Lake Stevens School District Proposing New Bathroom Policy Tonight


FPIW has learned that the Lake Stevens School District’s School Board of Directors plans to meet tonight, in part, to implement a new bathroom policy, in order to be “compliant” with Washington State’s new bathroom policy.

You can read a copy of the proposed policy here.

The Human Rights Commission of Washington passed WAC 162-32, mandating that all schools and businesses implement a new open-bathroom policy.  While this policy legally opens up women’s restrooms, locker rooms, and showers to men, the rule creates a loophole that allows men who claim to ‘identify’ as a woman to gain access, increasing opportunities for potential predators to attack and abuse with little ability to prosecute them.

School Districts’ first priority should be protecting the safety and privacy of its students, and there are legal consequences to consider if they do not.

Concerned citizens are encouraged to call the Lake Stevens School Board of Directors (425) 335-1502 to express their concerns, and attend the meeting tonight.

Lake Stevens School Board Meeting

Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 6:30pm

School District Building

Educational Service Center in the Community Room

12309 22nd St NE

Lake Stevens, WA 98258

Residents React to Unsafe Bathroom Policy, Delay Vote

As reported Wednesday, the Colville School District Board of Directors attempted to quietly pass a policy that would allow boys to enter girls bathrooms, and vice versa, with no questions asked.

That is, until 300 Colville residents showed up at the school board meeting last night to express their concern.

Under intense and likely unexpected public pressure, the board of directors decided to table the new proposed bathroom policy to a later date.  In the meantime, parents, residents, and concerned citizens are encouraged to read this memo from Alliance Defending Freedom, explaining why schools are not legally obligated to allow students to use opposite-sex bathrooms, showers, and locker room facilities.

If you have any questions or would like to get involved in the effort to protect children from this dangerous policy, please email

Bremerton Debates: Coach Joe and the First Amendment

The five-member Bremerton School Board of Directors isn’t used to seeing a full room of concerned citizens at their regular meetings.

While the regular calendar included no items directly concerning District policies on religious expression or disciplinary action of Coach Joe Kennedy, that didn’t stop dozens of Bremerton residents from showing up to fill the one-hour allotment of time reserved for public testimony.

School Board rules dictate that the names of individual staff or students may not be named during public testimony, shifting the conversation to a more philosophical level and leaving citizens to spar on the intent and interpretation of the First Amendment, among other things.

By rough the estimates of the applause following individual testimony, probably 7 out of 10 people in attendance supported the cause of Coach Joe Kennedy.  But several of the speakers encouraged the school district to continue in their course of action against Coach Kennedy. “He (Kennedy) deserves to be fired and banned from any further work in the district,” said Bremerton resident Terence Connors.

Other residents came to Coach Kennedy’s defense.  “When people stand up and exercise their faith … and others join them voluntarily, we should support them,” Bremerton resident David Hatzenbuehler said. “To suppress that is really standing in violation of the very principles our country was founded on.”

You can read some of the night’s other comments here.

While most of the speakers remained civil and reserved in their remarks on both sides of the debate, several speakers who spoke in opposition to Coach Joe showed high levels of emotion, raising their voices, crying, and, in the case of one parent, angrily slamming a thick stack of papers down on the desk of the school board directors before storming out of the hearing room.

The most striking part of the evening really had little to do with one person’s actions or demeanor.  Scattered throughout the opposition’s testimony was the prevailing notion that Coach Joe Kennedy is not just in the wrong, but that he has somehow broken the law and should face punishment — that somehow his prayer has created an unsafe environment for children.

It’s clear now that America now has very different opinions of what the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression actually mean.