Elections
Supporters say I-001 restores parental rights. Opponents say it removes important student protections. Here’s what voters are actually deciding.
Washington voters will decide Initiative IL26-001 on Nov. 3, one of three statewide initiatives appearing on this year’s ballot.
I-001 is an effort to restore key provisions of the parental-rights law enacted through Initiative 2081 in 2024. That law passed the Legislature with strong bipartisan support, but in 2025, lawmakers removed several of its strongest provisions. In response, a record-breaking number of Washington voters, more than 500,000, signed petitions to put I-001 before the Legislature and restore those protections.
The sharpest disagreements involve medical and counseling records, student confidentiality, protections for children in unsafe homes, and when schools must notify parents.
What Does YES or NO Mean?
YES: Approves I-001 and largely restores the parental-rights provisions from the Parental Rights initiative enacted in 2024.
NO: Rejects I-001 and leaves the parental-rights law as amended by the Legislature in 2025.
**Importantly, a NO vote would not eliminate parental rights. However, it would retain the more limited parental-rights framework created by the Legislature’s 2025 amendments. Many parental rights remain in state and federal law. The question is which version of Washington’s parental-rights statute should remain in effect.
YES: Approves I-001 and largely restores the parental-rights provisions from the Parental Rights initiative enacted in 2024.
NO: Rejects I-001 and leaves the parental-rights law as amended by the Legislature in 2025.
**Importantly, a NO vote would not eliminate parental rights. However, it would retain the more limited parental-rights framework created by the Legislature’s 2025 amendments. Many parental rights remain in state and federal law. The question is which version of Washington’s parental-rights statute should remain in effect.
Where Sides Disagree
Both sides have accused the other of misrepresenting what the initiative does. So rather than sort through the rhetoric, The Highline Journal looked at the major points of disagreement and compared them with the measure itself.
| SUPPORTERS SAY | OPPONENTS SAY | WHAT THE MEASURE DOES |
|---|---|---|
| School records: Parents shouldn't wait six weeks to get records about their own children. | Shorter deadlines and expanded requirements could create additional administrative and legal burdens for schools. | Changes the deadline for requested student records from 45 days to 10 business days. |
| Medical & counseling records: Parents responsible for their children's health should have access to school-maintained medical and counseling records. | Some students may avoid seeking counseling or other help if sensitive information could be disclosed to parents. | Specifically includes medical, health and mental-health counseling records among records parents may inspect, subject to legal restrictions and exceptions. |
| Unsafe homes: Existing law still protects children from abusive parents. | I-001's exception is narrower than protections under current law and could leave some vulnerable students exposed. | Contains an exception involving medical, health and mental-health counseling records when a parent is the subject of a child-abuse or neglect investigation. The sides disagree over whether that protection goes far enough. |
| Medical services: Parents should know when schools provide or arrange medical services for their children. | Students retain legal confidentiality rights for certain health services, and broad notification requirements could create conflicts. | Restores parental-notification requirements involving certain medical services and follow-up care, while other state and federal laws continue to apply. |
| Law enforcement: Parents should be promptly notified when their child becomes involved with law enforcement. | Opponents say current law contains protections that would be changed or removed. | Changes the statutory requirements governing parental notification involving law enforcement. This is one area where the two sides sharply dispute the practical effect. |
| Surveys & classroom activities: Parents should have broader notice and opt-out rights involving sensitive material. | Many of these parental rights already exist elsewhere in law. | Restores some notice and opt-out provisions changed in 2025. Other parental rights already exist elsewhere in state or federal law. |
Educators and Education Groups Take Sides
Teachers and education groups are weighing in on I-001. Let’s Go Washington, which backs the initiative, released statements Sept. 22 from teachers who support it. The Washington Education Association, PTA representatives and school psychologists have also joined the debate, offering different perspectives on parental rights, student safety and schools’ responsibilities.
- Keith Holder, a Washington state teacher with more than 30 years of experience and a father, said: “If we say that schools need to communicate openly with parents, we cannot then create exceptions that allow schools to withhold significant information about a child from those same parents.”
- Ryan Defant, an Olympia teacher, said: “My colleagues and I were instructed how to withhold information from parents about their students.”
- Travis Reep, an Olympia teacher, union representative and father, said: “Parents shouldn’t have to wonder whether schools are telling them the truth and teachers shouldn’t be asked to keep families in the dark.”
I’m a Washington Teacher: WEA Doesn’t Speak for Me
A public school teacher speaking for himself on parental rights, girls’ sports, the income tax
Alesha Perkins and Travis Reep
- The Washington Education Association (WEA), which opposes I-001 and is helping finance the opposition campaign, says the measure would “Force educators to out LGBTQ+ students to parents, even if they worry that the child could be kicked out of their home or otherwise harmed.”
- The Washington State PTA, which also opposes I-001, says: “We support what this measure says it’s for. We oppose what its text actually does. Much of what it promises parents is already Washington law — and it strips out protections for students whose homes aren’t safe.”
- Amy Cannava, a Washington school psychologist, argued in a Sept. 24 opinion column that I-001 could discourage students from reporting abuse, discussing mental-health concerns or coming out as LGBTQ+. She also said it could put school counselors, psychologists and nurses in conflict with their professional ethics.
The Bottom Line
I-001 isn’t a vote on whether parents should have rights in Washington public schools. They already do.
The question is whether voters want to largely restore the parental-rights framework adopted in 2024 or retain the version amended by lawmakers in 2025.
Read It Yourself
Official initiative (I-001): Washington Secretary of State
Supporters: Let’s Go Washington
Opponents: Washington State PTA
LOOKING FOR CLARITY? SAVE THE DATE
Community Conversations: Ballot Issues
Tuesday, October 6 | 6:15–7:30 p.m.
RSVP for location: highlinegoodneighbors@gmail.com
Highline Good Neighbors will host a community discussion about state initiatives and the Highline School District bond and levy, featuring local elected officials and community leaders and an opportunity for the public to ask questions.
This is part of a five-story Highline Journal series examining the three statewide initiatives and the Highline School District bond and technology levy. Each story will explain what the measure does, what YES and NO mean, and the principal arguments from supporters and opponents.
Members Discussion
Highline Journal Comment Guidelines
We believe thoughtful conversation helps communities flourish. We welcome respectful, on-topic comments that engage ideas, not individuals. Personal attacks, harassment, hateful comments, directed profanity, false claims, spam, or sharing private information aren't allowed. Comments aren't edited and may be removed if they violate these guidelines.