As a result of a unilateral action by David Bell, President of the Sonoma Valley School Board, in removing the Pride Flag from the Sonoma Valley Unified School campus in February 2026, a team of people, including parents and students, formed a Pride Flag and Advocacy Group. This team came together to advocate for the rights of youth who felt very much impacted and targeted by this deliberate action.
The district’s own YouthTruth survey shows the stakes. Twenty-seven percent of LGBTQ+ students reported seriously considering attempting suicide in the last 12 months. Four percent of non-LGBTQ+ students did. Forty-six percent of LGBTQ+ students felt so sad or hopeless for two weeks or more. Twenty percent of non-LGBTQ+ students reported the same. Only 42% of LGBTQ+ students feel safe at school compared to 61% of their peers. This isn’t abstract. This is documented harm happening inside our schools right now. The flag isn’t a political symbol, it’s a safety signal telling vulnerable kids they belong. The district has this data. They should be using it to protect students, not manufacturing controversy that makes things worse.
The Pride Flag and Policy Advocacy group sponsored by Wake UP Sonoma, wrote a letter to Dr. Aimee Carter Superintendent of Sonoma County Schools, to express concerns about how the Sonoma Valley Unified School District is addressing LGBTQIA+ student inclusion, the manner in which the Pride Flag was handled, and increases in bullying and harassment without adequate training for staff on knowing how to provide appropriate and sensitive intervention. We are requesting some written responses from her, as well as a meeting to discuss potential review and next steps.
This is a summarized version of the letter we sent to Dr. Aimee Carter, Superintendent of Sonoma County Schools. You can find the complete letter HERE.
The letter focuses on two main issues:
Progress Pride Flag
In January 2026, School Board President David Bell unilaterally ordered the removal of the Progress Pride flag from Sonoma Valley High School without a board vote.
Following public criticism, the flag was restored four days later. Wake UP Sonoma argues that Bell and a majority of the board misunderstand the purpose of the flag and that their actions and public statements may conflict with California’s anti-discrimination and anti-bias requirements. The organization asks for a review of whether the district is violating state anti-bias laws.
The letter cites survey data showing significant student support for the flag, high rates of suicidal ideation among LGBTQ students compared with non-LGBTQ students, and lower reported bullying rates after the flag was first raised in 2019. It argues that efforts to remove the flag have made LGBTQ students feel less safe and may have contributed to increased bullying.
Anti-Bullying and Harassment Training
Wake UP Sonoma contends the district has not fully implemented required annual anti-bullying, harassment, and nondiscrimination training for all employees.
Although Positive Images began a comprehensive training program in 2024, the contract was not renewed and only administrators received training, leaving planned staff, student, and parent education incomplete.
The group has raised these concerns with Superintendent Jason Sutter, who said he would review the issue, but they remain concerned the school board may support only minimal compliance rather than meaningful training. The letter makes some requests.
Wake UP Sonoma asks Dr. Carter to address some questions in writing by August 15th, review state policy and to meet with representatives of its advocacy group to discuss the concerns, possible state oversight, and ways to improve protections and support for LGBTQ students in the district.
Dr. Carter did respond promptly, saying; “I too care deeply about ensuring that every student feels safe, respected and able to thrive in school. The student-safety and school-climate concerns you describe are real, and we are aligned in wanting to deliver solutions that provide safety, access and opportunity to all students.”
She clarified that the title “County Superintendent of Schools” can understandably create the impression that she supervises local school districts and their governing boards. However, she pointed out that under California law, each school district is governed by its own independently elected board. She does not have the legal authority to direct the Sonoma Valley Unified School District Board, overturn its policy decisions, require it to place an item on its agenda, or mandate that it contract with a particular training provider.
Concerns alleging unlawful discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or bullying are generally addressed first through the district’s Uniform Complaint Procedures. Appeals of district determinations are handled by the California Department of Education rather than the county superintendent.
Although she has limitations, she is happy to explore if there are services and expertise under her authority at SCOE that can offer potential opportunities for the Sonoma Valley community, including our work with Welcoming Schools. She is also interested in supporting productive communication with the local decision makers.
Be First to Comment