Speakers address CUSD board regarding parental policy
CHICO — Wednesday’s Chico Unified School District Board of Education meeting had standard topics for discussion listed on the agenda — except one.
The meeting, at Marigold Elementary School’s multi-purpose room at 2446 Marigold Ave., had the tone of controversy even before the public session’s opening. Approximately 20 people came to address the board regarding “CUSD Board Policy No. 5145.3 — Non-discrimination/ Harassment,” including how and when district staff communicate with parents regarding confidential matters that students share with staff in school.
According to the board agenda published prior to the meeting, district “staff have worked with CUSD legal counsel to review existing law, guidance and process. This information will be shared with the CUSD Board of Trustees to provide a basis for the clarification of the communication process as it pertains to gender identity.”
In the end, following 16 scheduled speakers, there wasn’t any action other than to table the issue for more consideration. Board member Matt Tennis moved to add language to the policy that would require district staff to communicate with parents unless the student in question is 18 years of age or has been legally emancipated. However, board president Caitlin Dalby, Eileen Robinson and Tom Lando voted to table the action, with Tennis voting “no” and board member Rebecca Konkin abstaining.
CUSD attorney
Paul Gant, partner at Sacramento-based Kingsley Bogard Attorneys, spent the better part of 15 minutes explaining to the board that the district is acting within California Department of Education guidance as well as state and federal antidiscrimination law. He said that, in fact, following these is a legal mandate.
Gant also cited the state education department’s interpretation of Assembly Bill 1266, officially named the School Success and Opportunity Act, which requires protection of student privacy as it pertains to transgender issues of a student.
Gant said the guidance from the state is “broadly followed” by school districts across the state. It affirms students’ right to privacy, which — if a student so chooses — would require district employees to refrain from alerting parents of any such discussions of transgender issues.
“Any board decision must comply with legal and constitutional provisions,” Gant said.
He then cautioned the board against making changes that might be contrary to this legal mandate, as changes could mean the district “becomes a target for the next test case” — something Gant said could be expensive to litigate.
His options for the board included postponing any changes; make no changes, while remaining consistent with the education department guidance and California School Board Association regulation; set a policy that absent a compelling reason, share information with parents or guardians; or set a policy that absent a compelling reason, contact parents or guardians of students ages 11 or younger.
Clearly, several of the people who addressed the board weren’t buying
Gant’s assertions about the law and its ramifications on district families.
Remarks from the public ranged from the idea that “schools shouldn’t raise kids”; trust and transparency are possible while still following the law; and that schools are ignoring “core curriculum” in favor of “social engineering,” “grooming” and “conditioning.” Perhaps 90% of the speakers, in some fashion, urged the board to set a concrete policy to never exclude parents from discussions involving their children.
Some speakers explicitly told the board they supported the policy as it stands, citing the danger transgender students face in the form of bullying and suicide risk.
The meeting became especially contentious at 7:58 p.m. when a speaker who had just finished addressing the board accused a man in the front row of the audience of making derogatory comments to female speakers. Several members of the audience began shouting at each other, and when many people came to their feet in apparent expectation of a broader conflict, order appeared to be in danger.
However, Dalby quickly ordered the man to move away from the aisle and to the end of the row; when he taunted others in the crowd, and they taunted him back, Dalby told him to leave. He did.
The policy discussion traces its origins to a Jan. 13 lawsuit against the district, its superintendent, Staley, and all five board members in their official capacities only. Aurora Regino, parent of a district student, claims in the lawsuit her 14th Amendment due-process rights were violated when district employees sought to “socially transition” her 11-year-old daughter who was a fifth-grader during the 2021-22 school year.
Several community members addressed the board at the Jan. 18 meeting, all of them unhappy with the “policy” which Staley explained does not exist at the district level.
Tennis had moved, at that time, to place the item on the Wednesday agenda for discussion. He sought to discuss possible district policy which would guarantee parental involvement in any conversation between students and school personnel about transgender issues.