Stop the Misinformation: Here is What These Two Initiatives Actually Say
By Justin Brundage • Concrete School Board Director
As a school board member, I am frustrated by the misinformation flooding our communities about two major ballot initiatives, I-001 and I-638. While voters can reasonably weigh the pros and cons of any policy, I am far more concerned about deliberate distortions of what the text actually says. When we misrepresent what is on the ballot, voters cannot make informed decisions for our schools.
See More Show Less
MISLEADING CLAIMS ABOUT I-638 (Interscholastic Sports Categories)
1. Claims of invasive physical exams: Opponents claim I-638 mandates invasive physical examinations for students wanting to play sports. This is false. Sec. 1(1) explicitly states that biological sex verification relies on the standard routine physical examination prior to sports participation that school districts already require. Under Sec. 3(2), a healthcare provider statement relies on standard medical metrics without requiring any new or invasive procedures.
2. Claims of legal penalties and liability traps: Critics suggest the measure imposes new legal liabilities, financial fines, or custom penalties on students and school districts. The statutory text contains no financial fines, legal traps, or custom disciplinary mandates against kids or schools, operating strictly as an eligibility framework through normal athletic administration.
3. Claims regarding expanding sports opportunities: Opponents argue the measure fails because it does not create new sports programs. This misses the underlying purpose of biological sex categories in interscholastic sports. The measure is not designed to create new athletic programs out of thin air; it is designed to preserve fair competition and protect existing opportunities specifically reserved for female athletes.
MISLEADING CLAIMS ABOUT I-001 (Washington Parents' Bill of Rights)
1. Claims regarding mandatory disclosures and safety exceptions: Opponents claim I-001 forces schools to hand over sensitive records to abusive parents or forces staff to out vulnerable students. In reality, Sec. 1(3)(b)(i) deals directly with official record inspection rights. Crucially, Sec. 1(4) includes an explicit safety exception: schools are NOT required to release records during an active child abuse or neglect investigation where the parent is the target, preserving law enforcement and child protective protocols.
2. Claims regarding crime victim notifications: Opponents claim the measure removes or delays parental notification if a student is the victim of a crime at school. On the contrary, the phrasing "deemed to have been committed" is standard administrative language designed to prevent false alerts and unverified rumors before official confirmation, ensuring that parental notifications remain accurate, prompt, and meaningful when safety incidents occur.
3. Claims regarding administrative burdens: Critics argue that requiring schools to process parental record requests within 10 business days creates an unmanageable burden compared to the current FERPA window. Sec. 1(3)(b)(i) simply sets a clear 10 business day timeline to inspect and receive official records, prioritizing timely parental transparency while establishing a predictable schedule for district administrative staff.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Healthy public debate requires that we engage with legislation as it is written, not as hyper-partisan campaign flyers portray it. Whether you ultimately support or oppose I-001 and I-638, I urge every voter in our district to read the actual statutory language, evaluate the real-world policy trade-offs, and make your case based on verifiable facts rather than political scare tactics.