Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy Parental Notification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and community voice objections to proposed policy language on parental notification and student privacy
Summary
Parents and community members urged Revere Board of Education to revise proposed parental-notification policy language and to add protections for students who might be endangered by mandatory written notifications.
Public commenters at the Revere Board of Education meeting on May 20 urged the board and administration to revise several policy changes posted for first reading — including a new policy framed as a Parent Bill of Rights — and asked the district to clarify how it will handle parental notification when students disclose sexual orientation or gender identity.
Whitney Thornton Dunlap, who identified herself as a parent and policy advocate, said the agenda included many items and that mandated policies need clarity and transparency. She asked the board to avoid inserting statutory law text verbatim into district policy, and referenced "the Eames case" in relation to sunshine/open‑meetings concerns. She urged the board to add exceptions so the policy would not force disclosures that could endanger children. "We don't have to follow. I need there to be provisions that we are not going to out children if there is abuse at home," she told the board.
Dr. Jeff Arcanal, a parent and pediatrician, told the board he works with young patients who may disclose that they are LGBTQ+ and warned that written notification to parents can be harmful in some situations. He argued for an option that allows the school to coordinate with the student and chosen staff member to decide how to tell parents, rather than mandating a written notice. "It's not going to go well if it comes in a letter," Dr. Arcanal said, speaking of cases where a student is not safe if a disclosure is delivered in writing.
Other commenters raised questions about policy language in policy 6.05 (interdistrict open enrollment) and related statutory citations (ORC 3313.98 is mentioned in public comment). One speaker asked the board either to explain why language about "maintaining racial balance" was included or to remove it. Several speakers asked the district to explain why the parent‑notification provision is written as it is and to publish the rationale.
Board members and administration responded that these policies are currently posted for first reading and that legal counsel and policy writers provide periodic updates. The superintendent encouraged commenters to submit written feedback and said the board will return to these policy items next month. He also said the district's attorneys had been consulted and that the board must post legally required policies on a set schedule.
Administrators told the audience they had questions for counsel as well and that some policy items — specifically new policy 9.39 — must be on the books by July 1, but that the board was not taking action May 20. Board members asked the public to furnish specific concerns so staff and counsel could consider potential modifications before final readings.
The public comment period included speakers who urged clearer explanations in policy language and additional protections for students in at‑risk situations; there was no board action on the disputed policy language at the meeting.
