Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Human Growth Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board considers reconstituting human growth and development committee after parent complaint about classroom video
Summary
After a parent challenge to an instructional video about gender identity, board members discussed reconstituting the human growth and development committee (last active in 2018), legal triggers for the committee, parental opt‑out procedures, and the district’s formal review/appeal process for instructional materials.
The Elkhorn Area School District board opened a lengthy discussion about whether to reconstitute its human growth and development committee after a parent complained about a classroom instructional video addressing gender identity and related concepts.
Board members recapped the committee’s prior composition and role: the group last met in 2018 and previously included 12 members (six parents, a school nurse, a high school teacher, a health professional, a clergy member and two student representatives). Members said state law requires a committee when a district offers a human growth and development unit and imposes composition limits: no single non‑parent category shall exceed one‑fifth of membership and no more than one‑quarter of members may be district employees, spouses or board members.
The discussion turned to the specific complaint: several members described the video as inappropriate for middle‑school students and said it contained material encouraging students to introduce themselves by gender labels; one called the video "a disaster." Other members noted the relevant state standards require medically accurate, age‑appropriate instruction and include topics such as avoiding stereotypes and preventing bullying. Board members suggested that if the instructional tool is the core concern, the district should first follow its instructional‑material review process rather than immediately reconstituting the committee.
Administrators and board members outlined the existing challenge process: parents should raise concerns with the teacher and principal; principals review the tool, and decisions can be appealed to district administrators and, ultimately, to the board. Members asked staff to ensure the curriculum‑review link/form is prominent and that submissions are documented in a shared spreadsheet so repeated challenges are visible. They also discussed parental notification and opt‑out mechanics: the board can require a written objection for students to be excluded from the unit, and alternative assignments or scheduling (for example, additional PE) can be provided; in high school, alternative assessments may be required if the course earns credit.
Board members agreed to direct concerned parents to submit a formal challenge through the district’s instructional materials review link so administration receives notice and the issue may be escalated and, if needed, appealed to the board. The board scheduled follow‑up review of the early graduation item and agreed to a short break.
