Colorado public schools would be required to use a student’s “preferred name” under a proposal that would also label the refusal to do so “discriminatory.”

The bill is among several measures that deal with identity and gender. Another bill aims to make it easier for individuals convicted of a felony to change their legal change to conform with their gender identity.

Proponents argue that socially affirming transgender youth’s identities increase their school performance, while critics said it’s yet another attack on parents’ rights.

If passed, HB 24-1039 would require public and charter schools beginning in July next year to use a student’s preferred name, regardless of whether it is their legal name, for school documents, such as rosters, yearbooks and identification cards. 

The bill does not specify the penalty for schools that refuse to comply with its provisions, but critics said it would open them up to legal liabilities. 

The legislation — sponsored by Rep. Stephanie Vigil, D-Colorado Springs and Democratic Sens. Faith Winter of Westminster and Janice Marchman of Loveland — also calls for the creation of a nine-member task force within the Department of Education to examine school policies and recommend guidelines to implement the measure’s provisions.     

As drafted, the task force does not include any parent. 

For its members, the task force would have superintendents, a Department of Education representative, school counselors, and educators from the primary and secondary levels. The group must also have at least one of the superintendents and one of the counselors come from a rural district.

The bill mandates the task force to submit recommendations by Jan. 1, 2025. 

“Trans youth in schools deserve a clear path to change their names in the school system, and currently schools in rural areas are less likely to have an administrative process for this,” said Marchman. “The rates of graduation and college continuation, as well as test results increase significantly for trans and gender expansive youth who are affirmed in their identities socially.” 

Marchman, who teaches at the Thompson R2-J School District in Loveland, said statewide rules already exist requiring schools to use student-requested nicknames, as long as they’re appropriate. Marchman said district guidelines state that students have the right to be addressed by a name and pronoun that corresponds to their gender identity and that intentionally or persistently refusing to call a student by their preferred name or pronouns is a violation. 

Marchman and the bill’s sponsors anticipate modifications to the initial version, such as adding parents and students to the task force. Additionally, the bill sponsors are considering incorporating a provision addressing situations in which school staffers accidentally or unknowingly call students by a name they don’t want to be called. 

Critics said the proposal takes away parents’ rights.

Jarvis Caldwell, a former House GOP communications director and House District 20 candidate, said the proposal offers “no carve-out whatsoever for a parent to refuse the child to pick whatever ‘preferred name’ they want.”

So if a parent tells the school to not call the child by the name the student prefers, “the school will legally not be allowed to follow the parent’s demand.”

Meanwhile, HB 24-1071 would include gender identity as a “good cause” reason that the courts may consider for a name legal change.

Currently, the law requires individuals convicted of a felony — or juveniles adjudicated for an offense that would have constituted a felony if committed by an adult — to demonstrate to the courts a “good cause” for a name change.

Rep. Lorena Garcia, D-Boulder, said the law does not provide a clear definition of “good cause.”

“This particular bill is necessary because even though trans people convicted of felonies can already petition for a name change, there has been a lot of confusion that have led to limited access for this community to seek legal support for their name change,” Garcia said. “This bill is necessary to clarify ambiguities in our laws. We are not creating a new right; we are clarifying this right exists.”