The Covington Board of Education unanimously voted to remove two sections of the state’s new legal policies, both of which related to human sexuality and gender, at a meeting Thursday evening.
At the request of the Board of Education President Tom Haggard, Superintendent Alvin Garrison and the board’s attorneys will investigate the policies to see how they would “actually be implemented,” Haggard said. He added that the board would work to draft up “some sort of resolution of our disapproval at having to adopt such harmful policies.”
The remainder of the new legal policies were adopted, including a policy allowing district parents to challenge the presence of books in schools they deem inappropriate and another policy expanding the availability of automatic external defibrillators at school facilities.
The board had discussed the policies at their last meeting on June 8, and many of the board members as well as the board president, expressed dismay at the potential implementation of new legal mandates, which came as a result of this year’s state legislative session.
The first policy the board chose to remove related to human sexuality and sex education. The policy says that if a board or principal chooses to adopt a curriculum related to human sexuality, “instruction shall include but not be limited to” the following points:
- Abstinence from sex is the ideal goal for students and the only way to ensure total avoidance of sexually transmitted infections, unwanted pregnancy and other sex-related health problems.
- Permanent, faithful monogamous relationships are the best way to curb sex-related health problems.
- No student grades five and below will receive instruction on human sexuality or sexually transmitted infections.
- No student of any grade level will “receive any instruction or presentation that has a goal or purpose of students studying or exploring gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation.”
- Schools must notify and obtain parents’ written consent before a student in grade six or above receives any kind of sex education.
Discussion between Haggard and Board Attorney Mary Ann Stewart at the meeting on June 8 suggested the policy would likely preempt private conversations between students, teachers and counselors about sexual orientation and gender identity, such that students who were struggling to come to terms with feelings about their own sexuality and gender would not be able to go to school staff for help.
The other policy, titled “student privacy rights,” deals with bathroom access based on a student’s professed gender identity.
The language in the policy states, “A student who asserts to school officials that his or her gender is different from his or her biological sex and whose parent or legal guardian provides written consent to school officials shall be provided with the best available accommodation, but that accommodation shall not include the use of school restrooms, locker rooms, or shower rooms designated for use by students of the opposite biological sex while students of the opposite biological sex are present or could be present.”
The policy lists acceptable accommodations as “access to single-stall restrooms or controlled use of faculty bathrooms, locker rooms, or shower rooms.”
Both of these policies mirror similar policies enacted in other states and have proven divisive among both political leaders and normal Kentuckians.
One member of the public; Bonnie Meyer, a visiting professor at Miami University in Ohio and co-founder of the Northern Kentucky Pride Center in Covington; attempted to dissuade the board from adopting the policies during the meeting’s public comment section.
“I can assure you that Senate Bill 150 [the legislation that created these policies] goes against absolutely everything we are as a city and as a community,” Meyer said.
Meyer cited a February poll from Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy, which surveyed 625 Kentucky voters across demographics and political affiliations. The poll did not deal with the issues of bathroom access and sex ed directly, however she contended that it gave a good window into popular attitudes around such policies.
The poll asked one question:
“Would you support or oppose a proposed Kentucky law that would allow the state to overrule parents’ decisions to obtain certain health care for their transgender teenager, such as certain medications that can regulate the onset of puberty?”
Kentuckians were broadly opposed to the described legislation–83% of registered Democrats, 62% of registered Republicans and 67% of independents answered that they would oppose such a law.
Meyer, who works in educational research, said that the mandates went against established research and practice and even argued that they could prompt student deaths.
Furthermore, she talked about experiences she’d had working at universities, where she worked with LGBTQ+ students who had lost family relationships, housing and other essentials after being outed without their permission.
She also discussed legal challenges to similar policies in other states, such as a recent case in Arkansas where U.S. District Judge Jay Moody ruled that the state’s ban on gender-affirming care violated the U.S. Constitution. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin has already stated that he will appeal the ruling.
Finally, she argued that the policies were in violation of Title 9, a federal law passed in 1972 that forbids schools receiving federal funding from discriminating based on students’ sex. Under current Title 9 provisions, schools must grant access to bathrooms that correspond with students’ professed gender identities. Haggard had discussed possible conflicts with federal laws like Title 9 at the previous meeting earlier this month.
“It is not always easy to do the right thing,” Meyer said.
She added that “regardless of who [students] are; they should know that they are safe, they should know they are protected, and they should know that they belong.”
Discussion among the board members on the topic was brief compared to the discussions on June 8.
After Haggard made the motion to remove the two policies from the voting docket, and the board affirmed the motion with a vote, Stewart said that she would consult with other attorneys around the state to see how different districts were dealing with the legal mandates.
She also reiterated a point she’d made in the last meeting: The policies would likely be challenged in court.
“I have to think there’s going to be litigation,” Stewart said.
“I just want to thank you, my board colleagues, for demonstrating leadership and making sure that we’re standing up for every single kid in Covington, no matter what,” Haggard said at the end of the meeting. “I think hopefully we can lead the way on this and show that we don’t want to have to pass policies that are harmful to kids.”
The board did not give any timeline on how long it would take to draft a resolution.
The next meeting of the Covington Independent Public Schools Board of Education will take place on July 27 at 5:30 p.m. at the district’s central office on 7th Street.