Residents press Durango school board on transparency, gender support plan and student data privacy

A varied slate of community members used the meeting’s public‑comment period to press the Durango School District for more transparency on gender support procedures, better dyslexia screening plans and limits on student data sharing.

Several speakers — including Amber Morris, Jason Mitchum and Danielle Kirkpatrick — expressed concern about the district’s gender support plan and described cases they said showed parents were excluded from decisions. Kirkpatrick referenced the case of a resident, Symphony Stein, and alleged the district’s practices allowed a minor to be “socially transitioned” without parental consent. Those speakers called on the board to dissolve the gender support plan and require mandatory parental notification for gender‑related decisions.

At least three speakers raised concerns about district transparency in other areas. Amber Morris and others said it was difficult for parents to access information and participate in decisions affecting their children. Sarah Fisher, a district employee who advocates for dyslexia screening, told the board she received a letter from a supervisor after she spoke two years earlier about dyslexia and asked why district communications had not explained opt‑out rights for STAR testing. She asked the board for a districtwide dyslexia screening plan and for staff training, including for assessments in students’ native languages for Native American students.

Data‑privacy concerns about the district’s new platform, Abre, were raised by parent Michael Buck. Buck said he was uncomfortable that Abre requires logins via Microsoft, Google or Facebook accounts and he asked whether parents can opt out of sharing student data with the vendor. He told the board he had asked the district for an opt‑out or data deletion pathway and requested confirmation of what data the vendor holds.

Superintendent response: Dr. Karen Chesser gave a long superintendent update after public comment. She acknowledged community concerns, disputed several claims and described steps the district has taken. Chesser said the district had produced requested documents in response to records requests (contradicting claims that materials were “leaked”) and explained the time and attorney review required to supply records with personally identifiable information redacted. She also characterized recent media coverage as misleading and said the district welcomes outside review of its hiring and civil‑rights practices.

On the gender support plan, Chesser and Executive Director Vanessa Giddings said the district uses a confidential, family‑driven support plan commonly used by other districts and that the plan is activated in response to family requests for support; they denied a practice of systematically excluding parents. Dr. Giddings told the board she is aware of five families who have used the plan confidentially in seven years and said district counseling staff work with the family and the student. Chesser said the confidential element is intended to protect student privacy rather than to exclude parents.

On Abre and data privacy, Chesser said the district’s technology director had reviewed vendor assurances and that the district is constrained by the product’s authentication options. She said the district will continue to engage with the vendor and parents about privacy concerns.

Requests and next steps: Several public speakers asked the board to adopt transparent policies requiring parental notice and consent for gender‑related supports and to publish clearer procedures for parental complaints and transparency. Board members and the superintendent said they would follow up: Chesser and staff said they would meet with concerned families, investigate specific allegations, and provide further written follow‑up. The board also added a superintendent update to the agenda at the start of the meeting that gave staff time to respond to many of the public comments.

Ending: The district’s superintendent urged community members who had specific concerns to meet with district staff so they could resolve individual cases outside the formal public‑comment process. She reiterated that the district is “open” to dialogue and invited parents to use district complaint processes and direct outreach to staff.