The Archuleta School District (ASD) Board of Education (BOE) is required to create a policy in regard to Colorado House Bill 24-1039 on nonlegal name changes. The bill was approved by Gov. Jared Polis on April 29.
At its regular meeting on Sept. 10, the BOE approved an amended agenda, moving the second reading of the district’s new name-changing policy from the action items section to the discussion only items section.
ASD Superintendent Rick Holt explained that the board will need to adopt a policy to be in compliance with the state law.
“This policy is a result of a House bill that passed,” Holt added.
According to the Colorado General Assembly’s summary of the bill, “The act requires school personnel to address a student by the student’s chosen name and to use the student’s chosen name in school and during extracurricular activities.”
The summary also states, “The act requires a school to implement a written policy outlining how the school will honor a student’s request to use a chosen name.”
During the meeting, Holt mentioned that the reason for moving the second reading of the district’s policy under the discussion-only items was to allow for more conversation around the topic to make possible adjustments before formally adopting the policy.
“I just felt like from last time we had the chance to look at that and think about it, and we might’ve thought about it and asked more questions,” Holt said.
He explained that the board will need to approve a policy and then later define more clearly the procedural aspect of the policy.
“We’re just in the learning mode again, an exploratory mode,” BOE president Bob Lynch said, explaining the board would not be formally adopting the policy during the meeting.
“As it stands now, we have a practice but we don’t have a policy regarding this, and the law dictates we need a policy,” Holt said.
Holt noted that the state bill instructs school boards to direct their superintendent to establish procedures allowing students to inform schools of name changes.
He added that after the policy is approved, he will come back to the board with those procedures defined.
“I think that that would probably be worthy of discussion as well,” Holt said.
Holt mentioned that he was able to speak with a couple of other districts around the state that have already approved a policy, and their structure for when parents should be contacted in regard to a student requesting to be called by a different name than their legal name.
“I have not spoken to a district right now that has put an age requirement in,” Holt added.
He also noted that he has spoken to two districts that chose not to use the language of “protected groups” in their policy.
“We need a policy of how we’re going to manage name changes,” he said.
Holt explained that the Colorado Association of School Boards has provided school districts with a version of a policy that meets the law, but that the district has “local control” and can tailor its policy specifically to meet the needs of ASD.
“I think the policy is also pretty clear that there’s two kinds of name changes,” Holt said, explaining that the district’s drafted policy identifies students wanting to be called by a nickname and students wishing to formally change their legal name.
He explained that students can not legally change their name without consent of a guardian unless the student is 18 years of age, and therefore parents or guardians would be notified.
“In particular it’s protecting protected groups — transgender students — who are requesting that you call them by a different name than their birth name,” Holt said in regard to the state bill.
He explained a situation like this falls under the same procedures as students wanting to be called by a new nickname, but it does have some ramifications about how and when to engage with parents.
Lynch noted that there is some discretion written into the policy for school boards.
Holt explained that the policy currently states that if a student just wants to change their nickname, they do not need parent approval.
He added that the policy also notes that it does not support “unreasonable requests.”
Holt added that he wanted to address board member Amanda Schick’s concern of not informing parents about some scenarios.
Lynch brought up the scenario of a student wishing to change their nickname that reflects a gender change.
Holt indicated that would be under the same category as a nickname.
He also noted that one district in the state chose not to approach names as being gender-oriented.
“I think the policy is really intended to call out the fact that it’s illegal in the state of Colorado if a student declares that they want to be called ‘he’ and you refuse and you say, ‘Nope, I’m only going to call you she’ — that’s illegal. Now you can, it’s really just a violation of their civil rights, that’s the illegal part of it,” Holt said.
He mentioned how it can happen, where a teacher addresses a student by a former name by mistake.
The policy has provisions for these “one-off” types of situations as well, Holt explained.
Holt went on to mention that “we have families who have approached” the schools saying their child would like to be called something other than their legal name.
“Under this Colorado law, it’s our obligation to support that family and that student,” Holt said.
Schick noted that according to the policy, the definition of a chosen name specifically states “to reflect the student’s gender identity.”
She explained that she feels that definition is not specific to a nickname.
Schick added that the wording also states that parents “may be” notified of a name change associated with gender identity and the current policy would have building leaders determine if the name change is appropriate.
Holt noted that it currently does not state specifically who is responsible for determining if a name is appropriate.
“I think it’s very vague in that way,” Holt said, explaining that it would likely be the building principal and counselors working together.
Holt mentioned that the only example currently of when the district would choose to not engage with families is if there is a known abusive relationship.
Holt went on to explain that the district may be aware of this kind of situation and that something could “pop up around this particular issue.”
“It is divisive,”Holt said, for families and communities.
Schick mentioned that the district does well with informing parents on the punitive side of things, such as contacting parents when a student exhibits inappropriate behavior toward others.
“So, what is the threshold of us actually informing parents?” Schick asked.
Holt responded saying that “99 percent of the time, we engage families directly.”
He noted that the one example of when parents are not engaged is when there is a known scenario of domestic violence.
“I cannot think of another time that we exclude families from the discussion, nor have we excluded families from this particular discussion,” Holt said, adding the district has had discussion related to this specific topic for as long as two years now.
Holt added that, typically, families approach schools with their child about a name change.
“I think, though, it is appropriate to leave ourselves some leeway,” Holt said, explaining that he would like to avoid using an “always clause.”
Holt explained that the BOE could specifically define the one instance in which parents would not be notified of a student’s name change request, with that instance being a known domestic violence issue.
Board member Butch Mackey commented that a report with the state would be filed for a domestic violence issue and would have the Department of Human Services get involved.
Schick mentioned that she wants to ensure that it does not feel like the schools would be “gatekeeping” information from parents, or prevent them from opportunities for growth and learning.
“The way it’s written now seems to be very isolating to parents,” she said.
Holt responded that the board needs to define how the district will go about determining if a name change is appropriate or not, and when parents would be involved.
“I want to understand clearly why parents would not be involved,” Schick said.
Holt suggested amending the wording form “parents may be contacted” to “parents will be contacted unless,” and then specifically state for the explicit reason of there being a domestic violence issue.
Holt added that this is probably a “rare” scenario the district will have to deal with, but that it will be beneficial for building administrators to have.
“I would not want to put that student in a situation when this has been a trigger,” Holt said.
Lynch indicated that it would make him more comfortable to have the policy amended with Schick’s and Holt’s suggestions.
Board member David Iverson clarified that the expectation the board would like to see is that parents will be notified unless there is a concern for the student’s safety.
Holt indicated there is a difference between a student not wanting to tell their parents versus a student not wanting their parents to know because they are concerned for their safety at home.
Schick noted that it is not the job of anyone in the district to investigate a domestic violence issue and if that is a concern then child protective services would take over.
Holt mentioned the board’s responses and policies need to reflect the interest of the entire community.
“I think our obligation is to meet the needs of all the people in our community and recognize that we have a wide variety of world views and opinions about this topic in particular,” he said.
Lynch indicated that Holt will be directed to amend the policy to include the concerns discussed by the board.
Holt noted that he would amend the policy for the board to approve at its October meeting.
After that, he explained he will then draft procedures related to the policy that will be presented to the board at a later meeting.
Board member Tim Taylor brought up the concern of the district being in jeopardy of receiving state funding by delaying the approval of a policy.
Holt noted that the district will not be in jeopardy of losing funding as it is actively working toward getting a policy approved.
The next BOE meeting was originally scheduled for Oct. 8; however, the BOE voted to move that meeting to Oct. 14 due to scheduling conflicts.
Other news
During the same meeting, ASD Finance Director Eric Burt provided the board with a brief financial report from the fourth quarter of the 2023-2024 fiscal year.
Burt indicated that 41 percent of the district’s revenues were received.
He noted that the revenues are slightly lower than projected, but that expenses came in well below budget as well.
“I’m working very diligently to get all the information together for our auditors,” Burt added.
In a report to the board, Mackey indicated that Montezuma-Cortez School District is continuing to look at parting ways with the San Juan Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES).
ASD partners with the San Juan BOCES to have special education services provided in ASD schools.
Holt explained that ASD is required to have an authorizing unit that provides special education services, and that the district cannot afford to have its own, so it partners with the San Juan BOCES.
The San Juan BOCES currently partners with ASD, Montezuma-Cortez, Bayfield School District, Dolores School District, Dolores County School District, Ignacio School District, Mancos School District and Silverton School District.
Holt mentioned that the BOCES will perform a study to see what the financial impact would be if Montezuma-Cortez separates.
He noted that the energy it takes to separate and rejoin BOCES is a “distracter from the work that we need to get done.”
Holt also explained that BOCES can submit paperwork to the state saying it has no interest in letting Montezuma-Cortez separate or not, and that the Colorado Department of Education can still deny the request.
Holt expressed concern about creating any “bad blood” amongst the districts that partner with BOCES.
“I’m afraid the relationships have been damaged already,” Mackey said, mentioning he is tired of talking about it, given the topic was discussed for more than six months last year.
clayton@pagosasun.com
