South Washington County board declines to advance Title IX compliance resolution after divided debate

A draft resolution urging Minnesota education leaders to resolve a federal finding of noncompliance with Title IX was presented to the South Washington County Schools Board on Nov. 6 by Director Ryan Clark, but the board decided not to advance the item to the Nov. 20 business meeting for a vote.

Clark framed the resolution as a request that the Minnesota Department of Education, the Minnesota State High School League and the attorney general review state policy after federal Office for Civil Rights correspondence assessing noncompliance. "When recipients of federal funding treat trans identifying males as they were as if they were females, they defeat the very purpose of Title IX," Clark read from federal language included in his materials. He summarized federal and court actions and said the district gets a range of federal aid — including Special Education (IDEA), Title I and school meal funding — and mentioned potential financial exposure if the state and its agencies are found out of compliance.

The resolution, as described in Clark's presentation, would "affirm the board's commitment to providing all students with opportunities to participate in school athletics in a manner that is safe and respectful of both competitive fairness and individual dignity" and urge state leaders to clarify eligibility rules for girls' sports. Clark told the board he drafted the language and suggested it be sent to state education officials, the State High School League and Attorney General Keith Ellison.

Board members split in their responses. Several — including board members Simi Petnayak and Linda (last name not specified in the record) — argued the district must follow Minnesota law and court precedent and warned against taking actions that could expose the district to litigation. Petnayak said the board's obligation is to follow Minnesota law and expressed concern about inviting lawsuits and the diversion of taxpayer dollars to legal settlements.

Other members, including Eric Tessmer, said the draft was not a call to change district policy but to urge state leaders to resolve conflicting federal and state guidance so local districts know how to comply. Tessmer described the draft as a way to "urge our state leaders to get in compliance with Title IX because of the financial implications or consequences that may filter down to our school district itself." Supporters said the intent was to request clarification from state authorities, not to enact local policy changes.

Chair Katie Schwartz announced the board did not have a majority to move the resolution to the Nov. 20 business meeting for a vote. "We do not have a majority to move it forward, so it will not move forward to the November 20 business meeting for a vote," she said.

The board did not take a formal vote on the resolution during the workshop. Members who spoke offered public comments on legal risk, statutory obligations and the scope of local authority; several urged the district to follow Minnesota law, and others urged state leaders to address the federal finding. No formal direction for staff to pursue alternate actions is recorded in the meeting minutes.

The board's discussion cited federal and state legal developments by name, including Title IX, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights correspondence, the Bostock decision and federal litigation (Tennessee v. Cardona), and a pending U.S. Supreme Court review of related cases. Clark read excerpts of federal correspondence that state the department found Minnesota-level policies to be in potential conflict with Title IX. The chair and the superintendent confirmed the district had not received a direct notice of funding loss as of the 2025–26 allocation year.

Looking ahead, the workshop record shows no additional action was scheduled on this draft resolution; the proposal was not advanced to the business meeting agenda.