Parents and trustees clash over proposed parental‑notification policy; board adopts resolution backing girls’ sports protections

Public comment filled much of the evening as parents, students and community members argued over two related items on the agenda: a first reading of a proposed parental‑notification policy (G16) and a separate resolution (G17) backing Title IX protections and fairness in girls’ sports.

Emily Brooks, a parent and frequent commenter, said comments she made at previous meetings had been dismissed by the board and urged trustees to "drop the performative divisive agenda and show fairness and compassion to all students." She asked the board to focus on policies that maintain excellent schools for all students rather than what she called political posturing. "I come to remind you... that you were elected to a nonpartisan position of trust," she said.

Several speakers described draft policy language they said would require schools to notify parents when a student seeks to change an official or unofficial record or participates in extracurricular activities. Critics, including parents and Trustee Munoz during deliberations, called parts of the draft duplicative of existing district policies, logistically burdensome and potentially unlawful under current California law. Supporters argued the policy restores parental rights and clarifies that notification duties would rest with principals or designees rather than individual teachers.

Action 17, a separate resolution promoting fairness in girls’ interscholastic sports, drew robust testimony from athletes and parents arguing for competitive fairness and safety. "Biological differences between males and females... can create significant advantages," said Allison Briggs, a student-athlete who urged the board to protect girls’ sports. Opponents warned the district against passing policy language contrary to current state law (Trustee Munoz and others cited AB 1955 and CIF guidance) and said a resolution is symbolic and will not change legal obligations.

After debate the board adopted Resolution No. 2425‑29 supporting Title IX and girls’ athletic protections; meeting minutes record the outcome as carried following a roll-call vote (motion carries; recorded as 3–2 in meeting remarks). Trustees split on whether the district should act through resolution, policy or leave changes to state and federal law. The parental‑notification policy remained at first reading with trustees asking staff to clarify legal basis, administrative burden and overlap with existing policies before a subsequent hearing.

What's next: Staff will return with legal analysis and recommended administrative procedures if the board advances the draft to a second reading. Any permanent changes to district policy would return to the board for a later vote.