Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Identity Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board split on parental notification and consent as D11 refines ACA name‑change policy
Summary
Board members debated a draft ACA policy implementing a state law allowing students to use chosen names; discussion centered on parental notification versus parental consent, a proposed two‑request limit per year, and whether the policy should be void if the state law is struck down.
Board members engaged in an extended Jan. 29 work‑session discussion of proposed revisions to policy ACA, the district policy on students’ use of chosen names in alignment with recently enacted state law.
Director Carey, who circulated an alternate draft, said: "Parents are the primary stakeholders... I do not support school districts doing things without parental knowledge. I don't support school districts doing things without parental consent, you know, when there are places of ... sensitivity required." Carey proposed parental notification and parental consent as the district’s operating presumption unless a court or statute later required otherwise.
Other board members disagreed on the level of parental involvement. Director Ott said she worried parental consent could make school environments less safe for students who fear family reaction, noting: "I worry that they will feel that school isn't safe where they can truly express themselves." Director Jorgensen and Director Bankes emphasized parental responsibility and favored parental involvement in the process. Several members proposed that the policy include a clause to void the policy if the underlying state statute is later found unconstitutional.
The board also debated operational details: whether a student should be limited to two chosen‑name requests per academic year (some directors favored removal of this limit so operational discretion could be used), whether staff must use a chosen name immediately or after an internal process is complete, and whether requests for nonlegal chosen names should require proof of a legal name change (staff recommended they not be required).
Administrators noted the law (referred to in discussion as “House Bill 1039” and related statute language) requires districts to adopt procedures; legal staff and CASB references were used in drafting. The board gave staff direction on several edits — adding the word "gender" to clarify scope, cross‑referencing the district rule on legal name changes (JRC/JR C cited in discussion), and clarifying that the district views refusal to use a student's chosen name as discriminatory under Colorado law — and asked staff to return a redline non‑action version for formal consideration at a future meeting.
