Chino Valley Unified School District Trustee Area 4

I believe any books and materials that contain pervasive vulgarity or explicit sexual content should not be in our school libraries. However, I believe the school district should be following its own policy on being transparent about which books they are removing and why. They should allow for input from parents and community members instead of completely removing parents from the process.

There is no place in school libraries (or classrooms for that matter) for books and materials that contain pervasive vulgarity or explicit sexual content. The reasons are obvious, but there are plenty of studies that break down the negative effects of sexually explicit material on young minds.

It is outside of a school board member’s power to set policy on this. California Education Code 221.5(f) entitles students to use facilities based on their gender identity. The local school board cannot currently create a policy that violates that education code, without facing expensive lawsuits. However, the school board would be wise to ask the question, “Given California law, how do we design policies and facilities that protect the safety and bodily privacy of every student—including students who are uncomfortable changing or showering in the presence of another student?” Individual stalls, curtains, or changing rooms should be considered to protect the privacy of all students.

Your gender is not ‘assigned’ at birth, your gender is ‘identified.’ Boys are boys and girls are girls. Boys and girls have a right to sex-based private space. Being delusional about sex, does not grant the privilege of infringing on the rights of others.

It is outside a school board member’s power to set policy on this. These rules are set by CIF and the state. A California school board cannot lawfully adopt and implement a policy saying that participation on girls' teams is determined solely by sex assigned at birth. Such a rule would directly conflict with § 221.5(f), and for CIF sports it would also conflict with CIF's statewide participation rules. I believe the school board can state their preference in this matter, but to make a policy that conflicts with current law is only asking for expensive lawsuits.

No - across the board in all the “gender is a social construct” nonsense. Boys and girls have the right to sex-segregated sports. I don’t even use the word “biological” in front of the word “boy” or “girl.” A boy is a boy, and a girl is a girl. Period.

I believe parents should be informed and involved when their minor child receives significant healthcare services through a school. Parents have the primary responsibility for their children’s health and well-being, and schools should be transparent about what services are offered, who provides them, and when parental consent or notification is required. At the same time, California law currently gives minors the right to consent independently to certain healthcare services. These laws include California Family Code Sections 6924, 6925, 6926, and 6929. Education Code Section 46010.1 also requires districts to inform families that students may be excused from school to obtain legally confidential medical services without parental consent. As a school board member, I would require parental notification and involvement to the fullest extent permitted by law, while recognizing that a local school board cannot override state confidentiality or minor-consent statutes.

Yes, of course, parents should be notified when their minor child uses school-based healthcare facilities or services.

I believe parents have a fundamental role in the upbringing and well-being of their minor children and should have access to important information concerning their child’s education and welfare. Current California law does not permit the district to require automatic notification solely because a student changes a name, pronouns, gender identity, or facility use. Under the September 15, 2026, court ruling, however, the district must answer truthfully when a parent affirmatively asks about their own child’s gender status at school. As a board member, I would support maximum transparency and parental involvement consistent with the law while continuing to advocate for parents’ rights and student safety.

Yes, parents have a constitutionally protected right to be promptly notified by the school if their child requests or engages in a social gender transition such as a change of name, pronouns, or facility use while at school.

I believe parents should have meaningful choices in determining the educational environment that best meets their child’s needs. California currently allows public funding to support students attending traditional public schools, charter schools, and other qualifying public-school options, but it does not have a statewide voucher or education savings account program allowing education funds to follow a student to a private school. At the local level, my priority would be to make our district schools strong enough that families choose them because they provide excellent academics, safe campuses, transparency, and opportunities that meet the needs of every student. But at this time, the local school board does not have jurisdiction over this topic.

I’m a fan. Free market competition always improves the product being sold. And in this case, the product is education.

I support clear, transparent rules for student surveys and questionnaires, particularly when they involve sensitive personal information. Parents should be informed about what information is being collected, the purpose of the survey, how the information will be used, and whether participation is optional. Where the law permits, I support affirmative parental consent for sensitive surveys, while also ensuring the district follows state and federal requirements that may provide for an opt-out process instead. My goal would be a consistent policy that protects student privacy and keeps families well informed.

Parents have the right review surveys and questionnaires, and Opt-in policies tend to err on the side of caution, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Opt-in policies also require a higher degree of parental involvement, which is a good thing.