22), Anderson Union High School District  (Aug. 22) Murrieta Valley Unified (Aug.10) and Chino Valley Unified (July 20) passed almost identical policies.

    The policies passed by Chino Valley Unified and Murrieta Valley Unified have garnered backlash from state officials – who called the decisions a violation of students’ civil rights and have initiated an investigation into Chino Valley Unified. A Superior Court judge in San Bernardino County has also temporarily halted Chino Valley Unified’s policy.

    It would specifically require parents and guardians to be notified if their child asks to use a different name or set of pronouns, or if they ask to use a different sex’s segregated spaces, such as bathrooms or locker rooms.

    The policy would also mandate school principals be informed of pupils experiencing gender dysphoria or gender incongruence.

    District officials would be required to tell school principals or counselors if a student makes any attempt or threat of suicide. The principal would then have to seek out medical or mental health treatment for the student, ensure that they are supervised until their parents, guardians or another support agency intervenes, and notify emergency assistance – such as law enforcement – if necessary.

    Verbal and physical altercations, along with complaints of bullying, would have to be relayed to parents within three days.

    But the policy’s opponents say denying student’s a source of support at school – especially if they come from toxic home environments and non-accepting parents – could exacerbate their mental health.

    “When our lawmakers fail, when our families don’t accept us, when our friends leave us…I just want to feel safe at school,” said an Orange Unified School District high school student at the previous Aug. 17 meeting.

    School Board Member Angie Rumsey said the majority of teachers would also back the policy.

    “As a [someone in education], I hold and hide nothing from the parents of my students. The relationship begins with a realization that, as the teacher, I am not going to hide anything or keep information from a parent,” Rumsey said during the meeting. “Teachers should communicate with parents regarding any change in behavior.”

    However, before the Aug. 17 meeting, the Orange Unified Educators Association released a letter, arguing the policy would violate various aspects of California law as well as “student privacy rights grounded in the California Constitution.”

    The union added that the policy would burden teachers with the difficult task of discussing sensitive issues about their students with parents.

    “In addition to the legal issues, this policy requires certificated employees to have the appropriate knowledge, training, and time to have communication with students and guardians about sensitive and confidential issues,” the letter stated.

    “With the number of requirements and expectations already placed on certificated staff, this is an unreasonable and highly concerning expectation.”

    Thursday evening, California Attorney General Rob Bonta also issued a letter to the board opposing the measure.

    The school board meeting was heated – and dozens of activists spoke passionately for the measure, including many who didn’t have a direct connection to the district.

    The three board members who opposed the policy walked out of the meeting before the vote, following a disruption.

    “There’s a chilling effect that occurs for folks who then are unsure about what they can say and not say or what they’re required to do, and…. it creates a lot of stress on top of what is already a very stressful job for teachers,” said USC Professor of Education Julie Marsh.

    “…But the broader ripple effect is that you know, might it dissuade potential teachers from actually going into the teaching profession.”

    The policy

    Orange Unified School District is now the sixth district in California to pass a policy that would require parental notification when students show signs of being transgender.

    The district had originally considered that same policy at its meeting on Aug. 17, but Thursday’s agenda included a version where school counselors or psychologists would be informed instead of parents and guardians.

    The board ultimately decided to revert back to a parental notification policy between Thursday’s closed and open sessions.

    In response, several board members objected to discussing the item and tried to postpone the vote to a later meeting, after the Superior Court heard arguments for Chino Valley on Oct. 13. Those board members also claimed that they did not have enough time to adequately review the policy.

    The version that ultimately passed reverted back to the policy’s original intention.

    After the proposed AB 1314 was denied a hearing at the state level,  Essayli – who spoke at Thursday’s meeting – vowed to bring it to local districts and encouraged parents to pursue litigation.

    “In a state like California… a blue state, it becomes really the only option for these kinds of policies and actions to be occurring,” Marsh said. “And it shows us that we’re not immune.”

    The protocols outlined in the policy in response to bullying and threats of suicide have become a common argument in favor of its passage – but detailed policies and protocols to support students through these challenges already exist in Orange County and other districts.

    The 2023 Lead-Up at Orange Unified

    January – The new Orange Unified School Board fired then-Superintendent Gunn Marie Hansen during a closed session meeting without a stated reason. She was out of the country at the time. Angered by that board decision, parents have dubbed that night the “Thursday night massacre.”

    Later that month, the board suspended the district’s digital library in response to parents’ complaints about the book “The Music of What Happens.”

    February – Orange Unified School District’s interim superintendent Edward Velasquez resigned after one month in the position.

    The board also faced a Brown Act complaint for allegedly not providing enough notice prior to a meeting, among other claims.

    March: The district faced two lawsuits about alleged Brown Act violations as well as one from parents about the Superintendent firing.

    June – The Orange Unified School Board adopted a policy that would ban Pride flags and other flags, calling them divisive.

    August – The OUSD School Board appointed Ernie Gonzalez as its new superintendent and held an initial discussion of the new parental rights policy that would require school staff to inform parents if their child indicates they are transgender.

    For the past several months, community activists have been calling for a recall of Board Members Rumsey, John Ortega, Madison Miner and Rick Ledesma, the president.

    “All that we’re seeing in Temecula and Chino and Orange and other places around the state are examples of the same thing, where we’ve got a very concerted effort that started with trying to elect conservative members to the board to get a majority and to then advance policies that are more conservative in nature,” Marsh said.

    “Some would argue it’s a politics of distraction to distract us from the core work of what schools are supposed to be doing around teaching and learning. And others would even go further to say this is an explicit effort to undermine public confidence in the public school system.”

    Marsh added, “I feel like it’s a wake-up call for folks to just pay a little bit more attention to school boards.”





    Source link

  • Debate over parental rights vs. student rights to gender identity privacy comes to Clovis Unified

    Debate over parental rights vs. student rights to gender identity privacy comes to Clovis Unified


    Nearly 100 parents, former students and educators filled the Sept. 20 Clovis Unified school board meeting to voice their opinions on the prospect of a parental notification policy.

    Credit: Lasherica Thornton / EdSource

    Recent Clovis Unified school board meetings have been filled with posters bearing contrasting messages. “Support parental notification in schools. Stop keeping secrets from parents” as well as “Stop forced outing.”

    With those starkly different messages in the background, nearly 100 people spoke at the Sept. 20 board meeting, joining a debate that’s sweeping the state: parents’ right to know how their children identify at school versus students’ right to privacy about gender identity and expression.

    The contentious discourse came to Clovis Unified not because of a proposed school board policy — as has been the case in other school districts, including Chino, Temecula, Anderson Union High, Murrieta Valley and Rocklin — but because of a Student Site Plan, an optional form that, some say, could undermine students’ right to privacy by outing them to their parents. The district says it uses the form to gauge students’ needs for access to facilities such as restrooms and locker rooms.

    Under a 10-year-old law known as Assembly Bill 1266, students in California have the right to access school facilities that are consistent with their gender identity, regardless of what’s listed on their school record.

    The district spokesperson said that while the form could help facilitate a conversation with parents, students can opt out of completing it.

    “While there is no hard and fast ‘yes’ or ‘no’,” about whether parents must be notified for students to access facilities aligned with their gender identity, said Kelly Avants, spokesperson for the district, “in general, we would work with the student about parental notification.”

    Internal Clovis Unified guidance for administration details notifying parents if students want to access a facility aligned with their gender identity, but officials would not deny them access because of AB 1266.

    “Access will be provided while informing those with educational rights (typically parents/guardians for minors),” according to the district guidance documents.

    “They’re notified whether or not the SSP (Student Site Plan) is in place,” said Drew Harbaugh, chapter president for PFLAG Fresno, an organization that supports and advocates for LGBTQ+ people and their families, including many Clovis Unified parents.

    What’s on the Student Site Plan form?

    The Student Site Plan asks students for their legal and chosen names, pronouns, gender assigned at birth, gender identity and gender expression.

    Students provide information on their programs and activities and indicate whether they want to access restrooms and locker rooms by their gender at birth, gender identity or a gender-neutral space, such as the nurse’s office.

    Parents or guardians must consent to or participate in completing the form.

    “The SSP is our district’s process by which a student and parent have the opportunity to sit down with school staff and arrive at a plan to support the student,” the guidance documents say.

    Though the process for facility usage has changed over time to meet state laws and requirements, the Student Site Plan was first established in the school district last school year, Avants said.  According to the district’s internal document, the form replaced the Gender Acknowledgement Plan, which had involved parents, but only at the student’s discretion.

    Clovis Unified, Avants said, created the form in an attempt to address the “complexities of meeting the unique needs of individual students and families.”

    What’s the process for accessing facilities if students do not complete the form?

    For students who want to access different facilities but do not want to complete the form, they’d inform the school, Avants said. Trained school staff and the student then discuss how to accomplish that.

    Using a gender-neutral space doesn’t require parental notification. However, “parents must be informed,” district guidance says, if a student seeks the use of a facility that’s different from the gender assigned at the student’s birth or what’s listed on records. Such students are granted access in either event, the guidance states.

    “The student is allowed access in accordance with AB 1266 and California Education Code, but not at the expense of or superseding parents’/guardians’ educational rights to be informed,” the district guidance states.

    So, “the guidance still directs staff to out them,” even though students have the right to access their preferred facilities, Harbaugh said.

    If telling their parents causes students to be concerned about their safety, the district guidance spells out how staff should report suspected child abuse to Child Protective Services — if evidence exists. While the guidance directs staff not to complete the Student Site Plan in that scenario, it instructs staff to offer the student a meeting with the school’s psychologists or safety team about those concerns and to help the student communicate with their parents or guardians. The guidance also tells staff to attempt to facilitate the Student Site Plan with students and parents, if that’s appropriate.

    Legislation isn’t ‘well-established’

    AB 1266 is “silent” on practical application and implementation, Avants said, so the Student Site Plan attempts to balance facility access, parent rights to information, student needs and parental involvement.

    “We do look at every child individually and work to make sure they’re supported and safe at school,” said Clovis Unified Superintendent Corrine Folmer, emphasizing the “balance” of the site plan.

    “It’s not an area of law that’s well-established,” said Maiya Yang, Clovis Unified in-house counsel, adding that current lawsuits are proof of that.

    In July, a federal judge in Sacramento ruled that California is not violating parents’ rights by not informing them of students’ gender identities. The California attorney general filed a lawsuit in August against Chino Valley Unified in San Bernardino County, requesting a stop to its policy; a judge blocked the policy in early September.

    Proponents of notification have also had some success in court. In August, two Escondido Unified middle school teachers in San Diego sued the school district and the California Department of Education for a policy prohibiting teachers from discussing students’ gender identity with parents. In that case, a San Diego federal judge recently ruled that parents have the right to be told how students identify, conflicting the July ruling from the Sacramento federal judge.

    Avants said other districts’ policies seem to be “a black-and-white treatment of a nuanced topic.”

    And comparing Clovis Unified to those districts that have adopted parental notification policies is a “miscategorization of our process,” she said. “Our process is individualized, customized (and) looks at every child individually.”

    Even though Clovis Unified hasn’t proposed a policy, people are already advocating for or against the prospect of one.

    On one side of the issue, many Clovis Unified parents and other members of the school community urged the school board to adopt a parental notification policy to involve parents in the decision-making of their children’s education and to provide them access to all information that affects student well-being.

    “My rights matter,” said Ashley Williams, parent of two Clovis Unified students. “I’m a parent, and my rights to my children trump people’s concerns” about possible abuse by parents and self-harm of students who are outed.

    Many other parents, former students and educators say the school district should allow students to come out in their own way, when they’re ready, while protecting students who don’t feel safe to do so.

    “While I value the parent-child relationship and would hope children feel safe to share this part of themselves with their parents, it remains a reality that that is not the case for many CUSD students,” said Clovis Unified teacher Laramie Woolsey.

    According to the National Network for Youth, a lack of parental acceptance, causing family conflict, is a leading cause of homelessness for LGBTQ+ youth, who are disproportionately impacted. The LGBTQ mental health nonprofit Trevor Project also found that 41% of LGBTQ youth seriously considered killing themselves in the past year.

    Woolsey said many of her students told her about their sexuality and gender identity, rather than their parents.

    “Many of these students struggled with suicidal thoughts because they imagined that death would be easier than being someone other than who their parents wanted them to be,” Woolsey said. “Why did these students come to me and not to their parents? Because they knew I was a safe person to talk to who wouldn’t judge them, invalidate them or otherwise harm them.”

    “ I earned their trust.”

    In Clovis, there is no policy and won’t be one anytime soon

    At a Sept. 13 meeting, where two dozen people also spoke and the Sept. 20 meeting, neither the site plan form nor a proposed policy was on the agenda, so board members could not address community members on the topic.

    But Clovis Unified School District and its board do not and will not have a policy until there is legal clarity, Avants said.

    “They (the school board members) have said, publicly several times, they have no interest in putting on their agenda a policy that is under legal challenge,” Avants said. “We’ll visit this when there’s more legal clarity.”

    Concerned community members, such as Harbaugh, say that the district’s insistence that the Student Site Plan is not a board policy makes it impossible to address the subject.

    “By not making it a policy, they take away any options we have for recourse,” Harbaugh said. “But if they’re still putting it in place regarding these students … whether or not they’re calling it a policy, they’re implementing it as a policy.”

    Because legislation is developing and evolving, Yang, the district’s general counsel, said it will take several years for local, state and federal courts to give school districts guidance on handling situations where the rights of students and parents conflict.

    “Unfortunately, for school districts like us that are trying to navigate this very important issue,” Yang said, “we don’t have a lot of guidance.”





    Source link

  • Chino Valley revamps parental notification policy; LGBTQ+ allies fear legal escalation

    Chino Valley revamps parental notification policy; LGBTQ+ allies fear legal escalation


    Chino Valley Unified school board President Sonja Shaw speaks at the parental rights rally in Simi Valley.

    Credit: Courtesy of Rebecca Holz / California Policy Center

    The Chino Valley Unified School District school board voted Thursday to adopt a revamped version of its transgender notification policy, which LGBTQ+ advocates fear would help the district withstand court battles and propel the case to the United States Supreme Court — a possibility previously expressed by Board President Sonja Shaw.

    Unlike the original policy adopted in July, the new policy does not use words like “gender” or “bathroom.” Instead, it broadly states that school officials should notify parents in writing, within three days, if their child requests to change any information in their official or unofficial record. It also cites previous decisions in favor of parental rights. 

    “These policies are rooted in distrust for our schools. And so you know, they’re breaking down these relationships that are essential to schools being successful,” said Kristi Hirst, a district alumna, teacher and parent, who also serves as the the chief operating officer of Our Schools USA — a national organization focused on protecting public education. 

    “What is unclear is what ‘unofficial records’ are, and my hunch is, that’s where…. targeting of transgender students is going to really be seen,” Hirst said.

    Thursday’s board meeting was packed with both supporters of the new policy, as well as members of the district’s teacher’s union, who wore matching red shirts in solidarity. 

    Supporters of the policy also spoke during public comment on Thursday with one of them claiming that the “initiative” would put an end to puberty blockers supposedly being administered and prevent “boys entering into women’s/girls’ spaces.” 

    One speaker told the board, “Safe teachers don’t lie to parents. Safe teachers don’t keep secrets from parents. Thank you for protecting our kids against unsafe teachers.”

    “Parents love and know kids best. Calling a parent abusive for wanting to get their child the proper psychological help is completely ignorant.” 

    Both the previous and new versions of the policy stress the district’s commitment to foster trust between schools and parents. They also share the same three statements of intent: to maintain trust between schools and families, involve parents in decisions about their child’s mental health and increase communication and build positive relationships that can positively impact student outcomes. 

    The older version of the policy which passed in July would have required school staff to notify parents within three days in writing if their child asks to use a name or pronoun that is different from what is on their official student record. Parents would also have to be informed if their child wishes to access sex-segregated spaces that do not align with their biological sex or request to change anything on their official or unofficial record. 

    Under the new policy, however, parents would only be notified of the following: 

    • Requests to change official or unofficial records. 
    • Extracurricular or co curricular activities their student is involved in.  
    • Physical injuries at school or during school sponsored activities.

    Both policies share the same guidelines in cases where a student experiences bullying, is involved in a physical altercation or has suicidal intentions. 

    “The updated policy strikes a balance between two important principles—prioritizing students’ well-being and upholding parents’ rights—and ensures that parents are kept informed every step of the way,” Shaw said in a Liberty Justice Center statement released Friday. 

    Chino community members have repeatedly claimed that such policies in Chino Valley Unified and beyond are detrimental to the mental and physical well-being of LGBTQ+ students. 

    A crisis hotline launched on Aug. 5 by Rainbow Youth Project USA and Our Schools USA has received nearly 650 calls since Chino Valley Unified passed its transgender notification policy, the Los Angeles Blade reported. 

    “All the students who have come to speak about this, they are hearing that rhetoric,” Hirst said, adding that the board’s decisions have fostered a climate of “mistreatment.”  

    “That is 100% going to filter down to schools, and it is. Your leaders, when they breathe that hate into the air, it spreads, and you can feel it.” 

    Hirst added that her daughter, who attends district schools, has also noticed an increase in physical fights and bullying against LGBTQ+ students. 

    Before the policy’s passage, “no one cared,” she said. 

    “There’s no teacher who has these nefarious intentions to kids and hides things from their parents. Nobody’s doing that. . . They [teachers] are constantly working to get parent volunteers and parent involvement.” 

    The lead up 

    In November 2022, voters elected a conservative majority to the Chino Valley Unified School District school board, with three members connected to Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, led by Pastor Jack Hibbs.

    The board voted in June to ban pride flags and in November passed a policy to have a panel remove books it believes to be “sexually inappropriate.” In July, Chino Valley Unified became the first district to pass a policy that would require school officials to notify parents if their child shows any sign of being transgender, which has since spread to other districts, and originated from Assembly Bill 1314, proposed by Assemblymember Bill Essayli, R-Riverside, which was denied a hearing at the state level. 

    The district’s board meetings have also drawn the attention of conservative groups such as Leave Our Kids Alone, a group that travels to various school board meetings to advocate “age appropriate curriculum” and to oppose curriculum and practices they view as indoctrination. 

    State Superintendent Tony Thurmond attended the board’s July meeting to speak out against the transgender notification policy during public comment but was kicked out of the meeting. 

    In August, California Attorney General Rob Bonta launched a civil rights investigation and filed a lawsuit against the district. Two months later, a San Bernardino County judge blocked the district from enforcing the policy, arguing it “treats otherwise similar students differently based on their sex or gender identity.”

    During the closed session of Thursday’s meeting, members of the board met with two law firms: The Liberty Justice Center and Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud, and Romo (AALRR) about the ongoing litigation. 

    Last September, the board hired The Liberty Justice Center — known for the landmark U.S. Supreme Court labor case Janus v. AFSCME — to provide them with pro-bono legal representation. 

    An argument for teacher support

    For teachers in the Chino Valley Unified School district, discussions about the transgender notification policy are inseparable from a push for better wages. 

    If the board has hundreds of thousands to spend on legal fees, it has the money to bargain in good faith and provide a Cost of Living Adjustment, the teachers union has argued. And on Feb. 22, the union declared an impasse. 

    “We can’t hire teachers; we can’t attract them. We have all these openings. We have parents coming to our board meetings complaining about violence in our schools that’s not being addressed. We have parents coming in complaining about rampant racism in our schools that’s not being addressed, bullying that’s not being addressed,” Hirst said. 

    “And so we have real issues that need to be addressed, and instead, all of our resources and time and energy is going on these culture war issues that don’t improve our schools.”

    In November, public records published by the Sacramento Bee and acquired by Our Schools USA found the district tripled their legal fees to AALRR since July, when they passed the first iteration of their transgender notification policy. In July, the Chino Valley Unified School District paid AALRR $30,903. 

    Those fees soared, amounting to $104,867 in August and $54,988 in September, in addition to the $307,000 spent during the 2022-23 academic year. 

    “We’d rather be home tonight grading papers, planning lessons, maybe trying to have some time with our families,” said Steven Frazer, the organizing committee chairperson for Associated Chino Teachers. “But it’s important that we’re here. It’s important that the board understands that we’re united in standing up for our rights, for student rights and just for what’s right.”

    Two weeks ago, hundreds of district teachers rallied for the cause — and made their voices heard again before Thursday’s meeting. 

    “I know this community really well. I love this community. And I’m watching the most beloved teachers just really struggling and wanting to leave,” Hirst said. 

    “There’s nothing in my kids’ educational experience that is as impactful as the quality of the teachers they have access to. And I’m really concerned that we’re not going to attract the best anymore.”

    This story has been updated to include a statement from Chino Valley Unified School Board President Sonja Shaw.





    Source link

  • Newsom signs bill to end parental notification policies at schools; opponents say fight is not over

    Newsom signs bill to end parental notification policies at schools; opponents say fight is not over


    A big crowd was on hand when the Murrieta Valley Unified School District board voted last August to mandate that parents be told if their child shows any indication at school of being transgender.

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

    A trailblazing state law prohibiting California school boards from passing resolutions that require teachers and school staff to notify parents if they believe a child is transgender isn’t likely to put an end to this polarizing issue. 

    The Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth, or SAFETY Act, was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday. It will prohibit school districts from requiring staff to disclose to parents information related to a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity, and will protect school staff from retaliation if they refuse to notify parents of a child’s gender preference. The legislation, which will go into effect Jan. 1, also provides additional resources and support for LGBTQ+ students at junior high and high schools.

    “California is the first state to pass a law explicitly prohibiting school districts from enacting forced outing policies in the nation,” said Mike Blount, spokesperson for the author of the bill, Assemblymember Chris Ward, D-San Diego.

    The legislation was passed in response to the more than a dozen California school boards that proposed or passed parental notification policies in just over a year. The policies require school staff to inform parents if a child asks to use a name or pronoun different from the one assigned at birth, or if they engage in activities and use facilities designed for the opposite sex. At least seven California school districts passed the controversial policies, often after heated public debate.

    First lawsuit filed

    By Tuesday evening, the conservative nonprofit Liberty Justice Center said it had filed a lawsuit challenging the new law on behalf of Chino Valley Unified, which passed a parental notification policy last year.

    “School officials do not have the right to keep secrets from parents, but parents do have a constitutional right to know what their minor children are doing at school,” said Emily Rae, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center in a press release. “Parents are the legal guardians of their children, not Governor Newsom, Attorney General (Rob) Bonta, or Superintendent (Tony) Thurmond. We will continue to defend parents’ rights and children’s well-being by challenging invasive laws like AB 1955 in court, at no cost to taxpayers.”

    Other opponents, including Assemblyman Bill Essayli, R-Riverside, indicated that the issue will be settled in court. He is “committed to challenging the bill in court, and he’s confident he’s on the right side constitutionally,” said Shawn Lewis, Essayli’s chief of staff. Essayli plans to work with a coalition of advocates to challenge the bill, Lewis said.

    Election issue

    Parental rights is the overarching issue for the Republican Party, but right now it is focused on the parental notification issue, Essayli said in an August interview with EdSource. “This is an issue we want to run on in 2024,” he said.

    The newly passed legislation also resulted in a flurry of press releases and social media comments from opponents and supporters. Even Tesla CEO Elon Musk weighed in, calling the new law the “final straw” in his decision to move the headquarters for X, formerly known as Twitter, to Texas.

    “I did make it clear to Governor Newsom about a year ago that laws of this nature would force families and companies to leave California to protect their children,” Musk wrote on X.

    Proponents of the parental notification policies have said that parents have the right to know what is going on with their children at school and that minors do not have a right to privacy. Opponents say these policies could endanger already vulnerable students who should be able to decide when they want to come out to their parents.

    Chino Valley Unified in San Bernardino County, Murrieta Valley Unified and Temecula Valley Unified in Riverside County, Orange Unified in Orange County, Anderson Union High School District in Shasta County, and Rocklin Unified and Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District in Placer County are among the districts that have passed parental notification policies.

    California’s parental notification board policies have their origin in Assembly Bill 1314, proposed by Essayli, which was denied a committee hearing at the state Capitol last year. After that, Essayli, parents’ rights groups and attorneys wrote a model board policy for school boards.

    On Monday, Essayli released a statement about the new law: “Today, Governor Gavin Newsom defied parents’ constitutional and God-given right to raise their children by signing AB 1955 which codifies the government’s authority to keep secrets from parents,” he said. “AB 1955 endangers children by excluding parents from important matters impacting their child’s health and welfare at school. Governor Newsom signing AB 1955 is both immoral and unconstitutional, and we will challenge it in court to stop the government from keeping secrets from parents.”

    Eight states have passed laws requiring school districts to inform parents if their children ask to use names or pronouns associated with another gender, according to the Movement Advancement Project.

    LGBTQ+ rights threatened

    School parental notification policies have impacted the mental health of LGBTQ+ students and can lead to bullying, harassment and discrimination, according to a press release from Ward’s office.

    “Politically motivated attacks on the rights, safety, and dignity of transgender, nonbinary, and other LGBTQ+ youth are on the rise nationwide, including in California,” said Ward, who introduced the legislation along with the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus.

    “While some school districts have adopted policies to forcibly out students, the SAFETY Act ensures that discussions about gender identity remain a private matter within the family,” he said. “As a parent, I urge all parents to talk to their children, listen to them, and love them unconditionally for who they are.”

    The California Teachers Association and its members have been major opponents of parental notification policies, saying that they drive a wedge between educators and students, and endanger already vulnerable students. Teachers working in districts with parental notification policies have worried they could lose their jobs if they do not comply with the district requirement or end up in court if they disobey federal and state laws and policies.

    “This historic legislation will strengthen existing protections against forced outing and allow educators to continue to create a safe learning environment where all students feel accepted, nurtured, and encouraged to pursue their dreams,” said California Teachers Association President David Goldberg.

    “As educators, we are charged with providing a high-quality education to every student. No educator should experience retaliation or have their livelihood jeopardized for following the law and providing safe and supportive learning environments for our students.”

    Policies spawn lawsuits

    Attorney General Rob Bonta has said parental notification policies break California state law and violate students’ civil rights and their right to privacy. He issued warnings to districts and filed a lawsuit against Chino Valley Unified in San Bernardino County last year.

    A lawsuit was also filed against Temecula Valley Unified by a coalition of students, teachers and parents who oppose the district’s parental notification policy, along with a policy that bans “critical race theory.”

    California courts have had differing opinions. In San Diego, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez last year ruled that Escondido Union School District violated parents’ rights when it followed California state policy and allowed students to decide whether to tell their parents they identify as transgender.

    In Sacramento earlier that year, U.S. District Judge John Mendez dismissed a lawsuit against Chico Unified. The suit claimed that district policies allowed school staff “to socially transition” students and prohibited staff from informing parents of the change. Mendez said students have a right to tell their parents about their gender and sexuality on their own terms.

    The new law will also require districts to provide support or affinity groups and safe spaces for LGBTQ+ students; anti-bullying and harassment policies and complaint procedures; counseling services; anti-bias or other training to support LGBTQ+ students and their families; suicide prevention policies and procedures; and access to community-based organizations to support LGBTQ+ students as well as local physical and mental health providers with experience in treating and supporting families of LGBTQ+ youth.

    California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus Chair Susan Eggman said the legislation reaffirms California’s position as a leader and safe haven for LGBTQ+ youth.

    “I am also deeply grateful for all the parents, teachers, youth, LGBTQ+ leaders, and so many other groups who came together to support this bill,” Eggman said. “Their support reaffirmed what this caucus already knew: Safe and supportive schools for all our children should be our top priority. And at the end of the day, that’s what this bill does, ensures our K-12 campuses remain safe and affirming places for our youth no matter how they identify.”





    Source link

  • Federal investigation targets California ban on parental notification policies 

    Federal investigation targets California ban on parental notification policies 


    The LGBTQ+ community rallies in solidarity, opposing the Social Studies Alive! ban in Temecula Valley Unified in June 2023.

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

    Jennifer Vietz’s transgender daughter came out to a teacher and friends at her school’s Gay Straight Alliance group. 

    “If my daughter didn’t get the kind of support that she did,” Vietz said, “she wouldn’t be here now.” 

    She’s grateful for the school’s and teachers’ support of her daughter, and is aware that not every student has the same support from their family. 

    “They should be able to come out in a way that’s safe — or not come out — and still have a trusted adult that they can talk to,” Vietz said. “If they don’t trust their families, they need to have another trusted adult that they can talk to and (have) that speech protected.” 

    Vietz is one of many parents and advocates who have expressed concern for the welfare of LGBTQ+ students since the Trump administration announced an investigation into the California Department of Education over a state law, California Assembly Bill 1955, which bans schools from implementing parental notification policies. 

    The investigation, announced Thursday, includes claims by the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office that schools that implement AB 1955 violate the Family Educational Rights Privacy Act (FERPA) and that the California Department of Education has enabled practices that “may be violating FERPA to socially transition children at school while hiding minors’ ‘gender identity’ from parents.” If the state is found to be violating FERPA, it could lose federal funding, the announcement said.

    “LGBTQ+ youth and their families deserve to have sensitive conversations on their own terms and in a way that ensures students feel safe and supported at school,” said Tony Hoang, the executive director of Equality California, a nonprofit organization focused on the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, in a media release.

    But several school board members support and applaud the Trump administration’s efforts. 

    “I will not waver in opposing initiatives that undermine the parents’ God-given rights and prioritize social-political agendas over the well-being of our children,” said Joseph Komrosky, a member and former president of the Temecula Valley Unified school board. “To that end, it is great to see our president fight from the top down to vindicate our efforts at the local level.”

    In 2023, parental notification policies that require school officials to notify parents if their children show signs of being transgender started to gain traction in various parts of the state. Chino Valley Unified, Temecula Valley Unified, Murrieta Valley Unified and Orange Unified were among the California school boards that adopted such measures. 

    “I remain steadfast in my commitment to empowering parents and protecting the innocence of children as a (Temecula Valley Unified School District) school board trustee,” said Komrosky. “The fight against woke policies continues, as we have seen our parental notification policies challenged by special interest groups and state officials, such as Gov. Newsom’s support of AB 1955.” 

    When Temecula Valley Unified’s parental notification policy first went into effect, many students were left concerned, and many teachers were left confused, according to Edgar Diaz, the president of the Temecula Valley Educators Association, the district’s teachers union. 

    “It’s just been confusing over time, as we had a board approve something like this, without bringing employee voice into it, and then the state bringing a new law, and now … this investigation from the federal side,” Diaz said. “It just brings a lot of unknowns when you have different layers of government trying to add their own flavor to it.” 

    He added that the school board is currently in talks with the educators association and Temecula Classified Employees Chapter 538, which represents classified employees, about bringing a parental notification policy back under another name. 

    Jennifer Wiersma, a member of Temecula Valley Unified’s school board who supported the district’s parental notification policy, said, however, that the district has been working with unions on policies that are “nebulous” and that “don’t include parents as the focal point but instead mention sensitive topics and neutral classrooms.” 

    Those who oppose parental notification policies, including allies of LGBTQ+ students, have argued that revealing a student’s gender identity to their parents can be detrimental to their well-being.

    “We respect our justice system and follow laws in California. We wish we could say the same for the Trump/Musk administration,” said David Goldberg, the president of the California Teachers Association, in a statement to EdSource. “In California, we also provide safe and supportive learning environments for all students, and educators were proud to support the SAFETY Act (AB 1955) to protect all students’ rights to a safe and supportive learning environment.” 

    Equality California, which partnered with the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus to pass AB 1955, also doubled down on its commitment to transgender students. 

    “California’s laws don’t keep parents in the dark — they simply prevent extremist school boards from passing policies that target transgender youth and intrude into the parent-child relationship,” Hoang said.  

    Theo Burns, a professor of clinical education at the University of Southern California, says it’s critical for students to open up to their parents on their own terms. 

    He said that sometimes, reactions from parents are negative. But other times, parents might just be exhibiting a more immediate reaction, which can include misunderstanding, shock and denial. 

    “A child might think, ‘Oh gosh, you know what, my parents are really against me coming out as transgender,’” Burns said, “when in reality, the parent might just be not against it, but having to kind of sit with initial reaction before they come to a place of advocacy.” 

    Burns also said revealing transgender students can be associated with heightened mental health symptoms, like anxiety and depression, and can negatively impact their attendance at school. 

    “When we, as … a culture that values young people’s experiences, when we allow individuals to disclose who they are and what they want us to know in ways that feel safe and supportive,” Burns said, “it … not only benefits the individual, but also benefits community norms and values that those individuals are embedded into.”





    Source link