D11 School Board votes for parental consent in name change policy
(COLORADO SPRINGS) — The Colorado Springs School District 11 (D11) Board of Education has voted to integrate a new name-change policy that would require parental consent.
The new ACA policy directs the superintendent to develop a process for a student to request the use of a chosen name to reflect their gender identity. Therefore, students and parents/guardians must request a change to their legal name or gender on their official student record, and it would only be recognized after parents were notified.
The new policy has sparked conversations about discrimination and even 'sidestepping' a state law. According to board member Julie Ott, the school board had received many emails about the subject, which the board hadn't 'in a long time on one subject.'
Earlier in February, the Colorado Springs Education Association opposed the policy, stating it went against HB24-1039, an act that requires schools to address students by their chosen name. The act states that it is discriminatory to knowingly use another name other than the student's chosen name, and refusal to address the student by that name allows the student to file a report with the school or a federal civil rights complaint.
The policy now states the district will work with students and families to stay consistent with privacy laws.
'The District will work with students and their families to keep personally identifiable information related to gender identity confidential in accordance with state and federal privacy laws,' the policy stated.
Previously, the D11 School Board had said the policy was about being transparent and unbiased with parents.
'When it comes to this vote, I would be voting yes because I cannot in good conscience separate kids from their parents,' said board member Sandra Bankes. 'What we do is hopefully do the best that we can possibly do and be open to having conversations and if we all hold together to the belief that we want to raise self-assured confident kids into adults, then that's our goal.'
The Board had to make a decision by Wednesday, March 5. The policy was adopted in a 5-1 vote.
'In this culture and in this political climate, we should be allies to our transgender children and those who are also non-binary,' said Julie Ott. 'That is if we want our students to be in welcoming and inclusive schools and that has always been one of my goals and why I'm here. This policy does not promote welcoming, inclusive, safe, or affirming schools.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How many Americans would lose health care coverage under the Republicans' megabill?
There's some understandable confusion over just how many Americans would lose their health care coverage under the Republicans' domestic policy mega bill — the inaptly named 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act.' For example, Russell Vought, the far-right director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, told CNN last week that 'no one will lose coverage as a result of this bill.' That might've sounded encouraging to health care advocates, but there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A report from The Associated Press, for example, on the latest Congressional Budget Office score, said that 10.9 million Americans would lose their coverage if the GOP legislation became law. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, however, said 'nearly 14 million' would join the ranks of the uninsured. Meanwhile, a variety of prominent Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, have said the actual number would be 16 million. So, which is it? I reached out to the nice folks at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to help sort this out, and they referred me to the CBPP's helpful breakdown of the data. Roughly 16 million people by 2034 would lose health coverage and become uninsured because of the Medicaid cuts, the bill's failure to extend enhanced premium tax credits for ACA marketplace coverage, and other harmful ACA marketplace changes, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This gets a little wonky, but according to the CBO's nonpartisan analysis, the Republicans' Medicaid cuts alone, if implemented, would strip coverage from 7.8 million people. The same analysis added, however, that 4 million people would become uninsured due to cuts to Affordable Care Act marketplaces, and an additional 4.2 million people would lose their coverage because the Republicans' package fails to extend the Biden-era subsidies (the premium tax credit enhancements) that made ACA plans far more affordable. And that is where the overall tally comes from: 7.8 million + 4 million + 4.2 million = 16 million. When Trump and his party tried to 'repeal and replace' the ACA eight years ago, the CBO determined that the Republicans' plan would take health coverage from 23 million people, which was enough to cause a couple of Senate Republicans — Maine's Susan Collins and Alaska's Lisa Murkowski — to balk. (The late Sen. John McCain also gave the bill a thumbs-down, objecting to the party's rushed and incoherent process.) Eight years later, there's a reason the new Republican plan is being derided as 'Obamacare-repeal lite': Scrapping coverage from 16 million is certainly within shouting distance of ending coverage for 23 million, especially given the fact that the GOP's reconciliation package isn't exclusively a health care bill. To date, no Congress has ever approved legislation that would force so many people to lose their health security. Watch this space. This article was originally published on
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Oklahoma committee begins search for textbook adhering to controversial social studies standards
Nuria Martinez-Keel Oklahoma Voice OKLAHOMA CITY — An ousted member of the state's top school board will lead the process to approve K-12 textbooks that align with controversial new academic standards for social studies. Former Oklahoma State Board of Education member Kendra Wesson will continue as the chair of a key committee that chooses all state-approved textbooks for public schools. She has been State Superintendent Ryan Walters' designee to lead the committee since she joined the state Board of Education in January 2023. 'Serving in this role and being able to still help my state is what it's all about, right?' Wesson said. 'It's not about (having my) name in lights. It's about doing the serving and coming in and being who I am and consistently being who I am. So, I value it very much.' Wesson, of Norman, said she brings high integrity to the role and has enjoyed the committee and its staff, so 'it meant a lot to me to be able to stay here.' Walters said he has full confidence in her ability to lead the textbook adoption process. 'Kendra is pro-student, pro-education reform and a pro-Trump conservative who will uphold pro-American principles throughout this process,' Walters said in a statement. 'I look forward to working with her as we are posed to introduce the best academic standards in the country to Oklahoma classrooms this fall.' Gov. Kevin Stitt replaced three state Board of Education members, including Wesson, on Feb. 11 while complaining the board had fallen victim to 'needless political drama.' The three removed members had voted with Walters to advance a now-defeated proposal to have public schools collect students' immigration status, an idea Stitt opposed. What Oklahoma's textbook committee will do during the adoption cycle Wesson and the State Textbook Committee gathered Friday, June 7, for an orientation meeting to initiate the 2025-26 adoption cycle, a process that determines which textbooks the state will approve for the next six years. The committee last met Feb. 7 to conclude the 2024-25 cycle. Like with the state Board of Education, the governor appoints all members of the 13-member textbook committee except for one — the state superintendent, who can choose a designee to serve as the committee's chair in his place. The committee, mostly made up of educators, will receive sample products by July 1 from textbook publishers interested in selling to Oklahoma school districts. The number of companies bidding in the small-market state has dwindled in recent years while political debates over classroom content grew. After the July 1 deadline, teams of subject-matter experts will begin quality reviews of the submitted learning material in August before making recommendations to the textbook committee, said Carolynn Bristow, project manager of educational materials for the Oklahoma State Department of Education. The process culminates in the committee's Nov. 14 vote to approve a list of textbooks aligning with the newly enacted standards for social studies education. The committee also will vote on instructional materials for personal financial literacy courses. The state will execute contracts with publishers in February after the board's final meeting of the adoption cycle. Wesson said the committee will follow the typical textbook adoption process and doesn't anticipate any differences from previous cycles. The committee and its review teams will adhere to a pre-approved rubric to evaluate textbook materials, she said. The rubric checks for classroom usability and compliance with state academic standards. Last year, the committee also added social and moral questions to the rubric asking whether the submitted materials 'degrade traditional roles of men and women,' promote 'illegal lifestyles' or neglect the importance of religion in preserving American liberties. 'We have a great team here at (the state Education Department) that keeps us on track, and that's why that rubric is there, to keep everybody on the same page,' Wesson said. 'And so you will always find this committee, especially, following that process.' Oklahoma's new social studies standards cast doubt on 2020 election results, require biblical teaching The new social studies standards, which dictate what public schools must teach to students in history and government classes, have been the source of significant public scrutiny this year. The standards now require schools to educate students about biblical teachings and Judeo-Christian values that influenced the American colonies and founding fathers, which Walters has said is crucial to ensuring students understand the full context of the country's history. Language casting doubt on the integrity of the 2020 presidential election results also is required teaching. Stitt's three new appointees to the state Board of Education said they were unaware of the 2020 election language at the time they voted on the standards on Feb. 27. Walters said he is responsible for adding the new content, but he didn't acknowledge it until weeks after the board vote. Despite bipartisan concerns among the state Legislature, the Republican supermajority in the state House and Senate permitted the standards to take effect. A lawsuit in Oklahoma County District Court contends Walters' administration failed to uphold proper transparency procedures. Wesson said the State Textbook Committee won't have any issues finding textbooks that align with the new social studies standards, even with the new content that has made headlines. 'We're not going to have a problem there at all,' she said. Oklahoma Voice is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oklahoma Voice maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janelle Stecklein for questions:info@ Follow Oklahoma Voice onFacebook andTwitter.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
How school choice policies evolved from supporting Black students to subsidizing middle-class families
School voucher programs that allow families to use public funds to pay tuition to attend private schools have become increasingly popular. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia currently operate voucher programs. In addition, 15 states have universal private school choice programs that offer vouchers, education savings accounts and tax credit scholarships. More states are considering school choice and voucher programs as the Trump administration advocates for widespread adoption. School vouchers have a long history in the U.S. The first vouchers were offered in the 1800s to help children in sparsely populated towns in rural Vermont and Maine attend classes in public and private schools in nearby districts. After the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, in which justices ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional, segregationists used vouchers to avoid school integration. More recently, school voucher programs have been pitched as a tool to provide children from low-income families with quality education options. As a scholar who specializes in education policy, law and politics, I can share how current policies have strayed from efforts to support low-income Black children. Research from education history scholars shows that more recent support for school choice was not anchored in an agenda to privatize public schools but rooted in a mission to support Black students. Over time, as school voucher policies grew in popularity, they evolved into subsidies for middle-class families to send their children to private and parochial schools. School choice policies have also expanded to include education savings account programs and vouchers funded by tax credit donations. Vouchers can redirect money from public schools, many of which are serving Black students. States looking to add or expand school choice and voucher programs have adopted language from civil rights activists pushing for equal access to quality education for all children. For example, they contend that school choice is a civil right all families and students should have as U.S. citizens. But school voucher programs can exclude Black students and harm public schools serving Black students in a host of ways, research shows. This impact of voucher programs disproportionately affects schools in predominantly Black communities with lower tax bases to fund public schools. Since the Brown v. Board ruling, school voucher programs have been linked to racial segregation. These programs were at times used to circumvent integration efforts: They allowed white families to transfer their children out of diverse public schools into private schools. In fact, school voucher programs tend to exacerbate both racial and economic segregation, a trend that continues today. For example, private schools that receive voucher funding are not always required to adopt the same antidiscrimination policies as public schools. School voucher programs can also negatively impact the quality of public schools serving Black students. As some of the best and brightest students leave to attend private or parochial ones, public schools in communities serving Black students often face declining enrollments and reduced resources. In cities such as Macon, Georgia, families say that majority Black schools lack resources because so many families use the state's voucher-style program to attend mostly white private schools. Moreover, the cost of attending a private or parochial school can be so expensive that even with a school voucher, Black families still struggle to afford the cost of sending children to these schools. Research from the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank based in Washington, D.C., shows that voucher programs in Ohio result in majority Black school systems such as the Cleveland Metropolitan School District losing millions in education funding. This impact of voucher programs disproportionately affects schools in predominantly Black communities across the U.S. with lower tax bases to fund public schools. Another example is the Marion County School District, a South Carolina system where about 77% of students are Black. Marion County is in the heart of the region of the state known as the 'Corridor of Shame,' known for its inadequate funding and its levels of poor student achievement. The 17 counties along the corridor are predominantly minority communities, with high poverty rates and poor public school funding because of the area's low tax base due to a lack of industry. On average, South Carolina school districts spent an estimated US$18,842 per student during the 2024-25 school year. In Marion County, per-student funding was $16,463 during the 2024-2025 school year. By comparison, in Charleston County, the most affluent in the state, per-student funding was more than $26,000. Rather than focus on school choice and voucher programs that take money away from public schools serving Black students, I argue that policymakers should address systemic inequities in education to ensure that all students have access to a quality education. Establishing restrictions on the use of funds and requiring preferences for low-income Black students could help direct school voucher policies back toward their intent. It would also be beneficial to expand and enforce civil rights laws to prevent discrimination against Black students. These measures would help ensure all students, regardless of background, have access to quality education. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Kendall Deas, University of South Carolina Read more: Trump order boosts school choice, but there's little evidence vouchers lead to smarter students or better educational outcomes States are favoring school choice at a steep cost to public education School vouchers expand despite evidence of negative effects Kendall Deas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
