By VERNON ROBISON
Moapa Valley Progress
More than a year’s worth of divisive meetings ended on Thursday, August 8 when the Clark County School Board of Trustees approved a controversial gender diversity policy with a split vote.
The decision came after more than two hours of bitterly divided public comment and board discussion rehashing a myriad of concerns and fears that had been voiced at numerous public meetings over the past year.
The policy instructs schools to develop a case-by-case gender support plan for each student who comes forward with a diverse gender identity. In each case, administrators of schools would assemble a Gender Support Team consisting of the student, his/her parent, a member of the CCSD Equity and Diversity team and other school personnel as deemed necessary. Parents would also be able to request that a representative of a community-based group, such as a clergy member, be part of the team as well.
The resulting plan would address the rights and needs of the student, ensuring protection of privacy, compliance with the Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association rules and with state law on equal enjoyment of public places.
As part of the plan, the student would have the option of either using the locker room or restroom that is consistent with his/her preferred gender identity, use the facility that corresponds to his/her biological sex, or to develop another individual plan altogether.
These three options would also be offered in hotel and travel accommodations for students going on overnight field trips.
In addition, the policy specified that the plan would address the name and pronouns preferred by the student. An unofficial school record, to be used in classrooms by teachers and administrators, would identify that student only by his/her preferred name and pronoun.
The board was split 4-3 in passing the measure. Trustees Carolyn Edwards, Linda Cavazos, Deanna Wright and Lola Brooks were in favor of the policy. Trustees Chris Garvey, Linda Young and Kevin Child voted against it.
During the public comment period, 64 members of the audience took the stand to speak. A total of 37 of those were parents and students who voiced strong opposition to the policy. Speaking in support of the policy were 27.
Supporters of the policy claimed that the measure was needed to protect the rights of a particularly vulnerable group of students.
“Passing guidance like this is so instrumental in creating a safe environment for all who are vulnerable,” said Gary Brewer, who said that he works as a counselor and social worker.
Others in favor of the policy dismissed fears raised by many opposed parents that the policy could create an unsafe and uncomfortable environment for their children at school.
“There has never been a court case or police arrest where a transgender person assaulted a non-transgender person in a bathroom,” claimed Alec Miller. “The rights of some students should not overshadow the rights of other students.”
That last statement elicited applause from audience members on both sides of the issue.
Those opposed to the policy insisted that it ignored the needs of the majority of students and the clearly stated wishes of parents.
“Again and again we have pled for you to listen to reason,” said Jose Sanchez, a CCSD parent. “But you won’t listen. You are acting aginst the rights of our children. That leaves us only two options: work to elect people to the legislature who are for school choice, and get our kids out of CCSD.”
Many Moapa Valley parents turned out at the meeting to speak out against the policy. Many of their comments emphasized that the policy would lead to inevitable legal battles and an exodus of students away from the CCSD.
“Meeting after meeting you have seen huge numbers of people opposing this policy,” said Logandale parent Erika Whitmore. “Yet you are pressing forward with this change anyway. If you do a little research on what has happened in other states who have done this, you will find parents suing their districts over transgender policies. You are taking away students’ rights to privacy. And there are going to be consequences.”
Logandale mom Keshia Philipenas said that she had already begun to take action in anticipation of the board action. “I have pulled my kids out of school for the coming year,” she said. “If you continue to refuse to give parents a voice, they will rise up. The movement is coming. You will see parents pull their children from one of the worst school districts in the nation.”
Lindsey Dalley of Logandale cited a statistic that 42,000 students per year are leaving the CCSD to homeschooling, charter or private schools and other alternatives. Each of these take as much as $8,000 in state funding away from the district, he said.
“Given that trend, how many years will it take before CCSD loses half of its state funding?” Dalley asked. “Approximately 4-5 years. When just eleven students leave, that eliminates one teacher’s salary.”
Dalley urged the board not to pass a policy that, by nature, would “drive parents away, further crippling the district.”
Moapa mom, Lisa Wolfley told trustees that they were not under any legal obligation to pass the policy. The state has not yet formulated its regulations on the matter, she said.
“By stepping out in front of the state this way, you have become activists,” Wolfley said. “This is a guinea pig policy but our kids are not your guinea pigs.”
The three trustees opposed to the measure expressed concern that the policy only addressed a small segment of the students.
“To me, all kids matter,” said Trustee Kevin Child. “All kids should be safe at school. No kids should be bullied. Our existing bullying policy is apparently not working and we still want to add yet another policy onto it. How dare we?”
Trustee Chris Garvey said that the policy didn’t contain enough language that informs parents what to do if their non-trans-gender child was uncomfortable with situations that the policy has created.
“Everything that is set up with this policy goes way far to the point of keeping most parents in the dark as to whether they should even ask for accommodations for their children,” Garvey said. “There is not a sense of openness in this. Instead it is a sense of secrecy and decisions made behind closed doors.”
Garvey also emphasized the fact that the majority of constituents across the district had repeatedly come out against the policy. This was especially true among the main segment of CCSD parents. She felt this fact should be acknowledged by trustees who were supporting the measure anyway.
“I think we have to make the distinction that sometimes trustees make decisions to create policy that does not align with their constituency,” Garvey said. “I think, when you do that, you need to own it rather than making it sound like you are listening to your constituencies. Saying that doesn’t seem like it holds water when over and over and over you have people who are really not happy or comfortable with what you are doing.”
Trustee Linda Young felt that the issue of protecting all children was important enough that the board ought to be unified in whatever policy was passed. But given the overwhelming feedback from parents, she said she could not support the policy as proposed.
“This issue needs to bring us all together,” Young said. “We can’t have a situation where we are taking care of one side and forgetting about the other side. We keep splitting this board and that has to stop.
We can work this out so that parents don’t feel like they have to leave the school district and take their kids out. I feel like this board can come together instead of ramming stuff down people’s throats.”
But the four trustees supporting the policy were firm in moving forward with the measure.
Trustee Lola Brooks didn’t believe that the two sides could be brought together on the matter. “I wish there was a middle ground but it is a very divisive topic,” Brooks said. “We start on polar opposites and no one seems to be willing to come to the middle.”
Trustee Linda Cavazos said that one of her chief considerations was the repeated requests she had received from school administrators and teachers for guidance on the matter.
“I have heard from so many of the teachers and administrators who are telling me that ‘we need help’,” Cavazos said. “I just don’t think that we can wait another two years, or four years for our children. If we don’t give (our administrators) a policy where they know how to handle this, we are disrespecting your children.”
Trustee Deanna Wright took issue with the claim that the trustees had not been listening. She pointed out that the board had sat through 20 or more hours of public comment on the issue.
“There seems to be a misunderstanding or misnomer that because some don’t agree with others, that we are not listening,” Wright said. “That is simply not true. I have taken notepads worth of notes. We have heard hours of questions and comments. While I don’t agree with some of the things that have been said, it doesn’t mean that I didn’t listen.”
