Parental rights regarding education have become a hot topic in recent months.
This is, to me, quite telling of the bill’s intent. Senator Dennis Baxley, the bill’s sponsor, gave a non-answer in response – he merely repeated that parents should not be kept in the dark. Senator Lori Berman asked if a school would be required to inform parents that their child requested vegetarian lunches.
This was revealed through an exchange on the floor of the Florida Senate. However, even if this bill made no references to sexuality and gender identity, it would still contain something very problematic. Especially when considering the larger cultural context. This criticism is important – it gives us serious reason to question the bill. For similar reasons, any school officials who are members of the LGBTQ+ community may believe that they must hide this part of their identity from students. Even though this isn’t instruction, the teacher may want to immediately squelch this conversation – a student could go home, say that she learned some families have two dads but no mom, and an upset parent may file suit. A confused student asks the teacher why her classmate has two dads when she only has one. One student, the child of two gay men, makes a comment about her dads. So, critics offer scenarios like the following: Imagine a 1st grade classroom. Thus, many school officials would, justifiably, avoid engaging in behavior that could trigger a lawsuit. Lawsuits are expensive and time consuming. Instead, like the recent Texas abortion law, it gives parents the right to file suit against any school district or official that they believe violates the bill’s demands.
The bill does not set up criminal or misdemeanor punishments for violators. There’s no statement about the kind of “change” in students’ “mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being” that might require teachers to inform parents.Ĭritics argue that the bill is designed to chill all discussion of gender identity and sexuality in schools through this vagueness. It contains no description or suggestion of what age-appropriate instruction would look like. Further, lines 21-23 of the bill’s preamble state that it is intended to prohibit discussion, creating internal incoherence about the goals. There is no explanation of what “instruction” consists of and how it differs from, say, a discussion. The trouble is that none of these terms are defined. The first clause outright forbids “classroom instruction” for K-3 grade students on “sexual orientation or gender identity.” The second clause requires that all discussions from 4th grade onward are “age-appropriate.” Clearly, the bill does more than prohibit discussing sexuality with kindergarteners. There are two clauses separated by an “or.” So, each of these clauses is introducing a unique requirement. However, the lightning rod for controversy is this sentence:Ĭlassroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. The law requires schools to develop policies on notifying parents of changes in their child’s “mental, emotional or physical health or well-being.” In addition, the bill forbids school officials from encouraging students to withhold information about these matters from their parents. The law is seven pages, two and a half of which are preamble. What does the law actually say? Troublingly, not very much. To get a better understanding of this measure, we should ignore the noise and go directly to its heart. DeSantis’ spokesperson Christina Pushaw, have said the bill is about preventing “grooming” of children, insinuating that critics are pedophiles or enablers.
DeSantis has framed the bill as defending the rights of parents to not have young children indoctrinated, and some defenders, including Gov. Defenders of the bill argue that this is misrepresentation Gov. Opponents have labeled it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill due to a proposed, but withdrawn, amendment that would potentially require teachers to “out” LBGTQ+ students to their parents. It’s now just a signature from Governor Ron DeSantis away from becoming law. 1557, following its approval by the Florida House. On Tuesday, March 8th, the Florida Senate passed H.B.