Parents and community members urge Winthrop School Board to rescind March instruction to rewrite transgender policy

At the Winthrop School Board meeting, a string of parents and community representatives urged trustees to reverse a March 4 directive asking the superintendent to draft revisions to Policy JB, which concerns transgender students and school facilities and athletics.

Whitney Khan, a Winthrop resident and parent, said the motion “asks the superintendent to walk those commitments back” and urged the board to use Robert’s Rules to rescind the prior instruction. She warned that policy changes drafted now could contradict state law, expose the district to litigation and impose costs on taxpayers, and that students’ athletic opportunities could be limited depending on how enforcement is handled.

Kat Hoy, a resident, told trustees the current Policy JB complies with the Maine Human Rights Act and called it “fiscally and legally irresponsible” to spend district funds on drafting revisions that could terminate rights for transgender students; she said school administrators have reported no issues under existing bathroom or locker-room practices. Julie McFarland and Bethany Truen (speaking for the Winthrop Parent Teacher Organization) urged delaying changes until any citizen initiative or state action is resolved, saying premature local action offered no advantage and risked costly litigation.

Superintendent Dr. Foley provided an update on related litigation: she said districts sued by the Maine Human Rights Commission filed a motion to dismiss on March 6 (the districts are represented by Jack Baldacci) and that the commission had 21 days from March 6 to respond. She also noted that signatures had been collected to place a citizen initiative on the November ballot.

Board members did not rescind the March 4 instruction during this meeting. Several trustees said the policy committee has follow-up questions and that administration input on policy implementation should be gathered before further action. The board agreed to add further consideration of the item to a future agenda after administration and the chair coordinate next steps.

The meeting’s public comments repeatedly linked the policy debate to budget choices, with speakers arguing that litigation costs could require cuts elsewhere. The board acknowledged those concerns and signaled it would schedule further public discussion and administrative briefings before taking additional formal action.