District 49 board advances sports policy for further review after hours of public comment

The El Paso County Colorado School District 49 Board of Education agreed on April 10 to move a proposed athletics policy known as JBA, “Preserving Fairness and Safety in Sports,” to its May regular meeting for a formal vote after extensive public comment and board discussion.

The policy, as presented to the board, would restrict participation in single-sex athletic teams based on the sex assigned at birth and applies specifically to school sports, travel and related activities. Following public testimony that ran for more than an hour and included opposing positions from parents, students, advocacy groups and district staff, the board asked for the item to be scheduled for final action in May.

Why it matters: The proposal sparked sustained public comment from both opponents and proponents, produced legal analysis from the district's attorney and prompted student representatives to weigh in. The board’s decision to advance the policy means District 49 will take a formal vote next month; if adopted, the policy could lead to legal challenges and would change how the district determines team eligibility, locker-room and travel arrangements for transgender and gender-nonconforming students.

Public testimony divided sharply. Opponents, including speakers from Inside Out Youth Services and a number of students and families, urged the board to preserve the district’s existing, individualized approach. Jackson Hodgkinson, school advocate for Inside Out Youth Services, told the board the proposed policy was “riddled with scientific inaccuracies, political motivations, and language and guidance that is illegal under Colorado anti‑discrimination law.” Angie Hackett Larson, executive director of Inside Out, said the proposal “targets a small, already vulnerable group of students and denies them the opportunity to belong and thrive.”

Several student commenters and the student board representatives asked for protections for trans students and highlighted legal and safety concerns. A student representative, Sadie (student board representative), urged the board to look to established frameworks such as the International Olympic Committee’s recent guidance and to rely on case‑by‑case review rather than a blanket policy.

Supporters of the draft policy told the board the change is necessary to protect female athletes’ competitive opportunities and privacy. Director Livia Wright read from research and public comments emphasizing physiological differences; other speakers cited average performance gaps and injury concerns. One parent said, “Boys, men do not have a right to invade girls' and women's sports, locker rooms, etcetera.”

Legal counsel Brad Miller told the board the district had crafted the policy specifically to address athletics and equal protection questions: “This is a valid policy that will be challenged as being in opposition to the state law, but ... this policy is carefully crafted to meet the conditions that would be successful in any legal challenge under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” he said, framing the proposal as defensible under federal constitutional principles even if it conflicts with state law.

Board discussion focused on enforceability and the policy’s scope. Some board members argued for a case‑by‑case process consistent with Colorado High School Activities Association (CHSAA) procedures and current practice; others said a written district policy is necessary to protect girls' competitive opportunities and privacy. Director Howe suggested CHSAA guidance could be adapted for district use; Director Schmidt flagged evidence of disparities in academic and wellbeing outcomes for transgender students and urged caution.

The board did not adopt the policy at the meeting. Instead, trustees reached consensus to bring the item back for a vote at the May regular meeting, and trustees asked legal counsel and staff to refine language and provide clearer guidance on implementation and accommodations. The board also discussed adding an accommodation statement addressing locker rooms and hotel rooms that would require consultation with the student, the student’s family and school administration.

Votes at a glance

- Action 7.1 (job descriptions for building maintenance and director of grounds maintenance): Motion to approve passed 4–1. Recorded roll call: DeVala — Aye; Heil — Aye; LaViere — Aye; Schmidt — No; Thompson — Aye.

- Action 7.2 (course proposal: Intro to Dance — hip hop and jazz): Motion to approve passed 5–0.

- Action 7.3 (policy updates and procedure review): Motion to approve passed 4–1.

- Consent agenda (earlier in the meeting): Approved 5–0.

What’s next: The board scheduled the proposed JBA policy for formal consideration at the May regular meeting. Board members asked staff to bring legal clarifications, recommended edits that would narrow the policy to athletics and proposed language for accommodations that would address locker‑room and travel privacy concerns.

Context: Testimony at the April meeting included more than two dozen speakers signed up for public comment; the board split public‑comment time into 15 and 10 speaker slots before proceeding. Student board representatives said the student board is split on the policy's language: they support protecting fairness and safety in women's sports but did not endorse the draft wording as written. The district’s attorney and administrators participated in the discussion and answered legal and operational questions raised by trustees and the public.

The item will return to the board for a final vote at the May regular meeting. If adopted, district staff said they expect additional guidance will be required on implementation and potential accommodation plans for individual students.