Anderson Union School District Board Upholds New Gender Policy Despite State Pushback

Photo by Annelise Pierce.

The Anderson Union School District’s new policy on gender, originally passed on August 22, requires credentialed staff to report to parents within three days if students indicate they’d like to be referred to by a name or gender different than that on their school records. 

Last week’s September 19 AUHSD board agenda included an item indicating the board was considering rescinding the new policy. The item, which was listed as discussion with no action, said that the reconsideration was based on the lack of stakeholder involvement prior to the policy being passed, meaning that there was a question as to how many people from different impacted groups were consulted before the policy was presented for consideration.

Last Tuesday, September 19, student board member Jonah Thomas had a brief question. As a student representative, Thomas is an honorary board member who can weigh in on topics but has no voting power.

Getting the attention of the rest of the board with difficulty, Thomas had one simple question:

“When you’re talking about stakeholders,” Thomas asked, “are these the principals, is this the parents, is this the kids?”

Board member Staci Adams, who said she had asked for the term stakeholder to be put on the board’s agenda, responded. Explaining that she’s responsible for her kids until they turn 18, Adams emphasized that to her, the stakeholders for the new policy are the school principals who will enforce it, the teachers who will have to carry it out, the district superintendent, and her and other members of the Board.

“So I’m sorry,” Adams told Thomas. “You have the result of a stakeholder . . .  but to me, we’re your parent and that to me is the stakeholder to make the parent to make the best decision for the kids . . . ”

The original passing of the AUHSD policy spurred a rebuke from California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta who referred to the policy, which has also recently passed in several other school districts across the state, as “forced outing.” The district has also faced pushback on the policy from the California Teacher’s Association, one of California’s largest teachers’ unions. The CTA says the new policy, which was not negotiated with the union, breaks labor law.

Those who support the new policy say children need parental help with making such complex decisions and parents have a right to know if their minor children are making them. Those who oppose the policy say that what a child discusses about their gender identity at school should remain private unless they wish to have it disclosed. 

More than a dozen community members spoke about the new policy during last week’s meeting, with strong representation on both sides of the issue. Speakers included multiple members of the local group, Wolfpack Clubhouse, some of whom said they came to the board meeting to serve as allies to students in the LGBTQ+ community even though they have no students currently enrolled in district schools themselves.

However, feedback from the public did not sway board members from their original positions on the topic. After more than an hour of public comment, all five reiterated the same opinions that they had shared at the last board meeting.

Board member Jackie LaBarbera, who originally brought the policy forward, spoke firmly in support of it, saying that it breaks no laws, despite what California’s Attorney General, the teachers union, or teachers or community members may say. Board President Joe Gibson, who is facing a possible recall, expressed that he continued to oppose the policy due to legal concerns.

“5020.1 does not break any laws,” Labarbera said emphatically. “I want someone to tell me what law it breaks . . . there is no law . . . don’t just take what they are saying at face value. There is no law.” 

Attorney General Bonta has already sued the Chino Valley School District over a similar policy. That suit has resulted in a Califonia judge temporarily blocking the Chino Valley policy, pending further investigation of whether it violates students’ civil rights.

Bonta has said that the policy breaks California’s Equal Protection Clause, California Education Code Sections 200 and 220, and Government Code section 11135 which, he says, ensure equal rights and opportunities for every student and prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression. The policy also threatens students’ rights under California’s constitution, Bonta said, which protects the right to “privacy,” including both “informational privacy,” and “autonomy privacy.”

Have questions, concerns, or comments? Reach out to us: editor@shastascout.org