Board keeps parental-notification policy after lengthy public comment, directs staff to draft implementation rules

The Murrieta Valley Unified School District Board of Education voted on April 18 to retain board policy BP 50201 — the district's parental-notification policy — and to direct staff and the district attorney to prepare administrative regulations (ARs) that would be reviewed by the board in closed session before being returned to a public agenda.

The decision followed a packed public-comment period in which roughly two dozen speakers urged opposing outcomes. Supporters of the policy, including many parents and local attorneys, said the policy protects parents’ right to be informed about major identity-related changes involving their children and urged trustees not to rescind the policy. "Parents need to be involved 100% — good or bad," said one parent who identified herself from Trustee Area 4. Julianne Ferraro, an attorney with the law firm Advocates for Faith and Freedom, told trustees her firm had successfully defended a similar policy in Riverside County and urged the board not to rescind the district’s policy.

Speakers citing district communications and state correspondence summarized a California Department of Education (CDE) determination notifying the district that BP 50201 had been found inconsistent with Education Code section 220; the CDE told the district the policy "may not be implemented" while the determination stands. Several speakers asked the board to explain why the policy — adopted by the board on Aug. 10, 2023 — had not been implemented and said administrative regulations required by the board vote had not been completed.

Trustees debated a staff-recommended action listed on the agenda (to rescind BP 50201). Trustee VanderGriff offered a substitute motion to retain the policy and "start work immediately on the accompanying administrative regulation with collaboration between staff and our attorney," and to present the ARs to the board in closed session prior to placing an implementation item back on a public agenda. The motion was seconded and, after discussion, passed on a 3–2 recorded vote.

The board's recorded votes on the amendment were: Mr. Pardue — yes; Mrs. VanderGriff — yes; Ms. Young — no; Mrs. Lund — no; Mr. Diffley — yes. The board directed staff to develop the ARs and return to the board for closed-session review before any further action on implementation.

Supporters of rescission repeatedly pointed to the CDE's finding and urged compliance with state law, warning that continued pursuit could risk state enforcement action or legal costs. Opponents of rescission argued that local trustees had adopted a policy reflecting community values and that staff delays — not the board's vote — had prevented implementation. Several speakers also raised student-safety and mental-health concerns, asking the district to ensure safe alternatives and supports if notification practices change.

Next steps: District staff and legal counsel will draft administrative regulations as directed and present them to the full board in closed session for review prior to returning any implementation language to a public meeting.