Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Gender Identity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Winneconne Community School District board tables student gender‑identity policy after public outcry
Summary
Following extended public comment and board discussion, the Winneconne Community School District board voted unanimously to table Policy 2268 — the proposed student gender‑identity policy — and sent it back to the policy committee for further review.
The Winneconne Community School District board voted Nov. 4 to table Policy 2268, a proposed student gender‑identity policy, after multiple residents criticized the language and called for stronger parental‑notification and parental‑rights protections.
Public commenters urged changes or rejected the need for a distinct policy. "That's called gaslighting," resident Jenny Koser said of a board statement about removing gender terminology, arguing the board’s actions produced the community’s distrust. Laura Ackman of Moms for Liberty said the policy was redundant with existing protections and referenced the Wisconsin case TF v. Kettle Moraine to argue districts cannot supplant parents’ control over medical decisions for their children. Rocky Rodriguez, a co‑chapter leader of Gays Against Groomers, pushed back that "Title 9 is there to protect whether they're transgender, gay, lesbian, straight..." and urged the board to focus on academics and career readiness instead of the dispute.
At the meeting, Board member Kunde explained how the draft policy addressed access to facilities, use of preferred names and pronouns, privacy in records and coordination with the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association. Multiple board members said they wanted firmer language requiring parental involvement in student‑focused attendance and education plans. "I would say in each instance, the district shall involve the students' parents in the process," one board member said during discussion.
After discussion the board moved by motion (Kunde) and second (Ackman) to table the policy and refer it back to the policy committee for further review; the motion passed on a roll‑call vote. The policy will be reconsidered after the committee reconvenes and revises language addressing parental notification, training and record changes.
The board noted the policy is a first reading and that further committee work is planned; the next policy meeting was announced for Nov. 18 at 5:30 p.m.
