Teachers and schools in Porterville may soon be required to inform parents if their children request to be referred to by alternative pronouns – including “a gender different from their biological sex” – or if they request “access to gender-specific facilities,” according to a draft ordinance being considered by the Porterville City Council.
The proposed ordinance, entitled “Safeguarding Parental Rights in Education and Child Upbringing,” would give parents standing to sue schools, school districts, or public agencies if they do not receive those notifications. Under the proposal, those suits could be supported by Porterville city funds with a “Legal Assistance Fund” that would provide assistance for attorney, court filing, and expert witness fees.
The council will discuss the ordinance, proposed by Porterville Vice-Mayor Ed McKervey, as part of its March 18 meeting agenda. It would need to be brought back to a second meeting for a public hearing and second reading before it could be enacted.
McKervey asked for it to be added to the agenda at the council’s March 4 meeting, after significant protest and discussion around a proposed “Protect Women’s Safe Spaces” ordinance. He said that the “Parental Rights” ordinance was in response to “overreach” by state officials.
“The state continues to overreach the bounds of the family,” he said at the meeting. “This secures those fundamental parental rights and makes that boundary very clear on where the city will stand in support of our parents and their rights in our education and our child upbringing.”
At that meeting, McKervey and Porterville Mayor Greg Meister also floated the idea of using city funds to support lawsuits – specifically, suits against the state by women who end up sharing gender-specific spaces with a transgender person.
The “Women’s Safe Spaces” draft ordinance would prevent transgender individuals from using a bathroom, locker room, or other “private facility” in Porterville that does not match their sex at birth. That ordinance was not brought back for discussion at the March 18 meeting, but may appear in a later one.
The ordinance
The Parental Rights ordinance would place three requirements on public and charter schools, as well as any school which provides government funds. It does not mention private schools.
Schools would be required to notify a parent within three days if their child begins the process of social transitioning – requesting to be referred to by alternative pronouns or another gender – with school staff, or if they request access to “gender-specific facilities […] based on gender identity.”
The ordinance states that notification may only be delayed “if the school has documented reasonable suspicion that disclosure would result in imminent, severe harm to the student” – and in such cases, the school must report that concern to “the appropriate child welfare authorities.”
Parents must also be provided with “full transparency” regarding sexual education curriculum, including lesson plans, videos, outside speakers, outside organizations providing presentations, and instructional materials.
This section largely mirrors state education code, which requires districts to provide the same opportunities to parents, though Porterville’s ordinance would extend the state’s 14-day advance notice minimum to a 30-day minimum.
The Porterville Unified School District provides an annual notice to parents notifying them of those state requirements, according to documents on its website.
Schools would also be prohibited from distributing condoms, birth control, emergency contraceptives, “or any other contraceptive” without parental consent. They would also be barred from referring students to abortion providers or facilitating abortions on school grounds.
School employees would be prohibited from providing “guidance or recommendations regarding sexual activity” according to the ordinance, unless it was “required under mandated reporting laws.”
The ordinance also restates existing mandated reporter laws, and states that parents must be notified “in cases where mandated reporting laws require parental involvement for the safety of the minor.”
Following in others’ footsteps – and missteps?
The proposed ordinance refers to a “Chino Valley Unified School District case” as establishing the legality of notifying parents that their children are requesting gender identity changes. That case, however, ultimately found that a policy similar to Porterville’s violated the California Constitution.
The Chino Valley case was brought by California Attorney General Rob Bonta in San Bernardino County Superior Court after the Chino Valley district enacted a policy similar to the Porterville draft on July 20, 2023.
The policy, BP 5020, required parents to be notified if students asked to be “identified or treated as a gender […] other than the student’s biological sex or gender listed on the student’s birth certificate or any other official records,” if students requested access to school programs and private facilities used by a sex other than the student’s biological sex, and if the student requested to “change any information contained in the student’s official or unofficial records.”
A San Bernardino County judge granted a temporary restraining order against BP 5020 in October 2023. He said it was “discriminatory on its face” according to ABC7 Los Angeles, and pointed to remarks by a Chino Valley board member before the vote referring to transgender individuals as mentally ill.
The Chino Valley board then introduced a new policy, BP 5010, on March 7, 2024. That policy only included the requirement for staff to notify parents when they “become aware that a student is requesting to change any information contained in the student’s official or unofficial records.”
The judge’s final ruling, dated September 9, 2024, found that the BP 5020 provisions relating to gender-specific requests violated the California Constitution and California’s Education Code.
“There is no forced secrecy in this case; parents are still free to have conversations with their child about gender identity; and parents still have the right to observe a classroom, talk to a teacher, and review educational records,” the judge wrote. “In other words, a parent asserting their rights will likely be informed.”
However, the part of the policy requiring school employees to notify parents when a student requests to change “any information contained in the student’s official or unofficial records” was upheld.
Both sides were able to walk away from the case claiming they had won: the Liberty Justice Center, which represented the Chino Valley district, stated that they had secured a victory for the district and its parents.
Meanwhile, Bonta’s office wrote in a press release that he had secured a “win for all students in Chino Valley and across the State” after the judge struck down the gender-specific parts of the policy.
The next Porterville City Council meeting will be held on March 18, 2025 at Porterville City Hall, 291 N. Main St, Porterville, CA 93257.
You know it’s a MAGA thing when even though they lost at court, they claim a victory. Porterville will end up losing a ton of money if they implement this nonsense, but that doesn’t worry this Council. After all, it’s not their money, it’s the City’s.
I am particularly bemused that a Council that complains often and loudly that Sacrament oversteps their authority by imposing requirements on local governments would turn around and impose requirements on the local Board of Education’s jurisdiction.
“Do as I say, not as I do.”