[House Report 118-706]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
118th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 118-706
======================================================================
PARENTAL RIGHTS OVER THE EDUCATION AND CARE OF THEIR KIDS ACT
_______
October 1, 2024.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Ms. Foxx, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 736]
The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 736) to require elementary and middle
schools that receive Federal funds to obtain parental consent
before changing a minor child's gender markers, pronouns, or
preferred name on any school form or allowing a child to change
the child's sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or
bathrooms, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as
amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Parental Rights Over The Education and
Care of Their Kids Act'' or the ``PROTECT Kids Act''.
SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT RELATED TO GENDER MARKERS, PRONOUNS, AND PREFERRED
NAMES ON SCHOOL FORMS.
(a) Requirement.--As a condition of receiving funds under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et
seq.), a public elementary school and secondary school that receives
funds under such Act shall obtain parental consent before changing a
covered student's--
(1) gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school
form; or
(2) sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or
bathrooms.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Covered student.--The term ``covered student'' means a
minor who is--
(A) an elementary school student; or
(B) a student in any of the middle grades.
(2) ESEA terms.--The terms ``elementary school'', ``middle
grades'', ``parent'', and ``secondary school'' have the
meanings given the terms in section 8101 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
PURPOSE
The purpose of H.R. 736, the PROTECT Kids Act, is to ensure
parents remain central in their children's lives, particularly
when it comes to sensitive decisions made at school. The bill
requires that, as a condition of receiving funds under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), schools may not
socially transition students without parental consent.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/736.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ACTION
118TH CONGRESS
First Session--Hearings
On February 8, 2023, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing on ``American Education in Crisis.''
The purpose of the hearing was to examine the state of American
education, including the need to protect and restore the rights
of parents to have a say in their children's upbringing and
education. Testifying before the Committee were Ms. Virginia
Gentles, Director, Education Freedom Center, Independent
Women's Forum, Arlington, VA; Dr. Monty Sullivan, President,
Louisiana Community and Technical College System, Baton Rouge,
LA; Mr. Scott Pulsipher, President, Western Governors
University, Salt Lake City, UT; and the Honorable Jared Polis,
Governor, State of Colorado, Denver, CO.
On May 16, 2023, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing on ``Examining the Policies and
Priorities of the U.S. Department of Education.'' The purpose
of the hearing was to review the Fiscal Year 2024 budget
priorities of the U.S. Department of Education. Additionally,
Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) asked witness Secretary Miguel
Cardona whether he believed that ``teachers, administrators,
and school boards should defer to parents as the primary
teachers of their children, not undercut and work against
them.'' Secretary Cardona agreed, stating ``the schools that
are most effective are those that honor and engage parents in a
meaningful way.'' Testifying before the Committee was the
Honorable Miguel Cardona, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Education, Washington, D.C.
Legislative Action
On March 1, 2023, Representative Julia Letlow (R-LA)
introduced H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act, with
Chairwoman Foxx and Representatives Burgess Owens (R-UT), Rick
W. Allen (R-GA), Elise M. Stefanik (R-NY), Glenn Thompson (R-
PA), Steve Scalise (R-LA), Tom Emmer (R-MN), Mike Johnson (R-
LA), Richard Hudson (R-NC), Mary E. Miller (R-IL), Scott
Fitzgerald (R-WI), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Glenn Grothman (R-WI),
Jim Banks (R-IN), Lloyd Smucker (R-PA), Michelle Steel (R-CA),
Aaron Bean (R-FL), Brandon Williams (R-NY), Erin Houchin (R-
IN), Guy Resechenthaler (R-PA), John R. Moolenaar (R-MI), Dan
Newhouse (R-WA), Marianette Miller-Meeks (R-IA), Vern Buchanan
(R-FL), Clay Higgins (R-LA), Brad Finstad (R-MN), Claudia
Tenney (R-NY), Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), Pat Fallon (R-TX), Mike
Kelly (R-PA), Chuck Edwards (R-NC), Tom Tiffany (R-WI), Jerry
Carl (R-AL), Ken Calvert (R-CA), David Valadao (R-CA), Ashley
Hinson (R-IA), Ralph Norman (R-SC), Mike Bost (R-IL), Daniel
Meuser (R-PA), Michael Waltz (R-FL), David Kustoff (R-TN), Mike
Garcia (R-CA), Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Nancy Mace (R-SC), Bryan
Steil (R-WI), Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), John Rutherford (R-FL),
Garret Graves (R-LA), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Jeff
Duncan (R-SC), Max Miller (R-OH), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Daniel
Crenshaw (R-TX), Alex Mooney (R-WV), Lance Gooden (R-TX),
Carlos Gimenez (R-FL), Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), Michael Guest
(R-MS), Tony Gonzales (R-TX), Bill Huizenga (R-MI), Anna
Paulina Luna (R-FL), Troy Balderson (R-OH), Rob Wittman (R-VA),
David Rouzer (R-NC), Rick Crawford (R-AR), Mike Ezell (R-MS),
Mike Carey (R-OH), Kat Cammack (R-FL), Ryan Zinke (R-MT),
Michael McCaul (R-TX), John Joyce (R-PA), Kevin Hern (R-OK),
and Jake Ellzey (R-TX) as original co-sponsors. The bill was
referred solely to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. On March 8, 2023, the Committee considered H.R. 5 in
legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to
the House of Representatives by a recorded vote of 25-17. The
Committee adopted the following amendments to H.R. 5:
1. Representative Tim Walberg (R-MI) offered the
PROTECT Kids ACT as an amendment to the Amendment in
the Nature of a Substitute (ANS). The PROTECT Kids ACT
requires elementary and middle schools that receive
federal funds to obtain parental consent before
changing a minor child's gender markers, pronouns, or
preferred name on any school form, or before allowing a
child to change the child's sex-based accommodations,
including locker rooms or bathrooms. The amendment was
adopted by voice vote.
On February 1, 2023, Representative Walberg introduced H.R.
736, the PROTECT Kids ACT. The bill was referred solely to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce. On September 11,
2024, the Committee considered H.R. 736 in a legislative
session and reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of
Representatives by a recorded vote of 22-12. The Committee
considered the following amendments to H.R. 736:
1. Representative Walberg offered an ANS that strikes
section 2 and amends section 3 to apply the funding
condition of the bill only to funds received under
ESEA. The ANS was adopted by a voice vote.
COMMITTEE VIEWS
INTRODUCTION
The Committee is steadfast in its support for families and
for the role of parents in shaping their children's lives. This
includes ensuring that parents remain central in the lives of
their children's lives, particularly when it comes to sensitive
decisions made at school.
Unfortunately, the nation has seen troubling developments
in states like California where school districts can facilitate
gender transitions without parental knowledge or consent. This
is simply wrong, for the most important stakeholders in a
child's life are his or her parents.
Parents, not bureaucrats, should decide when substantial
changes are made regarding how their child is identified or
accommodated.
BACKGROUND ON SECRET GENDER TRANSITIONS IN SCHOOLS
Parents across the country have raised concerns as schools
push progressive gender ideology and, in many cases, hide
students' attempts to transition from their parents. According
to Parents Defending Education, at least 20,000 schools in
1,100 districts (covering nearly 12 million students) have
policies that prevent faculty and staff from disclosing a
student's gender identity to his or her parents without that
student's permission.\2\ Such policies are to the detriment of
all children and are also a violation of parents' rights to
direct the upbringing and education of their own child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\https://defendinged.org/investigations/list-of-school-district-
transgender-gender-nonconforming-student-policies/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the precise details of each of these district's
policy may vary, they are unified by a radical leftist vision
of sex and gender. One of these 1,100 districts is the Los
Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) whose guidance defines
``gender'' as ``a person's actual or perceived sex, and
includes a person's gender identity and gender expression''
[emphasis added]. The guidance further clarifies that a
student's professed gender identity may be different ``from
that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or
assigned sex at birth.'' Students are not restricted to
choosing between two sexes. LAUSD affirms that students may be
``agender, genderqueer, gender fluid, Two Spirit, bigender,
pangender, gender nonconforming or gender variant.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\https://ca01000043.schoolwires.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/
Centricity/Domain/383/BUL-6224.2
%20Transgender%20Policy%205%2013%2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More concretely, local district policy can keep parents in
the dark about their child's gender transition. LAUSD's
guidance, for example, mandates that ``[s]tudents shall be
addressed by the name and pronoun that corresponds to their
gender identity asserted at school without obtaining a court
order, changing their pupil records or obtaining parent/legal
guardian permission'' [emphasis added]. Further, the guidance
openly acknowledges that parents may not be aware of their
student's attempts to transition genders (``school personnel
should be aware that the student may not have disclosed their
gender identity to their parents''). In fact, the guidance
mandates that before school administrators talk to parents,
administrators should consider whether ``the parent is aware of
the student's gender identity or expression and is supportive
of the student.'' If administrators deem a parent not
``supportive,'' there is no requirement that parents be
informed at all when a school acts to transition a student.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\https://ca01000043.schoolwires.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/
Centricity/Domain/383/BUL-6224.2
%20Transgender%20Policy%205%2013%2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policies such as these are in conflict with the rights of
parents. As the Heritage Foundation has written,
A century of Supreme Court jurisprudence supports the
notion that parents enjoy the fundamental
constitutional right to direct the upbringing, health,
and education of their children. As recently as 2000,
in fact, the court called it ``perhaps the oldest of
the fundamental liberty interests recognized.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/parents-are-fed-
public-schools-secretly-transitioning-children.
Further, local district policies often include no
provisions protecting or exempting school staff who may have
conscientious objections or sincerely held religious beliefs
against addressing students as anything other than the
student's sex. On the contrary, LAUSD's guidance threatens that
``persistent refusal to respect a student's gender identity is
a violation of District policy and may constitute
discrimination under State law.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\https://ca01000043.schoolwires.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/
Centricity/Domain/383/BUL-6224.2
%20Transgender%20Policy%205%2013%2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These kinds of policies are not limited to local districts
alone. This year, California became the first state to forbid
school districts from having any policy that would require
school staff to notify parents about changes in a student's
professed gender identity.\7\ The bill was introduced after
California's attorney general sued a Southern California school
district that implemented a policy that required teachers to
inform parents if their child identifies as transgender or goes
by a different name or pronouns at school.\8\\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1955.
\8\https://apnews.com/article/california-sues-chino-valley-
parental-notification-transgender-
students.
\9\https://apnews.com/article/gender-identity-schools-california-
law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reaction against this nationwide undermining of parental
rights, eight states have passed legislation that requires
teachers or administrators to inform parents if their child has
requested to transition genders. In North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Indiana, Idaho, North Dakota, and
Iowa, if a student asks to go by pronouns or a name different
from the one in a district's record, teachers must report the
student's request to an administrator, who then must report it
to the student's parent or guardian.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF496.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND ON H.R. 736, THE PROTECT KIDS ACT
The PROTECT Kids Act was introduced by Representative
Walberg in February 2023. The bill requires that, as a
condition of receiving funds under the ESEA, any elementary
school or middle school must obtain parental consent before
changing a minor child's name or pronouns, or before providing
sex-based accommodations (including use of bathrooms and locker
rooms).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/736.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
The PROTECT Kids Act accomplishes three critically
important goals.
First, the bill empowers parental involvement in their
children's education. The PROTECT Kids Act emphasizes the
fundamental role of parents in making sensitive decisions
regarding their child's identity and accommodations in schools.
Children do best when parents are involved in their education,
and this bill protects that fundamental principle.
Second, the bill protects teachers' consciences. This bill
helps prevent teachers from being pressured by administrators
to keep secrets from their students' parents. Teachers should
be able to tell parents about important changes regarding their
students.
Finally, this bill is a direct response to urgent needs in
local schools. This legislation addresses recent developments
in states such as California, where parental rights have been
trampled on. Parents should never be misled or lied to by
school administrators.
H.R. 736 SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY
Section 1. Short title
Names the bill the ``Parental Rights over the
Education and Care of Their Kids Act'' or the ``PROTECT Kids
Act.''
Section 2. Requirement related to gender markers, pronouns, and
preferred names on school forms
Requires that, as a conditions of receiving funds
under ESEA, schools shall obtain parental consent before
changing an elementary or middle school student's gender
markers, pronouns, preferred name, or sex-based accommodations
(including locker rooms and bathrooms).
EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS
The amendments, including the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, are explained in the body of this report.
APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch. H.R. 736 requires elementary and middle schools that
receive Federal funds to obtain parental consent before
changing a minor child's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred
name on any school form or before allowing a child to change
the child's sex-based accommodations. H.R. 736 applies solely
to elementary and middle schools receiving funds under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and therefore does not
apply to the Legislative Branch.
UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-344 (as amended
by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995, Pub. L. No. 104-4), the Committee traditionally adopts as
its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) pursuant to section 402 of
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
The Committee reports that, because this cost estimate was not
timely submitted to the Committee before the filing of this
report, the Committee is not in a position to make a cost
estimate for H.R. 736. The Chairwoman of the Committee shall
cause such estimate to be printed in the Congressional Record
upon its receipt by the Committee.
EARMARK STATEMENT
H.R. 736 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of House rule XXI.
ROLL CALL VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee Report to include for
each record vote on a motion to report the measure or matter
and on any amendments offered to the measure or matter the
total number of votes for and against and the names of the
Members voting for and against.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
In accordance with clause (3)(c) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the goal of H.R. 736 is to
require elementary and middle schools to obtain parental
consent before changing a student's pronouns or preferred name
on school forms a student to change the student's sex-based
accommodations.
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
No provision of H.R. 736 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in the body of this report.
REQUIRED COMMITTEE HEARING
In compliance with clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII the
following hearing held during the 118th Congress was used to
develop or consider H.R. 736: On February 8, 2023, the
Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on
``American Education in Crisis.''
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CBO COST ESTIMATE
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, a cost estimate was not made
available to the Committee in time for the filing of this
report. The Chairwoman of the Committee shall cause such
estimate to be printed in the Congressional Record upon its
receipt by the Committee.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the
costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 736. However,
clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that Rule provides that this requirement
does not apply when, as with the present report, the Committee
has requested a cost estimate for the bill from the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
As reported by the Committee, H.R. 736 makes no changes to
existing law.
MINORITY VIEWS
INTRODUCTION
H.R. 736, the Parental Rights Over The Education and Care
of Their Kids Act (PROTECT Kids Act), would require public
schools, as a condition of receiving funds under the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act\1\ (ESEA), ``to seek and acquire
parental consent before changing [a] child's pronouns, gender
markers, or preferred name on any school form'' and before
``allowing a child to change their sex-based accommodations,
such as locker rooms or bathrooms'' for students in elementary
and middle grades.\2\ This bill is yet another example of this
Majority promoting culture wars and negatively targeting
transgender youth under the guise of protecting parents' rights
over their children in public education.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\20 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 6301-8601.
\2\Press Release, Walberg's PROTECT Kids Act Advanced by Committee
(Mar. 9, 2023), https://walberg.house.gov/media/press-releases/
walbergs-protect-kids-act-advanced-committee.
\3\See, e.g., Parents Bill of Rights Act, H.R. 5, 118th Cong. (as
passed by House, Mar. 24, 2023); see also Protection of Women and Girls
in Sports Act, H.R. 734, 118th Cong. (as passed by House, Apr. 20,
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF CONCERNS
The bill is overbroad and does nothing to address issues of concern to
parents, students, and families
The bill is written to encompass all public students in
elementary and middle grades, meaning that it implicates any
student who wants to be called a name different than the name
on their birth certificate. Therefore, in order for a student
to be called by a nickname, something that kids have done since
time immemorial, a school has to obtain parental consent.
According to one media report, in order to conform to a similar
Florida law requiring parental consent, a school district in
Florida sent out a form with the following example: ``As an
example, if the student is named Robert, but likes to be called
the nickname Rob, the form must be filled out authorizing
teachers and other personnel to call Robert the nickname
Rob.''\4\ This bill simply creates more paperwork and
bureaucracy for teachers, administrators, schools, and parents,
and it wastes valuable time, resources, and taxpayer money.
Instead of focusing on this bill, the Majority ought to be
utilizing our time on public education issues that are
priorities to the American people, such as ``strong academic
skills, critical reasoning skills, and practical life
skills,''\5\ none of which are addressed or improved by this
legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Chris Gollon, Students Now Need Parental Permission to Use
Nicknames in School, WNDB--News Daytona Beach (Aug. 10, 2023), https://
www.newsdaytonabeach.com/stories/students-now-need-parental-permission-
to-use-nicknames-in-school,52303.
\5\Memorandum from Geoff Garin & Guy Molyneux to Interested Parties
re: The Nation's Education Agenda 1 (Jan. 13, 2023), https://
www.aft.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2023/Hart-Education-
Survey_jan2023.pdf?source=email (results of a 2023 survey on public
education issue priorities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill would further marginalize transgender students and has the
potential to increase their risks of physical harm and adverse
mental health outcomes
Despite being couched in a broad manner to capture all
students, the real victims of this legislation will be
transgender students. The requirements of H.R. 736 will have
the effect of forcibly outing transgender students. It will
foster a culture of fear and distrust between parents and
schools and between students and teachers, inappropriately
insert politicians into the parent-child relationship, and puts
school staff in control of how and when families have deeply
personal conversations.
If passed into law, H.R. 736 would disproportionately
impact transgender students. It is not hard to imagine a
situation where a school system did not follow the law every
time a cisgendered child asked to be called by a nickname, and
only completed the required notifications when a transgender
student requested a name change. This would be disparate
treatment, in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments
of 1972 (Title IX),\6\ and it is easy to contemplate the
likelihood of its occurrence. Further the second provision of
H.R. 736 would likely only come into use in the case of
transgender youth. The mere act of changing ones preferred
gender accommodations would only effect transgender students in
everyday practice, which suggests the law itself would have a
disparate impact on these students, again in violation of Title
IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\20 U.S. Code Sec. 1681.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many transgender children have the support of their
parents. However, some transgender children may fear abuse by
their parents or being kicked out of their house because of
their gender identity. A recent study showed that children who
were outed to their parents have higher symptoms of depression
and are less likely to have family support.\7\ Moreover,
transgender youth experience disproportionate rates of
homelessness either because they were mistreated or kicked out
due to their gender identity, which in turn negatively impacts
their mental health.\8\ The bill provides no considerations for
situations in which revealing the student's gender identity to
parents would endanger the child at home or impact their
ability to stay in the home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Peter S. McCauley, Alexander J. Del Farno, Antonia E. Caba,
Benton M. Renley, Shaylynne Shuler, Lisa A. Eaton, Ryan J. Watson,
Stress of being outed to parents, LGBTQ family support, and depressive
symptoms among sexual and gender diverse youth, J. of Rsch. on
Adolescence (Jan. 29, 2024), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/
10.1111/jora.12912; Beth Hawkins, Report: Higher Rates of Depression,
Anxiety for LGBTQ Teens Forcibly Outed, The 74 (June 13, 2024), https:/
/www.the74million.org/article/report-higher-rates-of-depression-
anxiety-for-lgbtq-teens-forcibly-outed/.
\8\DeChants, J.P., Green, A.E., Price, M.N, & Davis, C.K.,
Homelessness and Housing Instability Among LGBTQ Youth, The Trevor
Project (2021), https://www.thetrevorproject.org/wp- content/uploads/
2022/02/Trevor-Project-Homelessness-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For transgender students who do not have or do not believe
they will have the support of their families, school may
provide a safe space for them. All students deserve a quality
education in a safe and affirming learning environment. H.R.
736 would make that impossible. It would impose government
interference in parent-child relationships and potentially
cause teachers to alienate children from their parents. It
could also require teachers to--sometimes knowingly--place
students in physical danger and/or emotional harm. Moreover, in
many states, this bill could force teachers to violate mandated
reporter laws or force them to be required to report the danger
to the state simultaneously with contacting a student's parents
to obtain the consent required under the bill. The bill would
place a giant boulder on the shoulders of our nation's teachers
who are already overworked in a profession with a nationwide
shortage. Teachers should be caring and supportive and work
with parents towards a child's success, but teachers should
also be trusted professionals who have the ability to use their
judgment to know when a student is lacking support in the home
in a way that could lead to mistreatment.
Unfortunately, there appears to be a concerted effort by
the Majority party to require forced outing across the country.
According to the ACLU, in 2024, 59 state legislative bills
forcing outing in schools were introduced and six of those
bills were signed into law.\9\ In contrast, in June, California
became the first state to pass a law that bans policies that
force educators to out students who ask to be known by a
different pronoun or name.\10\ In cases across the country
where states haven't taken action, some school boards are
creating both supportive and harmful policies.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Mapping Attacks on LGBTQ Rights in U.S. State Legislatures in
2024, ACLU, https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights-
2024?impact=75145 (last updated Sept. 5, 2024).
\10\Jill Cowan, California Becomes the First State to Ban Student
Gender Notification Policies, N.Y. Times (July 16, 2024), https://
www.nytimes.com/2024/07/16/us/gender-identity-bill-california.html.
\11\Mark Walsh, Supreme Court Turns Down Case Challenging School
District's Transgender Policies, Ed Week (May 20, 2024), https://
www.edweek.org/policy-politics/supreme-court-turns-down-case-
challenging-school-districts-transgender-policies/2024/05; Cameron
Kiszla, Court temporarily halts Chino school district's `forced outing
policy', KTLA (Sept. 6, 2023), https://ktla.
com/news/local-news/california-temporarily-halts-cvusd-forced-outing-
policy-for-trans-nonbinary-students/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill does not support or expand parental engagement
Parental engagement is critical to student success.
Parental engagement in schools is closely linked to better
student behavior, higher academic achievement, and enhanced
social skills. Pursuant to the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act\12\ (FERPA), in order to receive federal funds
under applicable programs--including ESEA--federal law already
requires that parents be permitted to inspect and review any
education records pertaining to their minor student maintained
by the student's school.\13\ H.R. 736 does not amend FERPA, and
despite the Majority's assertions about parents' rights, the
bill also does not expand parental involvement in their child's
education in a meaningful way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\20 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1232g-1232j.
\13\20 U.S.C Sec. 1232g(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During debate on the bill, the Majority asserted that a new
California law\14\ ``requires schools to keep secrets from
parents'' to the point of falsifying records with a ``dummy
file.''\15\ Committee Democrats are not aware of any evidence
in support of this obscene and mistrustful accusation in
California or elsewhere. To suggest that letting teachers call
students by nicknames without first obtaining parental consent
is akin to keeping secrets and falsifying records would mean
that schools have been doing those things since their
inception, and we disagree with that characterization.
Moreover, H.R. 736 does not address this. While H.R. 736 does
not expand parental involvement in their student's education in
a meaningful way, it also does not narrow existing parental
rights or involvement in any way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Id. at 9.
\15\Markup on H.R. 736 Before the H. Comm. on Educ. & Labor, 118th
Cong. (Sept. 11, 2024) (statement of Rep. Kiley), https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpWFM-iSpkw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill constitutes federal overreach and undermines local control
The Majority claims that H.R. 736 would ``keep parents in
the loop'' and ``allow us to refocus the purpose of our schools
on teaching kids to read, teaching them to write, and preparing
them for success in life.''\16\ That is a perverse twist on
what this legislation would actually do. The bill in no way
addresses student learning. Moreover, the bill represents a
contradiction to the Majority's belief that there should be
greater local control over education.\17\ This bill creates a
one-size-fits-all solution in search of a problem that does not
exist, and it stands as an example of the type of federal
overreach that congressional Republicans have long claimed
would harm children, teachers and schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Id.
\17\See, e.g., Education and Workforce Development, Website of
Congresswoman Virginia Foxx, https://foxx.house.gov/issues/issue/
?IssueID=60408 (last visited Sept. 19, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEMOCRATIC AMENDMENTS OFFERED DURING MARKUP OF H.R. 736
Committee Democrats did not offer any amendments to H.R.
736.
CONCLUSION
Time and time again, this Majority has chosen to promote
bigotry and fearmongering instead of prioritizing issues that
would actually help families, students, and schools, and this
bill is another obvious example of that. The Majority is once
again choosing to play politics instead of addressing learning
loss and closing achievement gaps by dedicating funding for
evidence-based interventions that respond to students' academic
and social needs such as after school, extended day, and summer
learning programs. The Majority is once again promoting
overbroad legislation that would burden all teachers, parents,
and students instead of addressing chronic neglect that has
forced students and educators across the country to learn and
work in outdated and hazardous school buildings. The Majority
is once again choosing to further marginalize vulnerable
transgender students, increasing risks of adverse mental health
outcomes, instead of working to support students' mental health
needs by dedicating funding for additional school counselors
and mental health professionals or taking effective steps to
address the nation's epidemic of gun violence and school
shootings. In fact, H.R. 736 is on the Majority's greatest hits
play list. It was offered as an amendment and accepted during
the markup of H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act, a bill
that ultimately passed the House of Representatives with no
Democratic Member support and five Republicans opposing the
bill. For the reasons stated above, Committee Democrats
unanimously opposed H.R. 736 when the Committee on Education
and the Workforce considered it on September 11, 2024. We urge
the House of Representatives to do the same.
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Ranking Member.
Raul M. Grijalva,
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Mark Takano,
Mark DeSaulnier,
Pramila Jayapal,
Members of Congress.
[all]