RUSD Will Not Move Forward With Discussions On Parental Notification Policy

The Riverside Unified School District (RUSD) Board of Education will not move forward with discussions on the potential adoption of a parental notification policy adopted last March by Chino Valley Unified School District (CVUSD).

“Courts across this country have reiterated the rights that parents have in deciding how to bring up their child, and notifying parents of anything…going on with the child strengthens the partnership that we have with parents in the community,” Trustee Amanda Vickers, who spoke in support of the policy, said. “The parents have a right and need to know what is going on with their child so that they can, you know, give the proper medical, mental health, spiritual, any kind of care for their child.”

The policy, which was put on the agenda for potential discussion by a member of the public, was adopted by CVUSD last March after its first policy was blocked by a San Bernardino County judge, as reported by EdSource.

That first policy, which was subsequently adopted and later rescinded by the Temecula Valley Unified School District, would have required district staff to notify parents within three days if their child requested to use a name or pronoun different from their official student record. Parents would have also been notified if a student wanted to access sex-segregated spaces or activities that did not align with their biological sex or if they requested to change anything on their official or unofficial record.

The new policy, which was brought before the RUSD board last Thursday, took out mentions of gender, but would still require staff to notify parents if a student requested to change their official or unofficial records, the extracurricular or co-curricular activities that a student is involved in and any physical injuries a student sustains while at school or during school-sponsored activities.

Both policies included the same language regarding students who experience bullying, are involved in physical altercations or have suicidal ideations.

“The language in this resolution is very generalized and seems harmless, as it emphasizes the rights of parents, but those of us who care about LGBTQ families and students know the history of this document and its potential consequences,” Juno Bates, an education organizer with the Inland Empire Prism Collective, said.

Bates said that requiring parents to be notified of every change to a student’s official or unofficial record as well as their involvement in school-sponsored clubs or activities has the potential to harm students.

“This would forcibly out LGBTQ students who ask their teachers to call them by a different name and who join LGBTQ clubs on their campus,” Bates said. “Young people thrive when they have parental support and feel safe sharing their full identities at home, but it can be harmful to force them to do so before they are ready.”

Those in support of the district putting the policy on a future agenda for action said that it would increase transparency and trust between the district and parents.

“Our children don’t belong to the district when they walk in the door to the schools, as some of your staff believe,” Sandy Roy said. “The law has always been clear that parents have the fundamental right to the upbringing, education and care of their children.”

Other speakers said that parents already had access to all of the student information included in the policy through the district’s online portal or by going to the school and asking.

Ultimately, the board, by consensus, decided it would not put the policy on a future agenda for action, despite Vickers requesting that it be brought back for action.

“I do encourage us to consider this,” she said. “And, you know, if we don’t, I do hope that, you know, under the new administration that President [Donald] Trump’s rules do come in and assist us.”