Facing outcry, State College district walks back changes to preferred name use in schools
Just one week after sharing initial plans that drew outcry, the State College Area School District is walking back parts of its push to require the use of students' legal names in some software programs and district applications.
In an email sent to student families on Feb. 25, SCASD director of technology Justin Hetrick said the district was moving forward with plans to begin using students' legal names over preferred names in some applications, including the PowerSchool student information system. A subsequent email from Superintendent Curtis Johnson three days later said the district would, in response to community feedback, accommodate preferred names 'wherever possible' before changes are implemented over spring break, which begins March 10.
'Even though we have to use legal names in some cases, we understand the importance of recognizing and respecting preferred names,' Johnson wrote in his Feb. 28 message to district families.
As things stand, students can display and use their preferred name in classrooms with faculty and staff, on their diplomas and through district-approved applications, including their email addresses, Google Classroom and the PowerSchool platform. At the district school board's March 3 meeting, Johnson said preferred names and pronouns will remain available for student IDs, too.
Changes to the use of students' legal names over preferred names were first proposed to help the district 'ensure accuracy and compliance with various requirements,' Hetrick wrote to families. The modifications were described not as an adjustment to specific school policy, but as procedural changes that would help State College officials comply with legal standards.
The district did not indicate in its communications that the change is related to President Donald Trump's order to end diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at schools.
Legal documents, applications and some standardized tests — including transcripts, SAT exams and college applications — often require the use of a student's legal name. Messages from the district said legal name use would help implement special education plans and allow school nurses to accurately administer care and medication.
A bulleted list shared in the Feb. 28 message from Johnson said the use of legal names is required on official transcripts, working papers, 504 plans and individualized educational programs (IEPs) for students with disabilities and state testing and state reporting requirements in Pennsylvania. Student IDs were also listed among this group, but they have since been adapted to continue allowing preferred names, the superintendent said at March 3's board meeting.
At the board meeting, Johnson said students who use a preferred name over their legal name can still obtain a student ID featuring their legal name by contacting the district's computer services team. Preferred names will remain the default option, though legal names are used for students who have not entered a preferred name into district systems.
The board meeting featured lengthy periods of public comment in which six students and community members spoke against district efforts to prioritize legal names over preferred names. Many who spoke viewed the walked-back pivot to legal names as a step that would alienate or discriminate against transgender, non-binary and other gender-diverse students who may identify outside of their legal names and pronouns.
Cat Cook, a district parent and the executive director of the Centre LGBT+ nonprofit, said recognizing preferred names and pronouns significantly improves inclusiveness in schools and communities.
'When students are called by their chosen name, they feel recognized, affirmed and empowered, and when their name appears on their ID — something they carry with them daily — it is a visible acknowledgment of their humanity and dignity,' Cook told the board.
'However, for students whose chosen names are not recognized, the impact can be profound,' she continued. 'It sends a message, albeit unintentionally, that who they are is not worthy of validation or respect. It can cause feelings of alienation, stress and insecurity — emotions that no student should have to bear in an environment that is supposed to support their growth.'
Elana Szczesny, a licensed psychologist and parent of two students, said State College officials failed to adequately share policy details and updates on its implementation with students and families. The short-notice change caught community shareholders off-guard, she said.
'Some students had to hear that news, fear for their privacy and potential safety in school, and then be expected to go about the rest of their day,' Szczesny said. 'I know families whose children felt scared to go to school on Friday morning, unsure if they would be greeted with a deadname when they opened up their computers and be outed to their classmates... Communication regarding this initial policy and ongoing attempts to adapt it were insufficient and untimely, leading to more worry.'
Johnson said the district will share additional updates with district families through another communication before changes enter effect over spring break. As of March 6, district officials have not yet shared further information regarding the procedural changes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ron Johnson: US has ‘no beef with the Iranian people'
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said Sunday that the United States has 'no beef with the Iranian people' following Saturday's announcement by President Trump that the U.S. had bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. 'We have no beef with the Iranian people,' Johnson told anchor Maria Bartiromo on Fox News's 'Sunday Morning Futures.' 'This is about a regime that wants to destroy and eliminate Israel and destroy the great Satan, America.' Trump announced late Saturday that U.S. bombers struck three nuclear sites in Iran: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. 'Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' he said in an address to the nation. The U.S. bombing in Iran followed a week of debate about whether the U.S. should step into a conflict that Israel had kicked off on June 13. 'We're not at war with the Iranian people. We support the Iranian people,' Johnson said Sunday. 'They don't like being under the dictatorial thumb of such a brutal regime.' On Sunday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the U.S. had no military operation planned against Iran, but he did not rule out future strikes if the country did not show a meaningful effort to make peace. 'We have other targets that we could hit, but we achieved our objective,' Rubio said on CBS News's 'Face the Nation.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
21 hours ago
- The Hill
Johnson: US has ‘no beef with the Iranian people'
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said Sunday that the United States has 'no beef for the Iranian people' following Saturday's announcement by President Trump that the U.S. had bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. 'We have no beef with the Iranian people,' Johnson told anchor Maria Bartiromo on Fox Business Network's 'Sunday Morning Futures.' 'This is about a regime that wants to destroy and eliminate Israel and destroy the great Satan, America.' Trump announced late Saturday that U.S. bombers struck three nuclear sites in Iran: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. 'Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' he said in an address to the nation. The U.S. bombing in Iran followed a week of debate about whether the U.S. would step into a conflict that Israel had kicked off on June 13. 'We're not at war with the Iranian people. We support the Iranian people,' Johnson said Sunday. 'They don't like being under the dictatorial thumb of such a brutal regime.' On Sunday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the U.S. had no military operation planned against Iran, but did not rule out future strikes if the country did not show a meaningful effort to make peace. 'We have other targets that we could hit, but we achieved our objective,' Rubio said on CBS News's 'Face the Nation.'
CNBC
2 days ago
- CNBC
Some lawmakers in both parties question the legality of Trump's Iran strikes
WASHINGTON — Several members of Congress in both parties Saturday questioned the legality of President Donald Trump's move to launch military strikes on Iran. While Republican leaders and many rank-and-file members stood by Trump's decision to bomb Iran's major nuclear enrichment facilities, at least two GOP lawmakers joined Democrats across the party spectrum in suggesting it was unconstitutional for him to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. "While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional," Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, who usually aligns with Trump, said on X. "I look forward to his remarks tonight." Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said in response to Trump's social media post announcing the strikes: "This is not Constitutional." Massie introduced a bipartisan resolution this week seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran "unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran" passed by Congress. In brief remarks from the White House on Saturday night, Trump defended the strikes but did not mention the basis of his legal authority to launch them without Congress' having given him that power. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., reacted in real time during a speech in Tulsa, Oklahoma, slamming Trump's actions as "grossly unconstitutional." "The only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right," Sanders told the crowd, which broke out in "no more war!" chants. Some Democrats called it an impeachable offense for the president to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said Trump's move is "absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," she said on X. "He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations." Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., said on social media: "This is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense." Casten called on House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to "grow a spine" and protect the war powers reserved for Congress. Johnson said Trump respects the Constitution as he sought to lay the groundwork to defend his decision to act unilaterally. "The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties," he said in a statement. Johnson's remarks, along with support for Trump's move offered by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., indicate that Trump may have sufficient political cover to avoid blowback from the Republican-controlled Congress. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Trump "failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East." But he stopped short of labeling the military action illegal or unconstitutional. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., was more direct on the legal question. "The power to declare war resides solely with Congress. Donald Trump's unilateral decision to attack Iran is unauthorized and unconstitutional," said Clark, the No. 2 Democrat. "In doing so, the President has exposed our military and diplomatic personnel in the region to the risk of further escalation." Appearing Saturday night on MSNBC, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who co-authored the resolution with Massie, wondered whether the anti-war voters who support Trump would back his move. "This is the first true crack in the MAGA base," he said, noting that Trump's rise in the 2016 primaries was aided by his move to slam President George W. Bush for the Iraq war.
