Irvine Unified Denies Parental Notification Policy Spot on Jan 23, 2024 Board Meeting Agenda
Large Crowd In Attendance
The Agenda for the January 23, 2024 Irvine Unified School District (IUSD) Board of Education meeting can be found here.
The video replay of the Jan 23 meeting can be found here.
Turn out at the January 23, 2024 IUSD Board of Education meeting, in response to a proposed Parental Notification Policy that was denied a spot on the meeting agenda, was high. The meeting, which spanned two hours and forty minutes, drew a larger crowd than the November meeting and rivaled last March’s high turn out by those petitioning the Board to add girls flag football as a Varsity Sport. Nearly every seat in the room was occupied. Some in attendance stood to display bilingual (English & Spanish) signs appealing for: “Education Not Indoctrination”, for schools to “Leave our Kids Alone”, for parents ability to protect their kids. There was also a sign defining the Teacher’s Union as corrupt.
Figure 1- Brenda Lebsack pictured holding up sign about Teacher Union
Figure 2- Members of the audience stand in the back of IUSD Board room displaying signs
The lion’s share of the Jan 23 meeting was devoted to General Public Comments for items not listed on the agenda (under Agenda Item 2) which consumed an hour-and-a-half of the two-hour-and-forty minute meeting. Public comments commenced at the 17:44 mark and concluded around the 1 hour 49 minute mark. Board President, Cyril Yu, announced that 33 comment cards had been received for General Public Comments. As it turned out, 36 public comments were shared during this portion of the meeting. Only 4 of the comments shared were related to matters other than parental notification. In addition to the 36, 2 public comments were shared later in the meeting on consent agenda items 15(a) Check Register Report and 19(a) Special Education Settlement Agreements respectively.**
The idea of submitting a Parental Notification Policy for Board Meeting consideration came to fruition in the fall of 2023 when a grass roots movement was formed by Irvine parents under the name of Informed Parents of IUSD in response to unusual trends that parents were observing within Irvine Unified schools. Most notable of the trends was an increase in the number of Gender Support Plans being administered by IUSD without necessarily notifying parents that their child was identifying as a gender other than their biological sex in the school setting. Public records obtained over the summer of 2023 revealed that the number of students on Gender Support Plans had increased from 23 to 110 in less than one year’s time- 14 of which are at the elementary level. Informed Parents of IUSD felt that by IUSD adopting, or at least giving consideration to, a Parental Notification Policy it would serve as a solution that could bring the community together in open discussion over this matter. Furthermore it would build trust between parents, students, and IUSD staff and strengthen Board Governance and oversight.
The drafted Parental Notification Policy was modeled after Orange Unified’s (passed by OUSD Board on September 7, 2023) and took into account Irvine Unified’s existing Board Policies surrounding Suicide Prevention and Mental Health and Wellness. Building on momentum from IUSD Board and Superintendent’s agreement to place a flag policy drafted by a member of Informed Parents of IUSD on the November 7 agenda for public debate and discussion, Informed Parents of IUSD was hopeful that their Parental Notification Policy would be placed on the January 23 meeting agenda as requested. In accord with IUSD Board Policy, the request was made by IUSD Parent and Irvine Community member Erin Wozneak via an email sent on Friday January 12. The District’s Executive Assistant Raianna Chavez responded via email on January 17 (on behalf of the Board and Superintendent) denying the policy placement on the agenda stating:
“In evaluation of the request, and after conferring with legal counsel, it was determined there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the legal authorities applicable to such a policy…….Given the uncertainty under the law, it is not clear whether such a policy would subject the District to litigation…..In the meantime, the District will continue to engage in meaningful collaboration with parents/guardians and students to ensure their rights are protected.”
It goes on to direct parents and community members who disagree with the laws and regulations that “School districts in California must follow” to contact Gavin Newsom, Tony Thurmond and/or your local representative.
IUSD’s denial to place an item requested by a community member on the agenda could be considered a violation of California Education Code 35145.5 which states:
“It is the intent of the Legislature that members of the public be able to place matters directly related to school district business on the agenda of school district governing board meetings. Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the governing board on any item of interest to the public, before or during the governing board's consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the governing board. Governing boards shall adopt reasonable regulations to insure that this intent is carried out.”
The denial set the stage for the large turn out at the January 23rd meeting by members of the Irvine community and surrounding areas showing support for parental notification and greater transparency within IUSD in general. The meeting was attended by proponents of parental notification Max Ukropina and Scotty Peotter two candidates running for office in the upcoming Primary Election. Max is running for US Congress Representative for the 47th District and Scotty for State Assembly for the 73rd District. Max is a product of Irvine Unified Schools. Scotty is an Irvine Resident, long time Orange County resident and a former Newport Beach City Council member. The meeting was also attended by proponents of parental rights Mari Barke and Brenda Lebsack. Brenda Lebsack is an advocate/educator/former Orange Unified Board of Education Member/head of the Interfaith Statewide Coalition. Mari Barke is the head of The California Policy Center Local Elected Officials (CLEO) organization and Orange County Board of Education Member representing District 2 which covers a part of Irvine. The meeting also drew a crowd of those opposed to parental notification with activists from The Orange County LGBTQ+ Center, Equality In California and the Orange County Equality Coalition represented. The activists previously made appearances and shared public comments at the November 7 and December 12th IUSD Board Meetings and have been observed traveling around to other Orange County school district Board of Education meetings to express opposition towards parental notification which they deem to be “forced outing” policies. Throughout the fall they made appearances at the Orange Unified and Capistrano Unified Board of Education meetings. All of the aforementioned shared public comments during the meeting.
Based on 30 public comments shared by adults on this topic (accounting for Rabbi Rav Dov Fischer’s whose were shared by Mari Barke on behalf of Mr. Fischer in addition to her own), 19 were in favor of parental notification, 11 were opposed. Consistent with national trends and polling data, these figures indicate that 63% of the Irvine community support parental notification, parental rights and greater transparency within IUSD schools. The 32 figure for public comments on this topic is arrived at by accounting for two student Board Members (sophomore Emily Yokota and Senior Gabe Mutsvangwa) that spoke in opposition to a parental notification policy. When the two Student Board members are accounted for in the calculation, public sentiment is still 59% in favor of parental notification (19/32).
Those in support of a parental notification policy argued in public comments shared that it would:
Foster transparency, build trust, and strengthen the partnership between students/staff/administration/parents and reduce the likelihood of any harm being caused to the student
Recognize and codify the integral role parents play in the support of, nurturing of and education of their children
Support parental desire to be part of the process in working through challenges at school with and alongside their children as allies not enemies
Honor parents decisions to take an alternative approach to affirmation if they deem that to be appropriate
In addition to expressing support for a Parental Notification Policy, the Moms and Dads present from different faiths/nationalities/backgrounds shared concerns about the harms of an overarching LGBTQ+ ideology being promoted within IUSD taking precedence over academics and influencing students to accept the tenets of the ideology as social norms. Specifically, Irvine Unified was called out for:
Promoting The Trevor Project as a resource to students
Having books available for check out in IUSD School Libraries such as “This Book Is Gay” (presently available for check out at Portola High) which teaches gender questioning youth how to use a sex ap called Grindr
Grooming vulnerable special needs students with ideology
Lack of Governance that precipitated the hiring of a water polo coach with a history of sexually abusing female student athletes and has resulted in a legal settlement costing IUSD/taxpayers upwards of $2.5M
Of the 11 opposed to a Parental Notification Policy, 2 were IUSD staff and 3 were religious leaders- two of whom had spoken at previous IUSD Board meetings in the fall. The Religious leaders opposed were a Pastor and a Youth Minister at Irvine United Congregational Church as well as a Reverend from Church of The Foothills.
An IUSD Science teacher who previously spoke in opposition to a Flag Policy placed on the November agenda, spoke in opposition to the Parental Notification Policy. She was accompanied by IUSD’s LGBTQ+ Community Support Liaison and Mental Health Specialist Maureen Muir who spoke about how the Gender Support Plan is a “life saving document” stating:
“Research shows that if an LGBTQ youth has at least one affirming environment, then their suicide rate drops by 50%. That's the statistics from a family acceptance project. Our schools, our counselors, our mental health staff, our teachers are offering that affirming environment for our IUSD LGBTQ students. Students, like someone else said, have a right to decide what information is shared with whom and when. Our mental health staff helps students think through the decisions, consider possible outcomes, and make a plan to address any barriers. We want to ensure that our IUSD schools remain a safe place for our students. All students deserve to bring their full identities to school. Welcoming affirming environments support all students academic success, attendance, and social emotional well being.”
Ms. Muir went on to clarify what had recently been reported on by The Epoch Times, per public records obtained, as IUSD’s desire to hide the legal names of students identifying as transgender from school nurses in the Aeries portal stating:
“Any and all changes to name and gender fields in Aries are immediately seen in parent portal.”
Those opposed to a parental notification policy suggested in their public comments that it would:
Force Transgender students to publicly out themselves before they are ready
Increase anxiety for LGBTQ students and potentially lead to bullying of those students
Be in direct conflict with affirmative practices presently in place which foster a greater sense of inclusivity throughout IUSD campuses
Negatively impact student mental health and wellness putting those who identify as Trans at higher risk of suicide
Ms. Wozneak, who is responsible for submitting the parental notification agenda item request, was one of the first to arrive at the meeting and submit a comment card. She was the last of the adults called up to share public comments. She had hoped to go first to provide context surrounding the agenda item that was requested and subsequently denied placement on the agenda. It is unknown why she was the last adult called to speak considering her comment card was one of the first submitted.
Superintendent Walker and Board members refrained from any comments in response to the feedback shared from members of the Irvine Community as the Brown Act prohibits any direct response or dialogue surrounding general public comments on an item not listed on the agenda.
**The comments related to agenda items 15(a) Check Register Report and 19(a) Special Education Settlement Agreements will be covered in a separate Substack post which will chronicle the January 23 meeting contents and items of business discussed.