# data[].attributes.body
This December I will complete my Masters of Education in Guidance and Counseling.  I hope to attain a school counseling position at the secondary level, preferably high school.  I currently teach at a Title 1 campus and I feel connected to this community and would love to serve the students and parents in a different capacity, playing a bigger role in transitioning them to their post-secondary plans.

# data[].attributes.body
In my research of the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) website, one of the legal issues addressed the an act that was passed into law recently, Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V). This act would take effect July 2019 and would require school districts to revamp their CTE programs. This would affect counselors when helping students with their post-secondary planning and ensuring they are prepared for employment after graduation.
Another issue discussed was the introduction of the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Act. It would provide federal grants to lower the school counselor to student ratio. This act would increase the availability of the grant so more districts could improve the mental health and wellness of their students. This topic affects counselors because a student's mental wellbeing is just as important as their academic success.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Legislative Affairs | American School Counselor Association (ASCA)

# data[].attributes.body
After exploring the National Education Association (NEA) website, several issues were discussed regarding immigrant students and how to deal with educating students and their families about their rights if immigration agents question them. Some schools were declaring themselves as safe havens to protect their students. As counselors, knowing the legal challenges that certain special populations face and help disseminate community resources for legal help.
Another popular topic discussed was gun violence. Various solutions are proposed to limit gun access, promote student mental health, and refusal to arm teachers. This issue impacts school's safety and highlights the need for mental health programs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Meet activist Anna Jones and Dr. Lenworth Gunther, "Godfather" to a generation of civil rights activists.

# data[].attributes.body
I found this article after an thorough internet search: "The Trump administration's latest anti-transgender action, explained" by German Lopez. This article explores how Trump's administration is violating trans rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Donald Trump’s administration is working on yet another anti-LGBTQ policy, the New York Times reported over the weekend.

According to Erica Green, Katie Benner, and Robert Pear at the Times, Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is considering an interpretation of Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans sex discrimination in federally funded schools, that “would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with.” (This would defy the scientific and medical evidence embraced by major organizations like the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association.)

HHS is the primary agency working on the draft proposal, but other agencies, including the departments of Education, Justice, and Labor, are expected to adopt it as well should the administration move forward with the change. It’s not clear when that will be, although the Times reported that HHS “is preparing to formally present the new definition to the Justice Department before the end of the year.”

The proposal would effectively erase protections for trans people, who identify with a gender different from the one assigned to them at birth, from federal civil rights laws — ensuring that the laws do not prohibit discrimination against trans people in any setting, including the workplace, housing, schools, and health care.

HHS has refused to comment on “alleged leaked documents,” CNN reported. Civil rights groups and LGBTQ advocacy organizations, meanwhile, have suggested that they will take the administration to court should it move forward with the change.

The move would be far from the first time that the Trump administration has taken action that hurts LGBTQ people. For much of the past couple of years, the administration has been mired in court battles over its attempts to ban transgender people from the military after the Obama administration lifted the original ban. And different parts of the Trump administration have already taken steps to prevent federal civil rights protections from applying to trans and gay people.

The anti-LGBTQ agenda stands in sharp contrast with Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail. The then-candidate held up a Pride flag at a campaign event, and he vowed to work for “L, G, B, T … Q” people at the 2016 Republican convention. Instead, Trump’s administration has done a lot to undermine LGBTQ — and particularly trans — rights.

The anti-transgender proposal hits on a broader legal debate

One reason the Trump administration’s latest proposal is even possible: Under federal and most states’ laws, discrimination against LGBTQ people, based on sexual orientation and gender identity, is not explicitly prohibited. The exclusion of LGBTQ people is a big hole in civil rights laws, which generally ban discrimination based on race, sex, and religion, among other protected categories.

This means that it’s not explicitly illegal for someone to be fired from a job, evicted from a home, or kicked out of a business just because an employer, landlord, or business owner doesn’t approve of the person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

But civil rights advocates have long argued that federal law should already shield LGBTQ people from discrimination because, they say, bans on discrimination on the basis of sex should also bar discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

According to advocates, discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity is fundamentally rooted in prohibited sex-based expectations. For example, if someone discriminates against a gay man, that’s largely based on the expectation that a man should only love or have sex with a woman — a belief built on the idea of what a person of a certain sex should be like.

Similarly, if someone discriminates against a trans woman, that’s largely based on the expectation that a person designated male at birth should identify as a man — again, a belief built on the idea of what a person of a certain sex assigned at birth should be like.

On the other side, opponents argue that LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections aren’t included in existing federal civil rights laws, because the authors of federal civil rights laws never believed or intended that bans on sex discrimination also ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. (This is the Trump administration’s position.)

LGBTQ advocates, citing legal precedent, say that what the original laws’ authors believe or intended is irrelevant. Joshua Block, an attorney with the ACLU LGBT and HIV Project, cited a 1998 Supreme Court case, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services Inc., in which the Court unanimously agreed that bans on sex discrimination prohibit same-sex sexual harassment. Sexual harassment between people of the same sex was not something the authors of federal civil rights laws considered, but it’s something, the Supreme Court said, that a plain reading of the law protects.

“Oncale says that’s irrelevant whether [Congress] contemplated it,” Block previously told me. “This is literal sex discrimination. Whether or not that’s what Congress was focused on doesn’t make it any less a type of discrimination covered by the statute.”

The Obama administration generally embraced this argument for trans people, interpreting federal civil rights protections — including those that ban discrimination in the workplace, housing, education, and health care — to apply to trans people, although not gay people. Most controversially, the administration took this to apply to school bathrooms and locker rooms, releasing a guidance that asked federally funded schools to let trans students use the facility that corresponded with their gender identity instead of the gender assigned to them at birth.

Several courts have also accepted this interpretation of federal law, though the US Supreme Court has yet to validate it.

The Trump administration’s move, however, would declare that federal sex discrimination bans do not cover trans people. This would not only flip the Obama administration’s move to protect trans people but would also attempt to apply the anti-trans interpretation across the entire federal government from this point forward. If allowed by the courts, that would ensure that future implementation of federal civil rights laws leaves trans people behind.

It would, however, be far from the first anti-LGBTQ step the Trump administration has taken.

The Trump administration’s sweeping anti-LGBTQ agenda

The Trump administration has adopted a host of anti-LGBTQ actions over much of the past couple of years. Here are some of the major examples:

Trump tried to reinstate a ban on trans people joining and openly serving in the military. The Obama administration in 2016 announced plans to reverse the ban, with plans for full implementation in 2017. But Trump, in a series of tweets last July, announced he would bring back the ban, arguing that trans-related health care is expensive. (Research from the RAND Corporation indicates that it would make up “a 0.04- to 0.13-percent increase in active-component health care expenditures.”) So far, Trump’s ban has been stymied by the courts — and trans people are now allowed to openly enlist and serve.

The Trump administration rescinded a nonbinding Obama-era guidance that told K-12 schools that receive federal funding that trans students are protected under federal civil rights law and, therefore, schools should respect trans students’ rights, including their right to use bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity. The Trump administration took back the guidance altogether, arguing trans students aren’t protected under federal civil rights law.

Trump’s Justice Department also rescinded another Obama-era memo that said trans workers are protected under civil rights law. This has enabled the federal government, including its army of attorneys, to now argue in court that anti-trans discrimination isn’t illegal under federal law. The courts are ultimately independent of the Trump administration, but the federal government can play a big role in legal arguments by throwing its people and resources behind a case.

At every opportunity, the Trump administration has sided with anti-LGBTQ discrimination in the courts — including the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, another about whether federal law prohibited an employer from firing a skydiving instructor over his sexual orientation, and a legal battle over whether federal law prohibits discrimination against trans people in health care.

The Trump administration sent out a “religious liberty” guidance to federal agencies, essentially asking them to respect “religious-liberty protections” in all of the federal government’s work. It’s unclear what kind of impact the guidance will have, but LGBTQ organizations worry that it will be used to justify discrimination against LGBTQ people within the federal government and its work.

Trump has filled his administration with people vehemently opposed to LGBTQ rights, including Vice President Mike Pence, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Roger Severino, who directs the Office for Civil Rights at HHS. These people are major players in shaping all sorts of federal policy.

The administration’s anti-LGBTQ agenda even extends to more minor issues, such as Trump’s refusal to acknowledge LGBTQ Pride Month.

All of the moves amount to a comprehensive agenda — one that, short of actual legislation, has taken nearly every step possible to undermine the rights of LGBTQ people.

Trump suggested he would be LGBTQ-friendly. He isn’t.

On the campaign trail, Trump said he would be different — the first Republican president to embrace LGBTQ people. He posed with the Pride flag and acknowledged “L, G, B, T … Q” people. He initially defended the right of Caitlyn Jenner, a transgender woman, to use the bathroom that aligns with her gender identity. He tweeted, in reference to a mass shooting at a gay club in Orlando, Florida, “Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.”

There were warning signs, though. Trump had surrounded himself with people, like Pence and Sessions, who have long histories of opposition to LGBTQ people. And when the Obama administration put out a guidance protecting trans people in federally funded schools (including in bathrooms and locker rooms), Trump vowed to do away with the guidance.

So the bulk of LGBTQ advocates never fell for the nice-sounding rhetoric.

As president, Trump has proven the skepticism right, establishing the types of policies one would expect from a typical anti-LGBTQ Republican president. Maybe that reflects his own opinions. Or maybe it reflects the views of the people he’s surrounded himself with in his administration.

Whatever the cause, the result is Trump’s presidency and administration have now adopted a broad anti-LGBTQ agenda — one that has gone after LGBTQ workers, students, troops, and patients. And more than showing Trump’s dishonesty, this agenda potentially threatens the rights of millions of LGBTQ Americans.

“People debate, ‘Does he personally like or dislike LGBT people?’ That’s irrelevant,” James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s LGBT and HIV Project, previously told me, reflecting on the administration’s first year. “He has put in place people who have firmly anti-LGBT agendas, and he’s not just enabled but endorsed those agendas himself. He’s been a train wreck for LGBT people nationwide.”

With the latest reports, the Trump administration’s second year is looking to be just as bad for LGBTQ Americans.

# data[].attributes.body
During my search on the Angelo State University's library, I found the article "Potty Politics: G.G. Ex Rel. Grimm V. Gloucester County School Board, Title IX, and the challenges faced by transgender students under the Trump administration and beyond" by Nathan Heffernan.  This article defines the role of Title IX and transgender students. All arguments are explored when discussing this trending topic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angelo State University - Library Online Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unauthorized use is prohibited; Usage may be subject to security testing and monitoring; Misuse is subject to criminal prosecution; No expectation of privacy except as otherwise provided by applicable privacy laws.

# data[].attributes.body
Title IX is a federal law that protects against a person being discriminated because of their sex. They cannot be refused benefits, participation of a activity, or an education because of their sex.  During Obama's administration, transgendered people were allowed to use the bathroom with the gender they identified with.  While Title IX protects this, Supreme Court has not ruled on it (Lopez, 2018).   Now, the gender definition in Title IX is being considered for a change. Trump's administration is proposing that gender only be defined as male or female, therefore excluding trans people. This would ultimately mean that trans people would not be protected when it comes to equal rights.

If the Title IX definition gets revised, then this would have a big impact in the K-12 school setting. Schools currently are implementing inclusion programs that promote LGBTQ awareness to prevent harassment and ensure their privacy is protected.  This issue could exacerbate bullying and unwanted attention for transgendered students. All students deserve to feel safe and protected at school, and with this potential change in Title IX, and progress made with he trans student population will more likely suffer.

Lopez, G. (2018, October 22). The Trump administration's latest anti-transgender action, explained. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/22/18007978/trump-administration-lgbtq-transgender-discrimination-civil-rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Through my research, I have selected the trending topic of the Department of Health and Human Services' consideration of excluding the transgender identity from the Title IX definition of gender. This would have major implications to not only the departments of justice and labor, but education as well.

# data[].attributes.body
As I explored Education Dive, several articles revolved around Trump's administration announcement to remove Title IX protection for transgender students. This would impact K-12 schools and higher education. For example, bathroom accommodations and college admissions have been modified to accommodate transgender students. If a narrowed legal definition is created for gender, then the implications would widely affect educational programs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dive Brief:

The Department of Health and Human Services is preparing a narrow legal definition under Title IX of gender as determined solely by someone's genitalia at birth that would eliminate the recognition of transgender students, according to a draft memo obtained by The New York Times .

The memo argued for a definition of gender based on "a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable," and stipulated a birth certificate or genetic testing would serve as proof of sex.

The draft's definition would be the largest move yet to roll back Obama-era federal protections that recognize 1.4 million Americans who identify as transgender.

Dive Insight:

College administrators have faced uncertainty over how aggressively the Trump administration would attempt to change hotly contested protections for transgender students.

Since Secretary Betsy DeVos took the helm of the Education Department, she rescinded the Obama administration's 2016 guidance that expanded investigations of gender discrimination to include allegations of transgender bias and stated institutions must allow LGBTQ students to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity. The Education Department clarified after the guidance was rescinded that investigators would still look into some of transgender students' complaints that fell under Title IX protections against sex discrimination, though it would no longer hear cases about bathroom accommodations.

Some colleges have moved to be inclusive of trans students in the wake of the rollbacks. All-women's institution Spelman College, for example, said last year it would accept transgender female students.

Some colleges have not, however, raising concern among LGBTQ advocates that the new definition could open the door for widespread discrimination. Transgender students will still be able to sue colleges in discrimination cases, though the draft memo would essentially eliminate the possibility they could turn to the government for assistance, a source told Inside Higher Ed.

The new policies could be presented to the Justice Department by the end of December, after which they could be implemented in Title IX statutes, which bans discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education programs and covers areas such as student housing, athletics and admissions, the Times reported. LGBTQ advocates have little confidence the department would stop the definition from going forward due to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' previous stances on transgender protections.

Top image credit: White House

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump administration could remove Title IX protections for transgender students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Department of Health and Human Services is preparing a narrow legal definition under Title IX of gender as determined solely by someone's genitalia at birth that would eliminate the recognition of transgender students, according to a draft memo obtained by The New York Times .

# data[].attributes.body
As I was reading through the different articles on Education Week, this article stood out because of the recent Administration's plan to redefine gender excluding transgender identity. This article clearly highlights the clash between state legislation and federal law. Federal judges have used Title IX and the equal protection clause of the US Constitution to side with transgender students. Schools have a duty to protect all students and ensure their safety and privacy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The U.S. Department of Education's office for civil rights will investigate whether a Georgia school district created a "hostile environment for girls" when it implemented a policy that allows transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identities.

The investigation comes after a parent claimed their daughter was sexually assaulted in a girls' restroom at a Decatur City elementary school "by a male student who identified as gender fluid," according to a Sept. 14 letter from the federal agency to an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian organization that has opposed transgender student policies and helped file the Georgia complaint.

The office for civil rights will investigate both the district's policy and how officials handled the family's sexual assault complaint.

The district responded in a statement that said it is "committed to supporting all students."

"We are aware of the unfounded allegations made by the Alliance Defending Freedom," the statement said. "We fully disagree with their characterization of the situation and are addressing it with the Office of Civil Rights."

Hostile and Unsafe?

If the complaint is found to be valid, the investigation could trigger a dramatic shift for how transgender students are treated in public schools and set the stage for legal battles between the federal government-which currently takes no position on transgender student rights-and states that identify gender identity as a protected class in their own laws and policies.

A growing number of states have such nondiscrimination laws, which require schools to allow transgender students to use the restrooms and locker rooms of their choice. At issue in the complaint: Do such policies violate Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in schools, by creating a hostile and unsafe environment for girls?

The office for civil rights has some discretion in what complaints it investigates, taking several steps to determine if the complaint falls under applicable civil rights laws. An investigation does not imply that the agency has determined the complaint has merit, the letter said.

One of U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos' first official actions was to rescind Obama-era guidance, issued in 2016, that said public schools must allow transgender students to use the restrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity, or risk a federal civil rights investigation. Citing growing court precedent, that guidance argued that Title IX applies to gender identity, rather than sex. In rescinding the guidance, DeVos and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions took no position on the issue, leaving it to states and districts to interpret federal law.

Advocates for transgender students argue that allowing them access to school facilities that match their gender identity is an issue of basic dignity. In state-level hearings over possible school restrictions, mothers of some transgender students said their children had grown dehydrated when they refused to drink water at school to avoid the need to use restrooms where they felt unsafe.

Several federal judges have sided with transgender students in lawsuits over the issue, citing Title IX and the equal protection clause to the U.S. Constitution.

But opponents of providing such access argue that it violates the privacy rights of other students and creates potential safety risks if, for example, boys use them as an excuse to use girls' facilities.

"This situation was both deeply tragic and avoidable," Alliance Defending Freedom Attorney Christiana Holcomb said in a statement.

"Schools have a duty to protect the privacy and safety of all students and Decatur Schools clearly failed this young girl. The current approach that many schools are taking of passing these transgender bathroom policies isn't working; they fail to provide basic privacy or ensure the safety of all students."

Advocates for transgender students pushed back. Schools have accommodated transgender students without problems for years, they said.

"Every allegation of sexual assault must be taken seriously, and each deserves a full, thorough investigation that respects the rights and privacy of survivors," the National Center for Transgender Equality said in a statement. "We are deeply concerned, however, that the Department of Education will inject politics and ideology into its investigation of the school's handling of this incident," the center's statement said. "We know that policies affirming the rights of transgender students do not increase the safety risks for any child."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Feds Probing Transgender Policy, Alleged Assault

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Department of Education's office for civil rights will investigate whether a Georgia school district created a "hostile environment for girls" when it implemented a policy that allows transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identities.