TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Two major pieces of legislation pushed by Gov. Ron DeSantis and approved by the Florida Legislature have put public school teachers in the crosshairs of the Republican-waged culture wars and created confusion over just what they can teach in class, critics say.
Passed mostly along party lines by the GOP-controlled Legislature, the bills had not yet been sent to the governor’s office as of Friday. If signed into law as expected, they would restrict what teachers can say about sexual orientation, gender identity, racism and white privilege, as well as give parents more say on banning what they consider to be objectionable learning material.
But education leaders worry that the rhetoric around the measures makes teachers and school administrators out to be villains in an imaginary war for the hearts and minds of schoolchildren, even as sponsors describe them as focusing on parental freedom and educational transparency.
“As the parents of three kids aged 5 and under, thank you for letting my wife and I send our kids to kindergarten without them being sexualized,” DeSantis said at the ceremonial close of session Monday.
DeSantis, who is up for re-election and is frequently mentioned as a contender for the presidency in 2024, touted both bills as a commitment to transparency and equality, a “commitment to education, not indoctrination.”
He failed to mention that his one school-age child attends a private school, which would not be subject to the laws.
Andrew Spar, president of the Florida Education Association, the statewide teachers union, said DeSantis is “promoting a falsehood” that echoes decades-old fears and bigotry about gay teachers converting children at an early age.
“It implies something nefarious is going on in our public schools,” Spar said. And it could compound the state’s teacher shortage, which could hit 9,000 vacancies statewide by the end of the school year, he said.
The image of teachers luring children into the dark corners of human sexuality is further fueled by the bill’s sponsors that they don’t want children sexualized or taught about homosexuality.
And it was underscored by Christina Pushaw, the governor’s press secretary, who went as far as to characterize the bill as “anti-grooming,” using a term reserved for pedophiles that recalled a bygone era when homosexuals were accused of converting children.
“But his political future rides on this idea, creating chaos, deriding public schools and attacking teachers,” Spar said of DeSantis. “This was the bill he wanted. This fits into his political momentum.”
Sexuality isn’t taught
At the heart of the controversy is the section in HB 1557 that prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade, or “in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate” for students in other grades.
“We’ve never taught sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade,” Spar said.
Lost in all the raw emotionalism surrounding the “don’t say gay” bill is the procedure laid out not just for resolving disputes between the parents and schools over what their students are being taught, but also what they are being counseled.
Counselors or teachers would be required to tell parents about any changes in their child’s mental or emotional well-being, or changes in the services they are being provided unless a “reasonably prudent person would believe that disclosure would result in abuse, abandonment or neglect.”
Respecting a student’s privacy and confidentiality are considered keys to building an effective relationship with counselors in providing an atmosphere of trust and confidence, especially to protect the safety of the child when abuse or neglect is suspected.
“A school counselor, who is in a counseling relationship with a student, has an ethical and legal obligation to keep information contained within that relationship,” according to the American School Counselor Association.
But they also recognize the rights of the parent or guardian in being the guiding force in that student’s life, the association said.
If parents don’t feel the district is being forthcoming about their child’s education or mental health, they can contact school officials and try to resolve them in seven days. The district would have 30 days to resolve the problem or explain to the parents why it can’t be resolved, at which point the parents can ask for an administrative hearing or take the school district to court to seek a declaratory judgment,
Ron Meyer, a longtime First Amendment attorney who has represented the FEA for decades, said he was particularly concerned about the language pertaining to lawsuits.
“If you file a lawsuit asking for declaratory judgment, you will get one … whether you like it or not,” Meyer said.
A court could issue a declaratory judgment that goes against the parent, and under this bill, the school district would still have to pay legal fees and damages regardless of the outcome, he said.
“It’s just going to create needless litigation and expenses,” Meyer said.
Chilling effect
Most concerning to Spar and other educators is the chilling effect these new laws will have on teachers and their ability to provide a safe and secure learning environment for them.
“It puts teachers in a position where a high school child confides in him or encourages him to see a school counselor for support,” Spar said. “What’s the counselor to do?”
The bills are so vague, Meyer said, “who knows what you can or cannot say under any of these bills? Who knows what a parent or administrator might find offensive?”
The bills also don’t specify what amounts to instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity, raising questions about whether teachers would be allowed to teach about the AIDS crisis or court cases involving same-sex marriage.
That vagueness could pose a serious First Amendment court challenge, Meyer said.
Until the state and school districts come up with those standards and procedures, it’s hard to gauge the true impact it will have on public school teachers, Spar said.
The same is true for HB 7, the so-called Individual Freedom Act, which requires teachers to adhere to a strict curriculum and just the facts when teaching about race and not make students feel ashamed or responsible because of their race or gender for the sins of the past.
“There are certainly a lot of unknowns and questions,” Spar said. “That will be telling when we see what those district policies are going to be and what the discipline will be.”
But the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Bryan Avila, R-Miami Springs, said as long as teachers stick to the state-approved curriculum and don’t offer their own opinions or interpretations of history, they won’t be subject to any repercussions.
Avila also said his bill in no way would prevent teaching the facts about slavery, the civil rights movement, voter suppression and other stains on America’s history as long as students aren’t made to feel ashamed or to blame for those moments.
Currently, parents who don’t want their kids in an activity or exposed to certain material have the right to request to have them excused and given an alternative lesson, Spar said.
The same questions are raised with the book banning provisions in HB 7, which gives parents more control over what materials can and cannot be used in schools.
“What social, emotional and mental stain does that put on a child if a child sees themselves in that book, and it’s banned? What impact does that have on that child?” Spar asked. “The intent is to have a chilling effect and make people who work in our schools second guess their discussions with their students.”
