Trustees debated legal concerns, which student records should trigger parent notifications and whether parents should opt in or opt out before directing staff to refine the policy.
The City of Redlands and the Redlands Conservancy have installed new fire safety awareness signs at trail entrances in Live Oak Canyon and San Timoteo Canyon to help visitors stay prepared during wildfire season.
Trustees debated legal concerns, which student records should trigger parent notifications and whether parents should opt in or opt out before directing staff to refine the policy.
REDLANDS, Calif. — The Redlands Unified School District Board of Education is moving forward with a proposed parental notification policy after board members spent much of their July 21 meeting debating how it could be implemented without conflicting with California law and overwhelming parents with notifications.
The board is considering a policy that could change how Redlands Unified handles student record requests while testing the limits of California law. Trustees must still decide which records would trigger parent notifications, whether parents would receive notifications on an opt-in or opt-out basis, and whether the proposal can be implemented without conflicting with state protections for student privacy.
Under the current draft, parents who opt-in would be notified within three days after staff become aware of certain requested record changes. The proposal also directs administrators to meet with the student before the notification is sent.
The board spent much of the discussion questioning whether that language was practical. Administrators said triggering notifications when staff "become aware" of a requested change would require employees to notify parents before any change was entered into the district's student information system, making automation difficult and raising questions about how the policy could be consistently implemented.
California's AB 1955, also known as the SAFETY Act, prohibits school districts from creating and enforcing policies that would require staff to disclose information related to a student's sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression to anyone, including parents, without the students’ consent.
Superintendent Juan Cabral told the board that despite recent Supreme Court decisions limiting some of its protections, AB 1955 remains in effect. He warned that the proposed parental notification policy could conflict with both the state law and the district's existing Administrative Regulation 5145.3, which addresses nondiscrimination and harassment.
“AB 1955 is still very much in effect,” Cabral said. “It has been limited by the Supreme Court, but it has not gone away.”
Cabral said his concerns were based on the district's current legal obligations rather than his personal views on the policy.
Cabral said Redlands Unified faces different legal obligations than districts such as Chino Valley or Temecula because it remains under a stipulated judgment with the California Attorney General following a settlement over the district's handling of past sexual abuse complaints.
He said the district meets monthly with the Attorney General's Office and is held to a level of oversight that other districts are not.
"We are held accountable in a way that does not exist in other places," Cabral said.
Cabral said that additional oversight makes it especially important that any new policy complies with state law and questioned whether there was sufficient urgency to adopt a parental notification policy before the courts resolve the future of AB 1955.
"If there is a problem we're trying to solve that creates the urgency, then help me understand what that urgent problem is because currently we don't have what I would identify as a problem with parents not knowing what is happening with their kids," Cabral said.
Board Member Candy Olson disagreed with Cabral's legal assessment, arguing that the proposal is intended as a general records-notification policy rather than one specifically targeting transgender students. She said parents would receive notice that a student's record had changed and could then decide whether to request additional information.
“The current policy that's proposed is not in violation of AB 1955 at all whatsoever,” Olson said. “It is not a policy that targets transgender individuals or gay individuals even.”
Deputy Superintendent Jason Hill said that in his five years overseeing student data, the only student-requested record changes he had seen involved a student's name or gender. He recalled only one instance in which a parent objected after discovering through the parent portal that a student's name had been changed.
Member Melissa Ayala-Quintero questioned whether that testimony supported Olson's characterization of the proposal as a general records-notification policy.
"You're saying this has nothing to do with transgender or gay students, but the only changes are made to pronouns," Ayala-Quintero said.
The board also discussed whether the policy should apply to both official and unofficial records or be limited to official records only.
Cabral said official records, such as transcripts and cumulative files, already generally require parent involvement before changes can be made. His larger concern centered on "unofficial records," which could include classroom documents such as a teacher's seating chart or notes reflecting a student's preferred name or pronouns. He warned that requiring staff to notify parents whenever they become aware of those requests could conflict with current state law.
The distinction also raised questions about how the policy would work in practice.
Hill also cautioned that the district's student information system records thousands of routine updates, many unrelated to student-requested changes, making it important to narrowly define which changes would trigger parent notifications.
On one day this summer, approximately 15,727 changes were made to permanent records, said Hill during the discussion. Many of those changes involved mass updates by counselors or other staff.
Board members discussed whether an automated notification system could be limited to specific types of changes to avoid overwhelming parents with messages.
Board members also remained divided over whether parents should have to opt-in to receive notifications.
The current draft would require parents to opt-in at the beginning of the school year. Olson and Wilson said they would prefer notifications to be sent automatically unless a parent chooses to opt-out, arguing that an opt-in requirement creates unnecessary administrative work and could prevent parents from receiving information they want.
Ayala-Quintero supported keeping the opt-in provision, noting that the board had previously agreed to that approach during earlier discussions and questioning why it should be changed before a first reading.
Trustees did not resolve the issue Tuesday. The opt-in versus opt-out question is expected to be revisited when the policy returns for a first reading Aug. 11.
During public comment, supporters of the proposed parental notification policy argued that parents should not be excluded from information about significant changes involving their children.
Dale Broome, supporter of the policy, said community members have been asking the district for a parental notification policy for years.
“We've been coming to the board asking for a common sense, parental rights supporting policy that would notify parents if a student is gender transitioning and not to withhold that information,” Broome said.
Another supporter, Greg Britton, argued that "what underlies all of this is really the transgender stuff," saying parents should be informed before schools accommodate a student's gender transition.
Opponents of the proposal raised concerns about the potential effects on students and staff.
“It is not our school's job to be informants,” said one speaker named Jennifer. “Not every child feels safe in their home, and releasing information to parents about a child's decision to go by a different name or set of pronouns at school could be putting that child in danger.”
Another speaker, Eriko Grossman, questioned the need for a separate “no deception” policy, which was also discussed by the board, and said the proposal could create additional pressure on district employees.
“I'm concerned that a policy like this could create fear and silence among our students,” Grossman said. “It could also be used to discipline teachers and staff for withholding information from parents, even when they are trying to navigate complicated situations in the best interest of students.”
The board also discussed a separate proposal that would prohibit district employees from intentionally lying to or withholding information from parents.
Olson said the district already expects employees to be truthful but argued the language should be included in board policy so staff could be held accountable if they intentionally deceive parents in the future.
Ayala-Quintero questioned whether a separate policy was necessary, noting that board members agreed there was no evidence district employees were currently lying to parents.
Rather than pursuing a standalone "no deception" policy, the board directed staff to explore incorporating similar language into an existing policy governing parental involvement or employee professional standards. Cabral said any revisions would also need to make clear that employees must continue complying with FERPA and other laws that limit disclosure in certain situations.
Board members ultimately directed staff to continue refining the proposal before bringing it back for a first reading. That work will include studying how other California districts with similar policies notify parents, obtaining legal guidance on how the proposal interacts with AB 1955 and the district's existing policies, and exploring whether notifications should be tied to actual record changes rather than when staff first become aware of a student's request.
The proposal was advanced by President Michele Rendler and board members Candy Olson and Jeannette Wilson. Melissa Ayala-Quintero opposed moving it forward, and Patty Holohan was absent from the discussion.
The proposed policies are expected to return Aug. 11 for a first reading. If trustees make substantial revisions, the proposals could require another first reading before the board considers final adoption.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter
