Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Title Ix Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School board weighs response after federal court vacates 2024 Title IX rule
Summary
A Jan. 9 federal decision that vacated the 2024 Title IX regulations left the D C Everest Area School District board and administrators parsing which investigative procedures to use. The board agreed to review policy language within 30 days and to seek legal guidance; administrators said they will follow the 2020 procedures for any new reports.
Next up was an update on Title IX policy after a federal court decision that vacated the Education Department's 2024 Title IX rule.
The issue matters because the district earlier amended its policies (2264 and 2266) to reflect the 2024 regulations. With the court action, the board and staff said they now face a patchwork of guidance about which investigative procedures to follow for incidents reported during the narrow interval when the 2024 rule was effective.
Dr. Knight, the district superintendent, told the board the district had received fresh guidance from Neola and the Department of Education showing the 2024 rule had been vacated and said staff will default to the 2020 procedures for handling complaints until the board receives clearer legal direction. "If an incident were to occur today, I am 100% confident that after this ruling ... we would use the 2020," he said. He added administrators had emphasized to school leaders that, in practice, staff should escalate concerns and call legal or administrative leads when a Title IX issue arises.
Board members debated whether to amend or rescind the district's recent policy changes immediately or to amend the policy dates to reflect the court ruling. Several board members urged caution: rescinding a policy now could create uncertainty about how to handle complaints that occurred during the period when the 2024 rule had been in effect. Ellen, who the board called on for procedural advice, noted that formally rescinding or re-adopting policy typically requires reconsideration and clear motion language.
Lindsay proposed a narrowly tailored amendment to policy 2266 that would limit that policy to incidents "on or before July 31, 2024 and on or after January 9, 2025," and to revisit the matter within 30 days. Some board members said that approach would give staff clearer interim guidance while lawyers complete a recommendation; others said it could amount to an indirect rescission without following formal rules for rescinding policy.
After extended discussion, the board did not adopt a final policy change at the meeting. Instead the membership rescinded earlier motions related to immediate changes and asked staff to seek formal legal opinions (including from the board's counsel) and to return with a recommendation. The board chair asked staff to start the 30-day review clock and said the district would call a special meeting if legal counsel advised urgent action.
Administrators told the board they had already briefed building leaders and that staff know to escalate reports and to follow the higher-court precedent when required. Gina Layman and other administrators were identified as part of the district team to handle Title IX questions in the interim.
The board directed staff to obtain a formal legal opinion and promised to revisit policy once counsel provided recommended language. The board did not take a binding vote to rescind either policy at the meeting.
Ending: The board concluded the discussion by asking administration to bring a clearer, legally reviewed recommendation to the February meeting and to convene a special meeting if counsel advised quicker action.
