Tulsa Public Schools board adopts Parents’ Bill of Rights after debate over opt‑in language

The Tulsa Public Schools Board of Education voted April 2025 to adopt a Parents’ Bill of Rights policy that the district says aligns with state requirements and accreditation expectations, despite objections from some board members and public commenters who said the policy does not require prior written (opt‑in) consent and lacks explicit district penalties for violations.

Board members moved and seconded the measure and carried it by majority vote. Board member Alina Ashley voted no, citing concerns that the policy relies on an opt‑out model rather than informed consent and that accountability language is vague. "When we don't have informed consent, which would equal to opting in ... we give away our rights," Ashley said during board debate.

The policy, according to district staff, reflects language required by the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) and is an accreditation requirement. "This is not something that Tulsa Public Schools is creating," Dr. Johnson, the district superintendent, said. "We reached out to the state department of education in order to ensure that we are aligned to what's expected from the state." Dr. Johnson also described district practices intended to inform families, including curriculum review nights and online curriculum posting in multiple languages.

Why it matters: The policy governs how families are notified and how students may be excused from certain instruction. Opponents said the policy places the burden on parents to opt out and does not provide clear, enforceable district remedies when policies are violated; supporters said failing to adopt the state model could jeopardize accreditation and the district’s standing with state regulators.

Board debate and public comment: Several members of the public urged changes. Larry Williamson and Susan Phillips urged a rejection or revision of the policy, suggesting an opt‑in approach. Public commenter Bob Jack said the policy lacked a clear avenue for parents to resolve disputes with the district and proposed a third‑party review process similar to a guardian ad litem. Sarah Bazzone, the board clerk, read into the record an email from board member Alina Ashley that summarized concerns about the policy’s opt‑out design and the lack of explicit district consequences.

Legal and procedural context: Board counsel Eric Wade told the board that the meeting complied with the Open Meeting Act and reminded members that serial or majority communications about board business outside a posted meeting are prohibited. Dr. Johnson and other staff said complaints about curriculum or instruction can be raised through the district’s reporting system; Dr. Johnson said the district’s records show fewer than five related complaints in recent years, a figure she offered in response to concerns about systemic problems.

Vote and next steps: The measure was moved by Mr. Croissant and seconded by Mr. Moniz and carried by majority vote. The adopted policy is set to take effect in 2025. District staff said they will post guidance for families on how to opt children out of covered instruction and will provide support to families who need help navigating the process.

Board members also discussed broader opportunities to exceed the state baseline, including exploring ways to offer more active consent mechanisms where feasible and continuing outreach to OSDE to raise district concerns.

Ending: The district said it will add information about opting out and how parents can get help to the district website. The board also scheduled additional discussion of related family‑engagement and transparency practices in future meetings.