Today, August 11, 2026, the Carson City School Board will hear a formal second reading on its “Family Engagement” policy changes, which if approved will require staff to report a student’s “social/gender transition at school,” as well as mandates teachers to provide alternative assignments to any family if it goes against their personal or religious beliefs.
The changes were made between the first and second reading of the Family Engagement Policy by board counsel Ryan Russell. Russell also serves as counsel for the Douglas County School District. During the July 28 meeting, Russell told trustees the changes were required by law.
In July, the DCSD school board discussed proposed changes to many of the same policies in July — including their family engagement policies. Yet none of the changes proposed to CCSD’s policies were included.
“It’s the law, for lack of a better term.”
Today’s CCSD meeting will also tackle several other proposed changes relating to communication, staff evaluation, and more.
See our prior reporting below:
While Russell repeatedly told trustees these changes are mandated by law during the July 28, 2026 meeting, there has been nothing provided either to trustees or the public to substantiate this claim.
“Policy 106 is our parental engagement policy and this had to be updated as a result of, not only changes in the law, but of Supreme Court interpretation,” Russell told the board during the July 28 meeting.
However, despite the language of those DCSD policies being overhauled, there were no additions relating to reporting a student’s gender transition, religious or sensitive subject matter opt-outs, or other changes Russell stated was required by law.
During the July 28 meeting, Trustee Michelle Pedersen asked Russell to return with explanations, definitions and/or citations relating to the transgender-reporting policy and the “sensitive personal topics” assignment opt-out policy changes.
She said that she was uncomfortable with including the language about gender reporting, because she had been contacted by several constituents concerned with how it could affect students and staff. She also raised questions about the vagueness of the terms, as they did not come with definitions, or indications on who would be responsible for implementing them.
If there’s a reasonable belief that divulging [a student’s gender identity] will result in abuse or neglect, then the district is mandated to go through the process with DCFS on how to inform the parents.
“I understand, Trustee Pedersen, what you’re saying, but I think it’s the law, for lack of a better term,” Russell responded. However, he said that he would look into finding some of the definitions she’d mentioned, or “less nefarious language.”
One issue that was brought up during that meeting was about the reporting. Russell stated that it is illegal for any staff to withhold information about a student from their parents, and implementing this language would simply create a “paper trail” to show compliance.
However, the legal basis for this statement is also unknown, as a number of district policies and laws across the country have been in place for years about student privacy. While a student’s guardian has access to all of their student’s records, this does not translate to access to all known information about the student.
Just to the north, the Washoe County School District has a regulation that contradicts Russell’s assertion. Regulation 5161 prohibits staff from revealing a student’s gender identity or sexual preference without their permission to others, including to their families, unless they are legally required to do so, adding:
Staff must be mindful of the confidentiality and privacy rights of students when contacting parents/guardians so as to not reveal, imply or refer to a student’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
However, Russell further asserted that even when disclosure could lead to abuse, the law mandates staff disclose that information to parents — they would just have to coordinate with the Division of Child and Family Services while doing so:
“The only exception is for an abuse or neglect issue,” Russell said. “If there’s a reasonable belief that divulging the information will result in abuse or neglect, then the district is mandated to go through the process with DCFS on how to inform the parents, and to make sure that it is a safe informing, but as a matter of law we cannot withhold that information.”
This interpretation strays even from what Russell wrote in the policy itself, which states [emphasis added]: School personnel shall not withhold, conceal, or forgo sharing information with parents regarding changes to a student’s health, well-being, or social/gender transition at school, except in narrow instances where a specific, good-faith safety concern requires immediate mandatory child abuse reporting.
When trustees asked about the legal requirements when a student turns 18, Russell said that by law those rights continue through the end of the school year.
They do not.
When a student turns 18, all legal rights relating to the student once held by the parents are transferred to the student themself, according to the federal government. For tax purposes, schools are allowed to provide information to parents who claim those students as dependents, but they are not required to by law.
Despite this, no changes have been made in the policy with the exception of adding the word “highly” before “encouraged” in the statement “Families shall be [highly] encouraged to participate in educational planning…”Â
The district and Russell have continued their refusal to respond to any of Carson Now’s requests for clarifications sent prior to and immediately after the July 28 meeting, along with questions sent prior to today’s meeting, including what the legal basis is for the proposed changes added by Russell.
The policy proposals still lack any legal citations within Tuesday’s packet. This is in contrast to the other policy changes proposed which are mandated by specific state and/or federal laws.Â
The Carson City School District Family Engagement Policy proposed changes can be viewed below:
And the Douglas County School Board’s Family Engagement Policy proposed changes can be viewed below:
