MMSD board gives first reading to revert Title IX policy to 2020 regulations, adds explicit protected categories

The Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education on a first reading discussed proposed revisions to its Title IX policy to revert to the 2020 federal regulations and to explicitly list protected categories in the district’s policy.

The board opened discussion after Yvetta Sloan, the district’s Title IX coordinator, summarized that federal guidance issued in 2024 had been vacated and the U.S. Department of Education had directed institutions to revert to the 2020 regulations. Sloan said the district’s 2020 policy already covered most protections, and staff are proposing to reinstate the 2020 wording while adding explicit protected categories for clarity.

Board members pressed staff for legal context and asked for time to review the proposed language before a second read.

Sloan, the Title IX coordinator, told the board she had recently updated the district draft to make explicit the protected categories and said the operational effect on the district would be limited. “As you can imagine with the new administration coming in, as of January 9, those 20 24 changes were vacated, and institutions have been instructed to revert back to 2020,” Sloan said. She added the district’s program “pretty much already encompassed much of what were considered new regulations,” and that reverting “isn't gonna make much of a change.”

Petra, a district staff member who walked board members through the redline documents, said two redlined drafts in the packet show (1) the version reverting text to 2020 and (2) a second redline that adds the protected categories Sloan requested. Petra said, “If you can just imagine if these 2 were together, that is what the proposed policy would be.”

Board members asked specific questions about how the proposed reversion would change complaint procedures and definitions used by the district. Sloan and staff described several differences between the 2020 and 2024 regulations that affect process and definitions: - Under 2020, a formal complaint must be a signed document; under 2024 it could be a verbal request. Reverting would restore the signed-document requirement for formal complaints. - Under 2020, informal resolution options are limited to cases after a formal complaint is filed; the 2024 language allowed offering informal resolution without a formal complaint. - The threshold language for what the regulations call sexual harassment had changed in 2024 to broaden the scope; reverting would restore the 2020 standard.

Sloan also explained that the district maintains a separate “misconduct” category in its procedures to capture conduct that may not meet Title IX’s harassment definitions but that the district nonetheless reviews and addresses.

Several board members asked for a fuller legal explanation before moving forward. Board member Ali asked whether the district should wait for further federal action and said she felt uncomfortable approving the reversion without more legal context: “Is there a reason why we're changing this policy now versus waiting to see what the current, presidential administration wants to do with Title 9.” Petra and another staff member said the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Department of Education guidance is the immediate directive; Petra said she would provide the letter to the board and recommended bringing legal counsel to the next read.

Board members also raised procedural and enforcement questions about a provision in the draft that said board members who violate the policy might be “subject to removal from their elected office.” One board member asked how removal would occur and noted the policy text does not explain recall or resignation processes; staff said they would follow up with legal counsel and return with clarification at the next read.

Board members asked staff to circulate the OCR letter and other legal context and to schedule a second read after members have had time to review the multiple redlined versions; staff agreed to return with more detail and with a deeper legal briefing.

The board did not vote on the Title IX policy at this meeting; staff described the discussion as the first read and indicated they will return with more information and a second reading.

The board’s next steps are to receive the OCR “dear colleague” letter and legal counsel’s detailed memo, then conduct a second read when the board has had time to review the consolidated draft and the legal rationale.