FAQs: WSPTA's Opposition to Initiatives IL26-001 and IL26-638

Two statewide initiatives on Washington’s November 2026 ballot would harm Washington students.

Washington State PTA opposes both of these harmful initiatives and encourages all our 80,000+ members to vote NO on IL26-001 and NO on IL26-638 this November. The Board voted unanimously in July to oppose these initiatives, directed by positions WSPTA members have already adopted.

IL26-001 would rewrite Washington’s parental rights law, removing student safety protections, and recreating conflicts with state and federal law that the Legislature resolved in 2025. See questions 1–10.

IL26-638 would require every student who wants to play a girls’ school sport to obtain medical verification of their biological sex from a health care provider. This is a requirement that no student faces today; that is not medically necessary, and that would be asked of girls alone. See questions 11–19.

These are two separate measures on two different subjects. The WSPTA board analyzed each against its own text and reached each conclusion independently.

If your PTA wants to take a stance on these initiatives, the time to act is now! Ballots are mailed in mid-October. Questions 20–30 answer common questions about how your PTA can take a position on one or both of these initiatives and advocate against them.

This page accompanies WSPTA’s two board position statements — WSPTA Opposes IL26-001 and WSPTA Opposes IL26-638 — which each contain the full analysis.

Part 1: Initiative IL26-001 ↑

1. What is IL26-001?

IL26-001 is a citizens’ initiative on the November 2026 ballot. It would rewrite one law: RCW 28A.605.005, Washington’s “Parents’ Bill of Rights.”

That law has a short but eventful history:

2024 — The Legislature enacted Initiative 2081, creating the Parents’ Bill of Rights. Because I-2081 was an initiative to the Legislature, lawmakers passed it directly, and voters never cast a ballot on it.
2025 — The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), in legal guidance issued to help districts implement the new law (June 2024 and again in February 2025), identified provisions that conflicted with existing state and federal law — particularly around student health privacy. The Legislature resolved those conflicts through House Bill 1296, which also gathered into a single statute, for the first time, parental rights that had been scattered across many sections of law.
2026 — IL26-001 asks voters to undo the 2025 amendments and largely restore the 2024 text. Unlike I-2081, this measure goes directly to voters.

Undoing those amendments would remove existing student safety protections, recreate the conflicts OSPI identified, and scatter the consolidated family rights back across the code. It would, for example, make a student’s mental health counseling records inspectable by a parent for every student under 18 — including students whose home is the reason they sought counseling.

Read the full analysis in WSPTA’s position statement on IL26-001.

Why we’re quoting the ballot language word for word. Supporters call this measure “Restoring Parents’ Rights.” That name will not appear anywhere on your ballot. What you will see is the certified ballot title — dry, technical wording drafted by the Attorney General’s office. We reproduce it exactly, with nothing paraphrased or shortened, so that when you open your ballot you recognize the measure immediately and can vote on your position without second-guessing whether you’re looking at the right thing.

Here is the ballot title, which appears on the ballot itself:

“Initiative Measure No. IL26-001 concerns parental rights relating to their children in public school. This measure would repeal amendments to a statute listing certain rights of parents and guardians of public-school children and re-enact the law as it was originally enacted by Initiative to the Legislature 2081.”

Here is the ballot measure summary, which appears in the voters’ pamphlet:

“This measure would re-enact RCW 28A.605.005 as it was originally enacted in Initiative to the Legislature 2081. The re-enacted law would list certain rights of parents and guardians of public-school children, including rights to review materials and student records, receive certain notifications and opt students out of certain activities. It would repeal amendments to the statute, which modified school obligations and access to certain student records and added certain parental rights.”

What a NO vote does. Because this measure would repeal something, the vote can be confusing. A NO vote on IL26-001 leaves the parental rights law exactly as it is today — the version the Legislature refined in 2025. A NO vote is not a vote against parental rights. It is a vote to keep the current parental rights law in place.

2. What would IL26-001 actually change?

IL26-001 replaces the current statute in its entirety. Every 2025 amendment is struck, the 2024 text is largely restored, and a few new provisions are added on top. The changes fall into three groups.

Changes that put students at risk

Makes medical, health, and mental health counseling records inspectable by parents for every student under 18, with no exception for students in unsafe homes short of an active abuse investigation.
Requires immediate parental notification when a student is removed from campus without permission, including to a youth shelter or host home — removing the current provision that allows the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) to be notified instead, when contacting the parent would endanger the student.
Narrows the exception that withholds a student’s records from a parent who is under investigation for abuse or neglect.
Narrows current parental notification rights around criminal activity at school, including striking the requirement for notification of a shooting on school property.
Broadens what a parent may opt a student out of, from specific surveys and evaluations to any classroom activity touching on sexual attraction, family or religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or a student’s or family member’s mental health. The initiative never defines how far that reaches.

Changes that create legal and practical problems

Recreates the conflicts with state and federal health privacy law that OSPI identified and the Legislature resolved in 2025.
Adds notification duties schools cannot practically meet, including notifying parents when a medical service might affect their insurance premiums or co-pays — which requires a school to know each family’s coverage and cost-sharing.
Deletes the sentence stating that the statute creates no private right of action, exposing districts to lawsuits over compliance failures they cannot avoid and pulling money toward legal risk management and away from classrooms.

Changes that make family rights harder to find

Removes from this statute the rights the Legislature consolidated there in 2025: the enumerated guarantee against discrimination on the basis of protected classes including sex, race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability; special education information and due process rights; language access for families whose primary language is not English; harassment and bullying complaint rights; military family enrollment; and notification of alleged staff misconduct. Most survive elsewhere in law — but families would need to search for them across many statutes instead of finding them in one.

If voters approve the measure, correcting any of this would require a two-thirds vote of both chambers for two years. See question 8.

Questions 4 through 7 go through these in detail.

3. Why is WSPTA opposing a measure about parental rights?

Since its founding in 1905, family engagement has been at the core of Washington State PTA.

When a question arises about whether a parent should have access to information or involvement in decisions about their child’s education, WSPTA’s default answer is yes. The only thing that overrides that default is a strong competing concern — a real risk to a student’s safety.

Several provisions of IL26-001 meet that bar. A student who tells a school counselor they are being hurt at home would have that conversation made inspectable by the parent they described, unless an abuse investigation is already open. A student who fled an unsafe home for a youth shelter would have that parent notified immediately, with no exception. These are not incidental side effects. They follow directly from the initiative’s text.

WSPTA’s opposition is grounded in what the initiative would do, not in what it says it values. We share its stated commitment to meaningful parental involvement. What we oppose is a set of specific provisions that remove existing student safety protections, create conflicts with state and federal law, and undermine the trust between students, families, and schools that makes parental involvement effective in the first place.

We oppose IL26-001 not despite our commitment to parents, but because of it. Read the full analysis in WSPTA’s position statement on IL26-001.

4. What would IL26-001 add to current law?

How to read the initiative. IL26-001 lists parental rights at length, in a format that reads like a new bill of rights being created. Most of what it lists already exists in Washington or federal law and would continue to exist whether the initiative passes or fails:

reviewing curriculum and instructional materials
inspecting a child’s education records
opting a child out of comprehensive sexual health education
receiving the school calendar and the school’s dress code
receiving the list of any required fees, and how economic hardships may be addressed
being told about a child’s academic progress
requesting a meeting with a teacher or principal

Voting no takes none of these away. The length of the list is not a guide to what would actually change.

What would change. Compared with the law as it stands today, IL26-001 would require schools to notify parents:

before medical services are offered to their child, except in an emergency;
when a medical service or medication has been provided that could affect health insurance premiums or co-pays;
when the school has arranged medical treatment that results in follow-up care.

These apply only to medical services offered at school, not to clinics that schools do not operate (OSPI Office of Legal Affairs Bulletin 009-25).

WSPTA does not object to parents being told about medical care provided at school. Our concern is the second requirement, which as written would require a school to know each family’s insurance status, coverage type, and cost-sharing — information most districts have no practical way to obtain. Paired with the initiative’s removal of the bar on private lawsuits, it creates an obligation that districts cannot reliably fulfill but could be sued for failing to meet. See question 2.

The initiative also adds a clause declaring that voter approval gives it two years of protection from legislative amendment. See question 8.

5. How would IL26-001 change parental rights that already exist?

Access to student records. IL26-001 adds medical and health records, mental health counseling records, and any other student-specific files maintained by the school to the records a parent may inspect and shortens the school’s response deadline from 45 days to 10.

Education records, and parents’ rights to review them, are defined in state law and in the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Neither includes medical or mental health records. Adding them puts schools, districts, and school-based health centers at risk of violating the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and Washington’s own health privacy law — particularly for students aged 13 to 17, who may consent to certain care on their own. Current law expressly preserves Washington’s health care information privacy statute. IL26-001 removes that preservation and provides no way to resolve the resulting conflict, leaving schools and districts to absorb the legal uncertainty until the Legislature or the courts sort it out — and for the first two years, the Legislature’s ordinary tool for fixing it would be unavailable. See question 8.

The exception that protects students from an abusive parent. Current law withholds a student’s records from a parent who is the subject of an abuse or neglect investigation. IL26-001 narrows that protection: it covers fewer types of records, it applies only while an investigation is actively open — not when a criminal proceeding is pending, and not in the period before an investigation begins — and it conditions protection on a court order without specifying what kind of order. A student who has just disclosed abuse, before any investigation exists, would not be covered.

Notification about criminal activity at school. The initiative includes a reduction, not an expansion. Current law requires a school to notify parents immediately when it receives a report that a criminal act is alleged to have been committed against their child on school property or at a school-sponsored activity — including immediate notification of a shooting on school property — and when a child has been detained based on probable cause of involvement in criminal activity during the school day.

IL26-001 replaces that with notification when a criminal action “has been committed” by or against the child. As OSPI has noted, that language does not include suspicion of a crime, interrogation of a suspect, or an arrest unless charges are brought. WSPTA is deeply concerned about the loss of these notification provisions.

Notification when a student is placed in a shelter or host home. IL26-001 requires immediate parental notification when a student is removed from campus without parental permission, including staying at a youth shelter or host home. Current law preserves the statutes that allow the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) to be notified instead of the parent when there are compelling safety reasons not to make contact. IL26-001 removes that preservation. For a student who has fled an abusive or dangerous home and been placed in a shelter, mandatory immediate parental notification could directly endanger the student.

6. What would IL26-001 remove from the parental rights law?

In 2025, the Legislature did something families had asked for: it gathered into one statute rights that had been scattered across many sections of Washington law, so a parent could find them in a single place. IL26-001 replaces that statute wholesale, and the gathering of those rights go with it:

the guarantee against discrimination on the basis of protected classes, including sex, race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability;
special education information, appeal, and due process rights;
language access for families whose primary language is not English;
the right to file a harassment, intimidation, and bullying complaint on a child’s behalf;
school enrollment rights for military families;
notification of alleged misconduct by school staff.

Most of these protections continue to exist elsewhere in state and federal law. Removing them from the parental rights statute does not repeal them. It makes them harder to find. A parent of a student with a disability, or a parent who speaks limited English, who opens Washington’s “Parents’ Bill of Rights” looking for their rights would no longer find them there. They would need to know which other statute to search. The families most dependent on a single clear statement of their rights are the families least equipped to search for it across the code.

In place of the enumerated non-discrimination guarantee, IL26-001 substitutes a provision based on sincerely held religious beliefs. Religion is already among the protected classes the current statute names, and families’ religious beliefs are protected elsewhere in Washington law.

WSPTA’s work is making family engagement real for every family, not only the ones with the time and expertise to navigate a fragmented legal landscape. Consolidating these rights was a step toward that. Undoing it is a step back.

7. How would students be affected?

Question 5 describes what the initiative changes. This is what those changes would mean for students.

Students’ access to mental health care would be at risk. WSPTA recognizes that not every child lives in a safe home. The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) fielded more than 122,000 calls regarding child abuse or neglect in 2025. Making mental health counseling records inspectable by parents for all students under 18, with no exception for students in unsafe home situations short of an active abuse investigation, poses a real risk to students’ access to care. A student who seeks support from a school counselor, trusting that the conversation is confidential, could have those records disclosed to a parent. Students who fear disclosure may not seek help at all, making school-based mental health services inaccessible in practice even where they exist.

This is especially concerning for LGBTQIA2S+ students, as many may be at risk of being forced out of their family home. Forty percent of youth experiencing homelessness identify as LGBTQIA2S+, and 26% of them say they were forced out of their family home over their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Students who have already fled an unsafe home would be less safe. A student placed in a youth shelter after leaving a dangerous home would have their parent notified immediately, with no exception for compelling safety reasons. See question 5.

8. Why does the two-year amendment window matter?

Washington’s constitution protects any initiative approved by voters: for two years, the Legislature needs a two-thirds vote in both chambers to amend a voter-approved initiative. After two years, a simple majority is enough.

What makes this significant is the contrast with how the parental rights law got here. I-2081 was an initiative to the Legislature: lawmakers enacted it themselves in 2024 and voters never approved it, so it never carried the two-year protection. That is exactly why the Legislature was able to refine it in 2025 by simple majority once OSPI identified conflicts with existing law.

IL26-001 goes to voters instead, and that matters because the problems with this initiative are not hypothetical. The state’s own education agency identified them, and the Legislature fixed them once already. If voters approve IL26-001, those conflicts come back — and for two years, correcting them would take a two-thirds vote in both chambers, which is unlikely. Voters are not only being asked whether these provisions are sound policy. They are being asked to lock them in.

9. What do supporters say, and how does WSPTA respond?

“Voters already passed this, and the Legislature overrode them.” I-2081 was an initiative to the Legislature, which means lawmakers enacted it themselves. Voters never cast a ballot on it. When OSPI’s implementation guidance identified provisions that conflicted with existing state and federal law, the same body that passed the law refined it.

“Parents should know what’s happening with their children’s health and education.” WSPTA agrees — see question 3. The question is not whether parents should be informed, but whether this particular mechanism does it without putting some students in danger. As written, it does not. See questions 5 and 7.

“Schools are keeping things from parents.” Washington parents already have the right to review curriculum and instructional materials, inspect their child’s education records, opt their child out of comprehensive sexual health education, be told about academic progress, and meet with teachers and administrators. Those rights exist today and remain if IL26-001 fails. What IL26-001 would add is parental access to medical and mental health counseling records — a category that state and federal law treat differently, for reasons question 5 describes.

“It protects families’ religious beliefs.” Families’ religious beliefs are already protected, and religion is among the protected classes named in the statute IL26-001 would replace. The initiative’s own text leaves unresolved whether its provisions would prevent a teacher from answering a student’s question about their own faith, or from wearing religious attire in class. Ambiguity that broad in a statute is a flaw regardless of which beliefs it touches.

“More than 418,000 people signed to put it on the ballot.” Signatures establish that a measure qualifies for the ballot. They do not establish that it is sound. Every measure on your ballot got there the same way. The question in front of voters is what each one would actually do.

10. Where does WSPTA’s position on IL26-001 come from?

Every year, delegates from local PTAs and councils across the state meet at a legislative assembly to vote on and amend member-submitted resolutions, legislative principles, and legislative issues. WSPTA’s entire advocacy platform is member submitted and member adopted.

The Board’s opposition to IL26-001 applies resolutions our members have already adopted.

Part 2: Initiative IL26-638 ↑

11. What is IL26-638?

IL26-638 is a citizens’ initiative on the November 2026 ballot. It would bar students it calls “biologically male” from competing in interscholastic sports designated for girls and would require every student who wants to compete in those sports to obtain a signed statement from a health care provider verifying their sex. No comparable requirement would apply to any student seeking to play a boys’ sport. The burden falls on girls alone.

It works by writing an exception into Washington’s law requiring equal opportunity in school athletics regardless of sex. Under the initiative, that guarantee would apply “except as provided” by the new verification requirement.

WSPTA opposes IL26-638 because of what it would require. The initiative permits three verification methods — genetic testing, testosterone measurement, or an examination of reproductive anatomy — and because the first two are expensive and unlikely to be covered by insurance for this purpose, an examination of reproductive anatomy is the most accessible pathway for most families. Nothing like this happens today, none of it is medically necessary to play a sport, and it would be asked only of girls. Read the full analysis in WSPTA’s position statement on IL26-638.

Why we’re quoting the ballot language word for word. The initiative gives itself the name “defending equity in interscholastic sports act,” and you may see that name in campaign materials. It will not appear on your ballot. What you will see is the certified ballot title, drafted by the Attorney General’s office. We reproduce it exactly, with nothing paraphrased or shortened, so that when you open your ballot, you recognize the measure immediately.

Here is the ballot title, which appears on the ballot itself:

“Initiative Measure No. IL26-638 concerns participation in athletics at K-12 schools. This measure would prohibit students it defines as ‘biologically male’ from competing in certain school athletic activities intended for female students only. It would require verification of biological sex by students’ healthcare providers.”

Here is the ballot measure summary, which appears in the voters’ pamphlet:

“This measure would require policies prohibiting students it defines as ‘biologically male’ from competing with or against female students in certain interschool athletic activities that are intended for female students only. Students who choose to participate in such activities must provide a statement from the student’s healthcare provider verifying the student’s biological sex, based on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels. These requirements would apply to individual or team athletic competitions.”

What a NO vote does. A NO vote on IL26-638 leaves Washington’s current sex-equity-in-athletics law in place. No student would face a new verification requirement to play school sports.

12. What exactly would IL26-638 require?

Who it applies to. Any student who wants to compete in an interscholastic athletic activity that is intended for female students only and that maintains separate classifications for male and female students. This covers both individual and team competitions. It does not reach students seeking to play boys’ sports, co-ed activities, or sports without separate male and female classifications.

What the student must provide. A statement signed by the student’s personal health care provider verifying the student’s biological sex, submitted as part of the required routine sports physical examination.

How the provider may verify. By relying on one or more of three things: the student’s reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels. The initiative sets no threshold for any of them and does not say what result makes a student male or female. See question 15.

How often. The initiative ties the requirement to the routine sports physical rather than setting its own schedule and contains no language stating that a verification carries forward. The requirement is therefore recurring rather than one-time.

Who would have to implement it. School district boards of directors, the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA), and any other organization governing interschool athletics. Districts and the WIAA would need to adopt new policies to comply.

13. Why does WSPTA oppose IL26-638?

WSPTA supports girls’ sports. Equitable access to school activities is a long-standing member position, and Washington’s sex-equity law exists because girls were once shut out of school athletics entirely. The question is not whether girls’ sports are worth protecting. It is whether this measure protects them.

It does not. IL26-638 would make every girl in Washington who wants to compete in a female-only interscholastic sport prove her sex to a doctor, on a recurring basis, in order to play. WSPTA opposes it because it is:

Discriminatory by its own text. It writes a one-directional exception into Washington’s sex-equity-in-athletics statute, requiring only students who seek to play girls’ sports to verify their sex, and is drafted too imprecisely to apply consistently.
Harmful. It makes a clinically unnecessary intimate examination the practical price of playing for many girls and forces disclosures that endanger transgender and gender-nonconforming students.
Built on a false premise. The initiative claims existing sports physicals already verify a student’s sex. The state’s own athletic-eligibility forms do not.
Below the standard of care. A routine sports physical does not assess a student’s sex; the initiative would instead require diagnostic procedures on healthy children for a non-medical purpose, and the testosterone test it permits cannot reliably do what the statute asks.
Disproportionate. About ten transgender athletes are known among the more than 200,000 students who compete statewide — roughly one in 20,000 — yet the measure would require every girl in Washington who seeks to compete in a female-only interscholastic sport to undergo recurring, non-medically necessary verification in order to play.

Questions 14 through 18 go into more detail. Read the full analysis in WSPTA’s position statement on IL26-638.

14. Who would be affected, and what would it cost?

Who would need verification. Every student who wants to compete in a female-only interscholastic sport, not only transgender students. Transgender girls would be excluded from participation outright. Students seeking to play boys’ sports would face no comparable requirement.

What it would cost families. Because the verifying statement must come from a “personal health care provider,” the measure may push families off the school-based physicals many depend on — including the group physicals some districts arrange for students without a regular doctor — and onto outside providers. That shifts a recurring cost onto families and weighs hardest on those with the least access to care.

Two of the three permitted methods, genetic testing and testosterone measurement, are expensive and unlikely to be covered by insurance for this purpose, since neither is clinically indicated. That makes an examination of reproductive anatomy the most accessible pathway for most families.

The burden falls hardest on rural, uninsured, and lower-income families, and on families without an established relationship with a healthcare provider — who face the added problem that the measure never says what qualifies someone as a student’s “personal health care provider.”

What it would cost students. For many girls, the practical price of playing would be an intimate examination that is not medically necessary and that no student is asked to undergo today. The resulting statement goes to the school rather than staying in the provider’s file, so information about a student’s body would be held in school records — a disclosure the current sports physical process is specifically designed to avoid. For transgender and gender-nonconforming students, who already face elevated risks of harassment and distress, that forced disclosure carries real danger.

15. The measure never defines “biologically male.” Why does that matter?

The ballot summary says the measure would prohibit “students it defines as ‘biologically male.'” That phrase describes the term the initiative uses. It does not mean the initiative supplies a definition. It does not.

The measure bars “biologically male students” without ever defining the phrase and requires verification of “biological sex” without defining that either. It lists three things a provider may rely on — reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels — but sets no threshold for any of them and states no rule for what result makes a student male or female. It permits verification relying on only one of the three, so a provider may certify on a single measure, including the least reliable one. Two of the three could return conflicting results for the same student, and the initiative does not say which governs.

The preamble compounds the imprecision by using three different terms as though they were interchangeable: “sex assigned at birth,” “biological sex,” and “gender assigned at birth.”

The drafters were capable of defining terms when they chose to. The measure takes care to define “knowingly.” It does not define the term the entire law turns on.

What that means in practice. A provider asked to certify a healthy teenager’s “biological sex” has no statutory standard to apply. Two providers could reach different conclusions about the same student and both be following the law. A school receiving the statement has no basis for questioning it and no guidance if a challenge arises. Districts would be left to write policy around a term the law leaves blank, and to defend that policy if it is contested.

The ambiguity also reaches students no one is asking questions about. A girl with naturally elevated testosterone — from polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome for example, which is common among adolescents — could fail a testosterone-based verification even though her sex is not in question. The initiative sets no threshold, offers no process for a student in that position, and provides no way to appeal.

A law this imprecise is not a safeguard. It is a liability — for students, for the providers asked to certify something the statute never defines, and for the districts that have to apply it consistently.

16. Doesn’t sex verification already happen in sports physicals?

No. This is the initiative’s central factual claim, and it is not accurate.

The measure’s own preamble asserts that existing law and district policies require a physical examination that includes documentation of the student’s sex assigned at birth, and that this provides a “reliable and medically verified basis” for determining biological sex. The Washington Interscholastic Activities Association’s own preparticipation physical evaluation forms contradict that.

The WIAA process produces three forms. Only the Medical Eligibility Form is submitted to the school, and it contains no sex or gender field — only whether the student is medically eligible, plus emergency contacts and allergy information. The clinician’s examination form, which stays in the provider’s file, records height, weight, blood pressure, vision, and a review of body systems, with no field for sex. Sex appears only on the health history form that a student and parent complete before the visit and that is never sent to the school — a self-report, not a verified clinical finding.

The existing process is designed so that medical details stay in the doctor’s office. IL26-638 would require a new, separate, provider-signed document that does go to the school. That is not a minor addition to an existing workflow. It is a different document, serving a different purpose, requiring a separate clinical act, flowing to a different recipient.

And it would set up a process not built to protect it. Today’s eligibility forms are designed to carry almost no medical detail, so schools handle them as a matter of routine and not as privately protected information. The initiative creates that document but says nothing about who may see it, how it must be stored, or who is accountable if it is mishandled.

Why this matters. The claim that verification already happens is how supporters describe the measure as a small administrative change rather than a new requirement. If existing physicals already verified sex, adding a signature line would be a modest step.

17. Are the three verification methods standard medical practice?

No. None of the three is part of a routine sports physical, and none is performed on a healthy child absent a clinical reason.

Examination of reproductive anatomy. A genital examination is not part of a sports physical and is not performed on healthy children as a screening. It is a diagnostic procedure, done when something indicates a need for it.

Testosterone measurement. The common lab test for testosterone is not accurate enough in adolescents to reliably tell male and female levels apart — a limitation documented in peer-reviewed research. Results in children also vary with time of day, body weight, stage of puberty, medications, and other conditions. And the initiative never says what level counts, so a provider is asked to measure against a standard the law does not set.

Genetic testing. Chromosomal analysis is not part of a standard examination and is not performed unless clinically indicated.

Two consequences follow. Because none of these is clinically indicated for sports eligibility, insurance is unlikely to cover them — which is what makes the anatomy examination the most accessible option for most families, as question 14 describes. And because the initiative writes these three methods into statute, they stay fixed even as clinical practice advances.

The initiative would require diagnostic procedures on healthy children for a non-medical purpose, using a test the statute names but does not calibrate. That falls below the standard of care.

18. Isn’t this just about a small number of transgender athletes?

No. IL26-638 would apply to every student who wants to compete in a girls’ interscholastic sport in Washington — not only to transgender students. Each of them would need a provider’s signed statement, on a recurring basis, before she could play.

That is what makes the measure disproportionate. The population it is aimed at is very small: the WIAA has said it is aware of roughly ten transgender athletes among the more than 200,000 students who compete in interscholastic sports statewide. Because schools neither track nor verify gender identity, these counts reflect only students known to officials. A requirement this sweeping cannot be justified by a concern this small.

19. Where does WSPTA’s position on IL26-638 come from?

The Board’s opposition to IL26-638 applies resolutions our members have already adopted.

Part 3: Taking a Position ↑

20. Can a tax-exempt organization take a position on a ballot measure?

Yes, organizations with tax exemptions under section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) are permitted to take positions on ballot measures, and educating members on ballot measures can further the PTA mission. Local PTAs and councils are encouraged to take positions and educate their members.

Ballot measure work does count as lobbying under IRS rules, which limit lobbying to an insubstantial part of a 501(c)(3)’s activities. If your PTA is a 501(c)(3) and plans to spend money on this effort, check the guidance linked below first.

For details, see Votes to Endorse and/or Support Ballot Measures.

21. Can PTAs support or oppose candidates?

No. A PTA may take a position on an initiative. It may not take a position on a candidate.

Under IRS rules, a 501(c)(3) cannot support or oppose a candidate for public office. WSPTA’s rule is broader and covers every PTA regardless of tax status. Article 2(E) of the WSPTA Uniform Bylaws states: “WSPTA and its constituent organizations or members in their official capacities may not, directly or indirectly, participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office.”

In practice: no contributions, no statements for or against a candidate, and no use of PTA board or membership lists to support or oppose a candidate. Individual PTA leaders may endorse candidates personally, but must not mention PTA in the endorsement, including on social media.

22. What gives the WSPTA Board of Directors authority to take a position on ballot measures?

The member-adopted WSPTA Uniform Bylaws Article 7, Section 6E1 allows the Board to adopt positions between meetings of delegates:

“The WSPTA board of directors shall have full power and authority over the affairs of WSPTA between meetings of delegates except as otherwise provided in these bylaws. The board of directors: 1. May adopt legislative positions not part of the adopted legislative program.”

WSPTA Policy 5.3.2 sets out the options available to the Board on statewide initiatives: endorse or oppose, each with or without active involvement. The Board voted unanimously to oppose both initiatives, with active involvement.

Those positions apply resolutions that WSPTA members have already adopted. See questions 10 and 19.

23. Can our PTA adopt the WSPTA position? How should we decide?

Yes. Your PTA or council can adopt the WSPTA position.

Best practice is a membership vote. Your board is accountable to your members, so ballot measure decisions are best made by the members themselves. Timing is usually manageable: regular board and membership meetings require ten days’ notice, and a special board meeting requires five. Ballots are mailed in mid-October, so a membership meeting in September or early October may work for most PTAs if you begin scheduling now.

Your board may take the vote instead if a membership meeting is not feasible. If it does, inform your members of the decision. Any member who objects may request that the item be placed on the agenda for a membership meeting.

Spending money requires a membership vote. See question 24.

Sample motion language and step-by-step guidance are in Votes to Endorse and/or Support Ballot Measures. The sample motion is already written to cover a NO vote.

24. What’s the difference between opposing a measure and actively campaigning against it?

They are two separate decisions, and they take two separate votes.

Taking a position — “endorsing,” in WSPTA’s guidance, which covers endorsing either a YES or a NO vote — means your PTA goes on record and tells members what it recommends. Either the board or the membership may take this vote, with a membership vote being best practice.

Committing resources — “supporting” — means your PTA puts time, money, or materials behind that position. If money is involved, the members must vote, and the PTA needs a member-approved budget line item for it.

A vote to oppose an initiative does not by itself authorize spending. If your PTA wants to contribute funds, that is a separate motion at a membership meeting.

25. Can our PTA take a position opposite to WSPTA’s?

No. When a local PTA or council affiliates with PTA, it agrees to adhere to the bylaws of both National PTA and WSPTA, which prohibit adopting positions in opposition to those adopted by National PTA or WSPTA.

Your PTA may remain neutral and choose not to engage on these initiatives. Individual members and leaders are free to hold and express their own views. The restriction applies to positions taken in the name of the PTA.

26. What can we do once we’ve adopted a position?

Share persuasive information through any PTA channel:

PTA email lists and newsletters
PTA social media accounts
PTA meetings and coffee chats
Non-district websites
Presentations at local PTA or council meetings
Yard signs, letters to the editor, doorbelling, phone banking

You do not need to write your own materials. This page and the two board position statements are yours to share, quote, and link. Keep an eye out for further resources from WSPTA around member engagement and education in the near future.

Councils have a particular role: schedule presentations at local PTA meetings, share resources with local PTA leaders, and help them plan their own votes with enough lead time.

Whether or not your PTA took a position, you may always encourage people to register and vote.

27. What can’t we do?

Do not use school or district resources to persuade. This is the rule most likely to cause a problem, and it is a matter of state law (RCW 42.17A.555) as well as PTA policy. A PTA may not promote a ballot measure position on:

a district-sponsored website
a school-sponsored newsletter
kid mail or backpack mail
a school reader board
a school or district event
a school email address, or a school-affiliated social media account administered by staff

Only factual information may be shared using district resources. On a school or district channel you may describe what is on the ballot; you may not ask anyone to vote a particular way. If you are unsure whether a channel counts as a district resource, ask your principal or district communications office before you send. Your PTA may still use school property for meetings if it has a signed facility use agreement.

Do not endorse or oppose candidates. See question 21.

Do not release PTA membership lists to outside interests, including campaigns.

28. Is this a partisan position?

No. WSPTA is nonpartisan, works with legislators across the political spectrum, and takes no position on candidates or parties.

These positions rest on three things: the text of each initiative, medical and legal evidence, and resolutions WSPTA members adopted at a legislative assembly. WSPTA has not joined any campaign or coalition on these measures and reached its conclusions independently. See question 29.

WSPTA supports safe and inclusive school environments, equitable access to school activities, evidence-based health care, protection of student privacy, and strong family engagement in education. Both initiatives conflict with those commitments as WSPTA’s members have defined them.

29. Is WSPTA working with other campaigns?

Several organizations are campaigning on IL26-001 and IL26-638. WSPTA is not affiliated with other campaigns and has not joined any coalition on these measures. WSPTA reached its positions independently, based on each initiative’s own text, published clinical and laboratory evidence, and resolutions that WSPTA members have adopted.

30. What is WSPTA asking PTAs and members to do?

Vote NO on IL26-001 and NO on IL26-638. WSPTA encourages all 80,000+ of our members to vote no on both.

For local PTAs and councils, we suggest:

Schedule a vote. See question 23 for how. Ballots are mailed in mid-October, so start now.
Tell your members what your PTA decided and why.
Share this page and the two position statements through your PTA’s channels. Questions 26 and 27 cover what’s allowed and what isn’t.
Encourage everyone to register and vote, whatever your PTA decided.

Questions? Contact your council or region advocacy chair, or the WSPTA advocacy director at ptaadvocacydir@wastatepta.org.

WSPTA Login