Tonight at 6 p.m. marks the second time the Roseville Joint Union School District Board will officially discuss the controversial parental notification policy. Community members can expect public comment, but no formal action will be taken on the policy at this meeting.

What does the adopted policy from the Rocklin Unified School District say? 

   The initial policy was an addition to an already existing set of regulations called “Parental Rights and Responsibilities” created by the Rocklin Unified School District. After a 4-1 vote by the RUSD Board, the policy passed and was adopted at a Sept. 6th board meeting, following hours of public comment. The new addition – labeled “Parental Right 21” – requires parents or guardians to be informed by classroom teachers, counselors, or site administrators if their children request to identify with a separate gender, sex, name, or to use sex-segregated school programs and activities that do not align with their biological sex or gender. 

Classroom teachers, counselors or site administrators have three school days to notify parents: the exact or preferred form of communication was not specified. 

There is one exception to this notification timeline for a student’s safety. If a staff member and a site administrator have “credible evidence” that the notification of the parent directly puts the safety of the child at risk, they have “up to 48 hours” after the three school day interval to “fulfill mandated reporter requirements.” These requirements were not specified in the policy.

What is on the agenda for the Roseville Joint Union High School District board meeting tonight regarding the parental notification policy?

 Per the RJUHSD’s Nov. 9 meeting agenda, the topic will likely be discussed during item 7 “Public Hearing” and item 8 “Action Matters.” Item 8.1 is described as “Approval of New and Revised Board Policies and Administrative Regulations regarding Parent/Student Rights and Responsibilities.”  

The agenda clarifies the Board is recommended to “review and consider taking action on the new and revised board policies and administrative regulations regarding Parent/Student Rights and Responsibilities.”

Since the most recent meeting on Sept. 28, the RJUHSD board has made revisions to parental rights policies related to the parental notification policy the RUSD board approved.

See the full list of revisions/additions from the board under each link. 

Three new policies

The RJUHSD Board adopted three new policies as outlined on the Nov. 9 agenda, discussing parent and student rights and responsibilities. These are BP 0470: Balancing Educational Rights, BP 5020.1: Student Rights and Responsibilities and AR 5020.1: Student Rights and Responsibilities. 

One revised policy

Administrative Regulation 5020: Parents Rights and Responsibilities was revised from the original policy (adopted Oct. 2015). New details were outlined in red font.

Behind the changes

   In creating new policies or making changes to existing ones, the board is attempting to reach a middle-ground and general understanding between the public and the school board regarding the parental notification policy approved in the RUSD.

The RJUHSD Board’s Student Rights and Responsibilities policy (BP 5020.1)  details a priority to protect students’ and parents’ rights and ensure “an inclusive and stimulating learning environment.” The Board recognized the need to comply with “federal and state laws,” outlining several examples, such as “district administrative regulations and the California Interscholastic Federation Constitution and By-Laws” among others.

 Notable revisions and details include, but are not limited to:

• “The superintendent or designee shall ensure the prompt and efficient sharing of information with parents and guardians and safeguard the educational journey of every student. It is the intent of the Board to ensure the integration of parents and guardians in the decision-making process for educational decisions, mental health, and social-emotional issues of their children and to affirm the well-established parental right to make decisions regarding the care, custody, and control of their children.” (BP 0470)

• “Effective and timely communication with parents/guardians will prevent or reduce potential instances of harm to self or others.” (BP 0470)

• “The board emphasizes the obligation to report information to parents when a school counselor or other employee reasonably believes that disclosure is essential to prevent a clear and present danger to the health, safety , or welfare of the student. However, if notifying the parent/guardian creates a clear and present danger to the student, no notification to the parent/guardian is required, but the school counselor/psychologist must record the specific basis for his or her belief that a clear and present danger exists.” (BP 0470)

• The RJUHSD Board referenced *Quilloin v. Walcott and Troxel v. Granville, two court cases regarding the constitutionally protected rights of parents in their relationships with their children in education, as “they may possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions.”(BP 0470)

What are other California school districts saying about this policy?

Since the Rocklin Unified School District announced at a district board meeting that Rocklin, Whitney, and Victory High Schools would be adopting this parental notification policy on Sept. 6, the RJUHSD Board has been discussing the implementation of a similar policy in RJUHSD high schools, including Granite Bay High School.

   According to a KCRA3 article, the acceptance of the policy was met with mixed emotions by both attendees of the board meeting and parents of children in the high schools of the RUSD.

   The RUSD is not the first district to implement such policies that involve parental notification regarding students’ identity. Six other school districts in California, including Orange Unified School District (on Sept. 8) and Murrieta Valley Unified School District (on Aug. 11) have implemented similar parental notification policies, as reported by KCRA3 and ABC7.

What reactions have there been to the implementation of the policy in the Rocklin Unified School District?

 Kate Phelan, a senior at Rocklin High School, attended the Sept. 6 RUSD board meeting with other Gender Sexuality Alliance club members who gave public comment.

 Phelan described “panic” the day after the RUSD board passed the parental notification policy and an outpouring of support especially at the GSA club from teachers, administrators and community members both locally and nationally. 

 “It’s technically been implemented, but a lot of the teachers I’m aware of, aren’t following it.” Phelan said. “It goes against state law. They either have a choice to follow district policy or follow state law.”

Phelan said she’s referring to the state lawsuit, filed by Attorney General Rob Bonta, against Chino Valley Unified School District’s implementation of the policy. The policy violates California’s Equal Protection Clause, California Education Code Sections 200 and 220 and Government Code section 11135 and California’s constitutional right to privacy according to an August press release from the Attorney General’s office,

The policy’s implementation was blocked Oct. 19 by a San Bernardino County superior court judge.

To RJUHSD students, Phelan said this. 

“Know other schools in the area have your back.” Phelan said.  “It’s really awful that we even have to consider the implications of this.”

What reactions have there been to discussion of the policy in the Roseville Joint Union High School District?

 A countywide walkout protesting the policy’s passing that included RUSD and RJUHSD was planned for Oct. 6 across all Placer County school campuses.

 In a separately planned walkout on Oct. 11, around 20 students led by Granite Bay High School’s GSA leaders participated.

 More RJUHSD students are expected to provide public comment tonight. 

At the last board meeting, three GBHS students were the first RJUHSD students to provide public comment on the policy. All advocated against the policy’s implementation, citing state laws, codes of conduct for school districts, and personal anecdotes. These GBHS students also emphasized the negative impacts which the implementation of the notification policy would have on the health and relationships of the transgender community on campus.