Mead School District implores feds to help solve ‘legal dilemma’ of state laws on gender policies that conflict with Trump’s executive orders

The Mead School Board is urging the federal government to step in as the Trump administration continues doling out directives on gender-identity issues that clash with Washington’s progressive state laws.

In letters sent Tuesday to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, the conservative board asked federal officials to intervene urgently in a “legal dilemma” involving dueling directives from the state and federal government that the school board said would risk funding cuts if they complied with either.

State law on anti-discrimination and school policies conflict with the board’s ability to comply with executive orders that are more in line with their politics, so the board is imploring the federal government for intervention in a bid for local control.

“Not only is the school board facing a legal dilemma (not of its own making), but it has also been put in the untenable position of being ‘unable to win’ with its stakeholders and constituents, the majority of whom are opposed to the concepts in OSPI is trying to enforce in policy 3211, no matter what it does,” the letter reads. “As a school board, we have thus become cannon fodder in an ongoing culture war.”

The nexus for the board in sending the letter was a state civil rights review deeming the district noncompliant with its gender-inclusive schools policy, referred to as policy 3211. In a one-time review released at the end of February, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction found the district’s policy surrounding pronoun use and bathroom access, for example, to be out of line with state policies provided by the Washington State School Directors Association that are meant to act as blueprints for districts.

“That was kind of the impetus,” Mead School Board President Michael Cannon said in an interview Tuesday. “It was like, ‘OK, well, now since they’re forcing us to do this, now is probably the time that we need to raise a flag and say, ‘Someone help us.’ ”

Dueling policies

Mead’s policy entitled “Transgender Students,” adopted in 2019, includes directions around preferred name and pronoun use by staff when speaking with parents. Staff are to “refrain from the use of gender pronouns and refer to the student by name whenever practical,” when talking with parents of transgender or gender-nonconforming students.

State policy mirrors Mead’s in some areas, including not condoning refusal to respect gender identity and asking the student how they’d like to be referred. The state’s policy includes more details on how to address parents of transgender students that are absent from Mead’s.

“Before communicating with parents of transgender or gender expansive students, it’s important to ask the student how school employees should refer to the student when talking with their parents and guardians,” the state policy reads. “For families who are supportive, using the student’s name and pronoun could be affirming for the student. For parents who are not supportive, or who are not aware of the student’s transition at school, referring to their name and pronoun could be very dangerous.”

OSPI’s review also points to nonconformity in Mead’s restroom access policy, which says students can use whichever restroom corresponds with their gender identity.

The state policy on bathroom access says the same, but adds “Any student – regardless of gender identity – who requests greater privacy should be given access to an alternative restroom. However, schools may not require a student to use an alternative restroom because of their transgender or gender-expansive status.”

OSPI spokesperson Katy Payne wrote in an email that schools are expected to adopt the state model policy. The board has until May 23 to do so and will discuss edits at the next school board meeting on March 24.

The letter sent to federal officials contends that Mead’s existing policy is meant to be a compromise between state requirements and the conservative board’s constituents, including notification to parents of a student’s gender identity or expression via pronoun use, Cannon said.

“If we could just pass the state model policy, we would just do it,” Cannon said. “But the problem is that that policy is fairly out of alignment with how we as a community feel on a number of issues, parents rights being pretty paramount.”

Conservative school boards like Mead’s have long disagreed with directives handed down from OSPI and based in state law. Now, with a slurry of executive orders from President Donald Trump that in part contradict state law, Cannon feels his board is supported and is appealing to the federal government for more local control over its schools.

“We’re a red school district in a blue state,” Cannon said. “That’s a very difficult spot to be in.”

Funding in jeopardy?

As Trump mulls changes to the federal education system and signs numerous executive orders, the leverage for compliance is often school funding, though some specify only grant funding to schools could be in jeopardy.

In the two categories of school federal dollars, discretionary grants or formula funding, the lion’s share makes up the latter. This includes federally protected areas of Title 1 for poor students, special education supplements or food service. Payne wrote in an email that she doesn’t expect that these areas are on the chopping block when it comes to federal cuts.

In Mead’s case, federal dollars make up around 5% of the total budget, or around $8.9 million.

A much larger share of the district’s budget is what it gets from the state: $126.7 million, or 80% of total revenue.

OSPI has never in recent history withheld funding from a school, Payne said, but it’s written in state code that they could if a district doesn’t comply with nondiscrimination laws or civil rights guidelines.

“The law provides multiple enforcement mechanisms, including, but not limited to, corrective actions, termination of programs that conflict with the law, withholding funds, or instituting other sanctions,” Payne wrote.

Mead’s letter contends that the conflicting federal and state guidance puts their funding in jeopardy regardless of what they do. One of their asks to recipients is reassurance that if they follow executive orders, they won’t lose federal funding.

“Adopting OSPI’s directive would put our district at risk of violating federal policy, potentially jeopardizing critical Title I and IDEA funds,” the letter reads. “At the same time, refusal to comply could prompt state retaliation in the form of withheld state funding, further threatening our ability to serve students in need.”

As far as the future for either stream of funding, depending on the board’s actions in the coming months, “the risk is unknown,” Mead Superintendent Travis Hanson said in an interview before his board sent the letter. He’s expecting legal feedback on the executive orders that will guide the board, as well as federal response to the letter, Cannon said.

“Certainly, the bulk, the vast majority of our funding comes from state apportionment. So the prospect of putting your state funding in jeopardy by following a federal mandate would probably be the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face,” Hanson said. “There are elements of a federalist conundrum here: To what extent are these state schools and state-run by state laws and rules, and to what extent does the federal government get to speak into that? And I think that’s the nature of the conflict right now.”

Board seeks conservative ally

The letter cites several specific executive orders and corresponding state law that prevents the board from complying. One example listed is state requirements for kids to play on whichever sports team aligns with their gender identity, as is Washington Interscholastic Activities Association’s policy, versus an executive order to rescind funds if schools allow transgender women to play on women’s sports teams.

As State Superintendent Chris Reykdal has repeatedly asserted, these executive orders do not carry the weight of law, and he has consistently told districts to stay the course and follow state law or “risk legal ramifications,” he wrote in guidance sent in late February that the state attorney general’s office helped to craft, Payne wrote.

“The protections against discrimination within Washington’s state law fit squarely within the parameters of federal civil rights and nondiscrimination laws,” Payne wrote. “Executive orders do not hold the force of law unless that authority is expressly given, and a presidential executive order cannot change a law without an act of Congress. Unless Congress takes action or a court rules otherwise, OSPI will continue to enforce state law.”

Cannon asserts that executive orders supersede state law, and the letter implores the federal government to make this clear to the state. Like in an appeals court, he analogized, the board is soliciting the authority of the federal government, their “ally,” to force the “heavy hand” of the state, and by doing so give his school district more local control.

“We want to make an effort to really stand up against some of these state enforcement items,” Cannon said. “Now that we might have some cover from the federal government, it’s time to do that.”