Local

What is Initiative-001 on your ballot? Breaking down the ‘parental rights’ measure

WASHINGTON — Washington voters are being asked to decide how much information parents should be entitled to receive about what happens with their children at public schools.

Initiative 26-001 would expand parents’ rights to access certain instructional materials and student records and would add notification and opt-out requirements involving certain topics at school.

Supporters say the measure would give parents greater transparency and help families make informed decisions about their children.

Opponents argue portions of the initiative are poorly written and could have unintended consequences, particularly for vulnerable students.

“I want to make sure that they have the information that I have so that they can make the best choices for their family,” said Travis Reep, a spokesperson for the Yes on IL-001 campaign and a teacher.

He began to question the limits of what parents were told when one of his children came home with a survey he hadn’t known about beforehand.

“In one instance [there was] a survey specifically saying ‘what pronouns do you want me to use with you’ and ‘what pronouns would you like me to use with your parents,’” Reep said.

The initiative would expand parents’ rights to obtain instructional materials and certain student records, including records involving medication given at school.

It would also expand the list of circumstances requiring parental notification or allowing parents to opt their children out of certain activities or instruction. Those provisions include topics involving political identity and sexual orientation or identity.

“This is really about making sure that parents have access to their child and information regarding their child so that if they want to go forward with getting their child support, they know that that support is needed in the first place,” Reep said.

Roshelle Cleland, executive director of the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, opposes the initiative and said she is concerned about how some of its provisions could affect students who may not feel safe sharing certain information at home.

“We believe that this initiative is poorly written and did not have the most vulnerable youth in mind,” Cleland said.

In its review, the Attorney General’s Office says areas that are unclear may remove parents’ ability to file complaints on the child’s behalf, change the right of a parent that their child not be discriminated against into an assurance from the school district, and limit when parents are told about criminal matters that happen on campus.

“The right to receive immediate notification when a child is alleged to be the victim, target, or recipient of physical or sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, or assault by a school employee or contractor would be removed,” the Attorney General’s office wrote.

Cleland said requiring school employees to disclose certain sensitive information to parents could create problems for some students.

“Forcing school staff to call and report to families, to parents, when students have shared sensitive information about their identity, that could make it where a household becomes unsafe,” Cleland said.

She also raised concerns that the changes could discourage some students experiencing abuse at home from confiding in trusted adults at school.

“Their parent may be loving, supportive, but the burden and how scary it can feel to tell that parent that abuse is happening, it makes it really important to have other safe adults outside of the home,” Cleland said.

Supporters dispute the idea that the initiative would require teachers to indiscriminately report everything a student tells them.

“Teachers maintain that professional judgment; they maintain that professional ability to determine what to share with parents and when to share it with parents,” Reep said. “It’s really about the actual records that are being created.”

The debate is the latest chapter in a parental-rights issue that has been before Washington lawmakers for the past two years. A law passed in 2024 was amended in 2025. Voting yes would rescind the 2025 amendments.

0




Most Read