I think that is a feature, not a bug.
I think part of the problem is that it is not clear it’s the reasonable “middle” opinion that will rule the day because any parent can sue. The school district has deep pockets. It seems to create incentives for the school district to not allow discussion at all to reduce the risk of law suits.
And this doesn’t go away after 3rd grade. “Age appropriate” can mean almost anything.
I have not looked up the FL statutory language, but usually instruction, classroom based or not, involves some purposeful direction of the learning process. Does a teacher talking about their weekend really constitute instruction? Perhaps some Karen will have to sue to find out.
Of course, even if the hypothetical were classroom instruction, it’s still unlikely to be instruction about sexual orientation. Would a teacher saying they attended a sporting event constitute instruction about sporting events? Just seems a bit hysterical to me.
I think it clearly does. Otherwise it’s a massive loophole and teachers could discuss literally anything they wanted to with any age of students.
Yes.
Would saying that they attended an orgy constitute sexual instruction? Or would this be perfectly acceptable because you wouldn’t consider it classroom instruction?
Why is it hard to fathom that this law is just bad and overly vague? Why are you trying to carry water for it?
If I wanted to teach small children about homosexuality, it would be by talking nonchalantly about my weekends with my gay spouse. There’s not really much else to teach.
Maybe you’re right. If so, surely all/most FL K-3 teachers are petrified that mentioning their personal lives will run afoul of this law.
which is great. but the threat of litigation over it is what clamps things down. if the law was written to clearly address the cspan doctrine, then great. but the law isn’t written that way. the uncertainty and cost of the potential inquiry is what brings the greater concern.
the reason the law can’t have more specificity is that there are probably very few school districts doing more for k-3 than teaching kids the real names of body parts, that some parts are private and aren’t for others to touch without consent, and very little else. the supporters of the bill all seem to yell a lot about how 1st graders are being trained to be one of gay, trans, or wrong (I’m exaggerating some) and that yelling combined with the vague law…lead to the concerns. despite cspan’s measured (but no binding) “that’s not my interpretation.”
I wouldn’t blame them. This law is really stupid and has no reason to exist. Its whole point seems to be signaling that DeSantis is super anti-woke. However, if you are cis and straight, it’s unlikely anybody will care when you discuss anything from your personal life. So the burden falls primarily on the LGBT community.
Sounds like an ACA type of situation, huh?
It also sounds like you’re describing a sense of panic that nobody actually feels, except you I guess.
You’ve described almost exactly the same thoughts as everyone here, except instead of agreeing with us you are disagreeing with us.
I would think that a good lawyer could use the arguments that allow a coach to publicly pray on the football field to argue how this law is flawed. Unless they believe God is real and gays are not. Or somehow that is not indoctrination and this is.
This SCOTUS case has me concerned…
Apparently Disney employees were a bit hysterical, demanding that Disney oppose the Bill’s passage and fight to repeal or overturn it. That’s a bit unusual. Corporations usually identify and fight bills relevant to their business before they pass, not after. Additionally, I’ve never worked at a company that took employee feedback into consideration when choosing which bills to oppose, particularly ones not relevant to their business.
It is an interesting concept though. Could employees demand their corporate employers work to overturn, say, personal income tax increase bills? Same concept - bill relevant to employee interests but not directly relevant to company interests.
Wasnt this law proposed and passed fairly quickly?
But it happens all the time.
Nice attempt at an analogy but I think it really doesn’t fit here. First of all, these companies in your examples are just protesting a law. Disney has vowed to use corporate funds to support advocacy groups to overturn the law. Big, big difference. Much higher level of hysteria.
Secondly, and admittedly I just skimmed the articles, but they don’t seem like situations where employees drove the opposition. That hasn’t been my experience in the corporate world either. But YMMV
Employees driving everything a company does… I don’t think you can discount one because it was the lowest paid employees and another was the middle range employees. That’s a weird distinction to me.
We also have no idea if it’s just Disney schlubs who are against it, or if it’s up and down the company. We also don’t know what kind of employee response was seen in the two examples I gave. Ultimately, the inner workings of most companies will be opaque to us. I don’t really think that’s an issue, though. Companies take moral stands against laws on a regular basis, and those stands are always driven by the employees of the company.
Maybe because we work in the stuffiest field in the world with very introverted people?
I haven’t read much about it. I think I’d need to hear their thoughts. If someone told me they were pissed because it’s a random swipe at trans/gay people, I could relate.
If they said that they thought this law was actually going to be a big deal resulting in a lot of firings and lawsuits, I’d need more convincing.
Most culture war stuff feels very petty to me. Gay wedding cakes and hobby lobby being examples.
Well, this thread has gained a lot of posts since I was last on. I may be repeating stuff other people have said. But:
I was talking about grades 4+.
Anyway, here are some provisions if the bill and some of my concerns about them:
Provisions from
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF
School districts must “adopt procedures for notifying a student’s parent if there is a change in the student’s services or monitoring related to the student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being and the school’s ability to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for the student. The procedures must reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children by requiring school district personnel to encourage a student to discuss issues relating to his or her well-being with his or her parent or to facilitate discussion of the issue with the parent.
So if a kid who is questioning their gender identity or sexual orientation mentions it to a teacher or guidance counselor, the school is supposed to notify the parents. Not all parents are supportive, and that could be really damaging.
“Classroom 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.”
There’s not a lot of sex instruction in grades k-3. But what happens when there’s a child in the class who has two moms. Or a parent who is trans. Is the teacher supposed to pretend they don’t hear the kids? Tell the kids to shut up? What if there’s a kid in the class who isn’t gender-conforming?
One of my son’s kindergarten friends had two mothers. This is not a weird or made-up situation.
The vagueness of what’s meant by age appropriate in later grades is probably the larger concern, though. Are they supposed to have sex ed that never mentions the existence of homosexuality?
Actually looking at the bill, I have another concern, not related to LGBTQ issues. It also says:
Before administering a student well-being questionnaire
or health screening form to a student in kindergarten through
grade 3, the school district must provide the questionnaire or
health screening form to the parent and obtain the permission of
the parent.
That sounds to me like the school can’t ask students questions that might reveal child abuse without the permission of the parent. While I suspect that “schools can’t interfere with parental rights” is central to the goals of this legislation, I happen to think it is in the public interest that other parties that spend a lot of time with kids (like the schools) can independently report signs of parental abuse of kids.
I would be shocked if this law was written with the intention of undoing Florida’s mandatory reporting requirements for school employees. I would be even more shocked if courts interpreted it that way.
That said, when I was a teacher I never once asked a child “questions that might reveal child abuse”… at least, certainly not as a goal. (I mean I suppose the mundane “hi, how was everyone’s weekend?” could reveal abuse, but… that’s not why I was asking.)
That would have been radically outside the scope of my job. But when I had a situation that required reporting, I dutifully reported it. It’s not the schools that do the investigation though… nor should it be IMO. I reported it to my boss, the Assistant Principal, who reported it to Children’s Protective Services who handled it from there.
This wasn’t in Florida, but I doubt Florida is materially different.
I’m sure the teachers still have to follow mandatory reporting laws. It could be the case that after this law passes, it’s harder for teachers to identify if a student is being abused since they can’t engage in any kinda of screening without having the parents approve it. I have no idea if that would happen or not after this law passes.
But to address this part specifically, I’m guessing you are correct. Their intent seemed to be a culture war move against what they see as a ‘woke’ agenda. I don’t think much beyond that was considered when writing the law. It certainly wasn’t written to tackle any current problems in the FL school system (except some of them might think of LGBT acceptance as a current problem…)