Committee reviews revisions to pregnant/parenting and instructional materials policies

Union County Public Schools Policy Committee · February 17, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The committee reviewed substantial statute-driven revisions to Policies 3‑32 and 4‑21 (pregnant and parenting students and employees), including expanded definitions and a Title IX coordinator section, and discussed proposed changes to Policy 5‑01 on instructional materials and parental inspection rights.

The Union County Public Schools policy committee examined significant proposed revisions to two companion policies on pregnant and parenting students and employees (Policies 3‑32 and 4‑21) and reviewed proposed changes to Policy 5‑01 on selection of instructional materials.

Attorney (S3) told the committee the changes to the pregnant/parenting policies are "fairly significant and they are based upon statutory compliance," expanding definitions of pregnancy-related conditions, adding a section naming a Title IX coordinator and contact information, and spelling out actions to prevent discrimination and ensure equal access to educational programming. A member asked whether the policies provide counseling about pregnancy choices; Attorney (S3) replied, "We don't address Okay. What the student does or the employee does. Once they're pregnant, we advise regarding options in the school environment." The attorney further said the document includes references to classes, courses and opportunities as supports.

On instructional materials, the attorney said Policy 5‑01 was revised to align with statutory timelines and to clarify a parental right to inspect materials; the policy would also require that materials be available through the district's Destiny app. Staff asked the committee to forward these items for first review at the March meeting. The committee approved a motion to do so by voice vote.

The committee's review was a first‑review step; substantive public comment or stakeholder responses were not recorded during the session. The committee plans to revisit the items at its March meeting for additional review or further action.

Speakers quoted or referenced here are taken from the meeting transcript: Attorney (S3) and an unidentified member.