An alliance of conservative groups on Tuesday submitted nearly 425,000 signatures for an initiative to guarantee parents access to materials their children are taught in K-12 classrooms and information about medical services public schools provide.

The proposed ballot measure, , would on matters ranging from reviewing textbooks and curriculum to obtaining medical records to being able to opt their child out of assignments involving questions about a child’s sexual experiences or their family’s religious beliefs.

Initiative supporters delivered boxes of petitions to the Secretary of State’s Office in Tumwater at 1:30 p.m. They said they were turning in 423,399 signatures.

“This initiative is nothing anyone would have believed was controversial even a few years ago,” said hedge fund manager Brian Heywood, founder of Let’s Go Washington and chief financier of the signature-gathering effort.

“Parents are the primary stakeholder in raising children,” he said in a statement. “The overwhelming number of signatures from across the political spectrum shows that everyone just wants to get back to normal.”

State Rep. Jim Walsh of Aberdeen, who also chairs the Washington State Republican Party, is the prime sponsor of this initiative and five others circulated this year by Let’s Go Washington, Restore Washington and other conservative political groups.

In November, they for to repeal the Climate Commitment Act. Petitions for a third measure dealing with vehicle pursuits by police are scheduled for delivery Thursday, according to the Secretary of State’s Office.

Collectively these measures are part of a broad Republican-driven strategy to push back on significant social, fiscal and environmental policies approved by Democratic legislators and Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee over the objections of many GOP lawmakers.

Need or distraction?

Initiative 2081 focuses on public schools which have increasingly been a battleground in Washington and across the nation on issues of curricula related to sexual health and race and policies on COVID vaccinations and gender identity.

The measure would require parents to be able to review educational materials and receive copies of academic and medical records for free. It also says parents should “receive written notice and the option to opt their child out” of surveys, assignments, questionnaires, and other activities in which questions are asked about their child’s “sexual experiences or attractions” or their family religion or political affiliations.

Another provision calls for parents to be notified if their child receives any medications or medical care that could result in a financial impact.

Officials with the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction are studying the measure to see how it aligns with current Washington law.

“Most of the provisions appear to be consistent with ” said OSPI spokeswoman Katy Payne. “We are reviewing it in further detail to determine if the initiative conflicts with any existing civil rights protections or Human Rights Commission determinations.”

Mark Gardner, a high school teacher in the Camas School District, said the premise of ensuring parents have a voice isn’t problematic. The reality, he said, is most of what is sought exists now through state law or school district policies.

“To me this feels like a distraction from our greater needs,” he said. State lawmakers should look to boost funding for hiring support staff and paraeducators, for example, because these professionals “would really serve our kids,” he said.

To be certified, Initiative 2081 petitions must contain the signatures of at least 324,516 registered voters. State election officials recommend initiative sponsors submit at least 405,000 signatures to account for any found to be invalid.

The process of certifying valid signatures will begin after the Dec. 29 deadline for filing initiatives to the Legislature.

Because it is an , if it has the requisite number of signatures it will first be sent to lawmakers who can adopt it as written in the 2024 session. They also can reject or refuse to act on it, in which case it will go on the November 2024 ballot.

Lawmakers can approve an alternative measure to be placed on the ballot alongside the initiative if they want, as well.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Bill Lucia for questions: info@washingtonstatestandard.com. Follow Washington State Standard on and .

The State Board of Education discussed the implications of several items from the at its meeting earlier this month, including , known as the “Parents’ Bill of Rights.”

SL 2023-106 became law on Aug. 16, after the General Assembly overrode Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of the bill. At the time, state Superintendent Catherine Truitt said school districts needed more time to meet requirements of the new law, asking lawmakers to bump the effective date from Sept. 15 to Jan. 1.

The new budget, passed on Sept. 22, granted that extension for much of the law. The budget also clarified that parents will not need to be notified or provide consent when school personnel act in a medical emergency.

“From the beginning, I’ve supported the Parents’ Bill of Rights law, and I want it to be implemented successfully and enacted fully,” Truitt previously . “I am very pleased to see that the General Assembly addressed provisions in the conference budget to ensure a smoother process for parents to be fully protected under the Parents’ Bill of Rights.”

The law seeks to “enumerate the rights of parents to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of their minor children.”

While most Republicans and Democrats agree that the law outlines rights parents already have, Republican bill sponsors said the law safeguards the integral role of parents in their children’s lives. Opponents, including many educators, have said the law will damage the relationship between educators and students, while also threatening the safety of LGBTQ+ students.

The law bans curriculum on gender identity, sexual activity, or sexuality in kindergarten through fourth grade. It also requires schools to notify a parent about their child’s physical and mental health, including any school health care services they use, changes to their well-being, or requests to change a student’s pronouns.

The law also allows parents to review all curriculum and establishes remedies and timelines for parental concerns. Under that provision, the law mandates that school governing bodies adopt procedures for parents to notify principals regarding concerns about curriculum. A process to resolve concerns should take place within seven days of the date of notification by the parent.

After 30 days, “the public school unit shall provide a statement of the reasons for not resolving the concern.” At that point, parents can also request a “parental concerning hearing” with the State Board of Education.

Board leaders about the provision, saying the hearings “will likely be a frustrating exercise in futility for all involved” and a “significant expenditure of resources.”

On Thursday, the Board discussed a regarding such hearings.

Under the policy, parents can only request a hearing with the Board under limited circumstances. One set of circumstances include the failure of a child’s school to adopt and implement policies to notify parents about the following items:

• Health care services at the child’s school and how parents can provide consent for services.
• The procedures available to parents to remedy concerns.
• A copy of student well-being questionnaires or health screening forms for students in K-3, and how parents can consent to the form.
• Changes in services or monitoring related to “their child’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being and the school’s ability to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for that child.”
• Changes in the name or pronoun used for a student “in school records or by school personnel.”

Parents can also also seeks hearings with the Board about the existence of the following procedures or practices at their child’s school:

• Procedures that “do not include a requirement that school personnel either encourage a child to discuss issues related to the child’s well-being with his or her parents or facilitate a discussion of the issues with the child’s parents,” or that encourage a child “to withhold information from that child’s parents about his or her mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being.”
• Procedures that prohibit parents from accessing their children’s school education and health records, except in investigations of abuse.
• Procedures that “result in instruction on gender identity, sexual activity, or sexuality” in K-4.

Notably, that list does not include book challenges, which must be handled at the local level.

Parents can request a hearing about the above items after notifying the principal of their child’s school, if the school has not resolved the concerns within 30 days.

Under the new policy, the Board will appoint a hearing officer for each case who is a member of the North Carolina State Bar and has experience in education and administrative law in the last five years. The public school must pay for the costs of that hearing officer, who would then hold a hearing and submit a recommended decision to the Board within 30 days after their appointment.

“At the next regularly scheduled State Board meeting, held more than seven days after receipt of the recommended decision, the State Board shall vote to either approve, reject, or amend the hearing officer’s recommended decision,” the draft policy says.

Graduation requirements

The new budget also requires the State Board of Education to create a three-year graduation track for high school students by Nov. 1. That track will consist of 22 credits, and must receive parental consent.

The budget currently states that “local boards of education shall offer a sequence of courses in accordance” with that minimum requirement. Many schools already allow early graduation pathways for some students, but most schools typically require 28 credits for graduation.

Many education leaders worried the budget’s provision would prevent them from requiring more than 22 credits for any students.

“That of course, caused a lot of outcry from our school districts,” said Sneha Shah-Coltrane, director of advanced learning and gifted education at the Department of Public Instruction (DPI). “As a result, we are very grateful that we are working with the General Assembly on some technical corrections, to be able to move forward with a reasonable, different approach.”

In anticipation of such technical corrections, the Board discussed . That policy will come to the Board for approval next month, pending the corrections.

The proposed amendment, “Authority for Local School Boards to Exceed Minimum Graduation Requirements,” outlines a process for students who wish to graduate after three years to “request that local board waive the additional local requirements.”

The student must complete and sign a waiver from the local board. That waiver must also be signed by the student’s parent or legal guardian, unless the student is 18 years or older, or has been emancipated. An administrator from the student’s high school must also then meet with the student and their parent “to discuss the implications of graduating in three years.”

Students who successfully opt to graduate early — and who also seek a degree, diploma, or certificate at an eligible postsecondary institution — will be eligible for “early graduate scholarships” based on financial need. Read more starting on 

“This is just another step toward recognizing that the nature of school and work is changing before our very eyes,” Truitt said. “I think it is a very small percentage of students for who it is right to stop at 22 (credits) — this may continue to grow as more and more options become available to students — but what I really like is that this policy requires parent buy-in for this happen.”

Teacher pay

Truitt also spoke about the budget’s raises for school employees — which included a 7% raise over two year for most school employees, and a 3.6-10.8% raise for teachers.

Earlier this long session, Truitt and the Board asked lawmakers for at least a 10% raise for employees.

“As a former educator, I’ve been vocal that North Carolina’s teachers deserve a raise, and I’m disappointed that we did not see the double digit pay increase for educators that we hoped for in this Conference budget,” she said in . “Salaries in other professions have kept pace with inflation, however that is not the case with education.”

Truitt highlighted her disappointment with the raises again during her report on Thursday. Board members also spoke about disappointment in the budget’s provisions for teacher raises.

Board Chair Alan Duncan said he hopes lawmakers will readdress teacher pay in the short session.

“I cannot help but express some disappointment that there was not a better response to the request,” he said. “And I’m sorry for the educators that there was not.”

You can view the updated salary schedules for 2023-24 . You can also read about the budget’s supplements outlined for educators at

Truitt said DPI’s requests for the short session will include funding for professional development for middle school teachers, with a focus on improving math proficiency.

Truitt also highlighted the budget’s provision of nearly $13 million into the Advanced Teaching Roles (ATR) initiative — the first directed state funding for the program.

Under that program, adult leadership teachers in participating districts will receive a $10,000 supplement. Classroom excellence teachers will receive a $3,000 supplement.

The Board heard a presentation on the Friday Institute’s The Board opted to send a partial version of the report, due Oct. 15, to the General Assembly, and will submit the full report in November after it is approved with additional information requested by Board members.

Truitt also highlighted the following items from the budget during her report:

Reports on students with disabilities and low-performing schools

The Board heard several important reports on Wednesday regarding student success.

First, the Board discussed a .

Per the report, a federal view found several things that “need assistance” within the state’s Exceptional Children (EC) department. The priority areas identified in the report include:

• Participation and performance on statewide assessments
• Suspension and expulsion
• Preschool outcomes
• Child Find/Early Childhood Transition
• Secondary Transition/Post-School Outcomes

The Board also received from the Council on Educational Services for Exceptional Children, which advises the State Board of Education “on unmet needs of children with special needs and the development and implementation of policies related to the coordination of services for students with disabilities.”

The council made the following recommendations in its 2022-23 report:

• “Hear from the ground.” Invite organizations which provide support to families navigating the education system to speak about best practices and challenges at least once a year.
• Do a survey of other organizations that also serve families with disabilities along with mental health concerns.
• Incorporate “A New Wave of Evidence,” showing that connections between school, family, and community lead to student success.

The Board also discussed its annual report to lawmakers

State law defines low-performing schools as those that receive a school performance grade of a D or F and a school growth score of “met expected growth” or “not met expected growth.” A low-performing school district is defined as a district in which the majority of the schools are low-performing.

Here is some data from that report.

On Thursday, the Board also approved two policies related to low-performing schools.

First, the Board approved a policy allowing the Board “to assign an assistance team to any school identified as low-performing or to any other school that requests an assistance team and that the State Board determines would benefit from an assistance team.”

Second, the Board approved a new policy that allows them to appoint an interim district superintendent when more than half the schools in that district are designated as low-performing and the assistance team assigned to a school “recommends the superintendent has failed to cooperate with the assistance team or has otherwise hindered that school’s ability to improve.”

Finally, the Board also saw a preview of its annual report to the General Assembly The Board will vote on that report next month.

Updates to parental leave policy

The State Board of Education gave final approval to its temporary , as mandated by . That section requires a paid parental leave policy for all state agency, public school, UNC, and community college employees.

Originally, the policy — based on state law — said that employees must have been employed by the public school unit without a break in service “for at least 1,040 hours within the previous 12-month period” to be eligible for paid parental leave.

In other words, employees who moved school districts would not have been eligible for the benefits, even if they had worked in North Carolina public schools for 10 years.

Following pushback, lawmakers made technical corrections to the law. The Board’s new policy will now cover employees who recently switched districts, as long as they have an aggregate 1,040 hours without a break of service at a North Carolina school or state agency.

The policy provides up to eight weeks of paid parental leave after giving birth to a child on or after July 1, 2023, or up to four weeks after any other qualifying event, like adoption or legal guardianship.

The revisions to the rule will be effective on Nov. 7.

Other things to know

• The Board approved a report to the General Assembly on the The goal for 2022–23 was set at 89.5%. The statewide rate, 86.5%, did not meet this year’s target, though 31 individual school districts did.
• The Charter Schools Review Board (CSRB) presented in light of new state laws regarding charter schools in the budget. There are currently 15 applications for 2023.
• The Board also approved a new policy, . That policy is in response to a new state law that allows “an applicant for a charter school, a charter school, or the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (to) appeal to the State Board of Education from a final decision by the Charter Schools Review Board on whether to grant, renew, revoke, or amend a charter.”
• Thursday marked the last Board meeting for Dr. Maria Pitre-Martin, the director of Board operations and policy.
• The Board offered initial approval two additional community colleges to offer the Elementary Education Residency Licensure Certificate Program: Pitt Community College and Robeson Community College. Those colleges join many other community colleges to receive initial authorization for the program

The full State Board of Education meets next Oct. 31 through Nov. 2 at East Carolina University in Greenville for its planning and work session.

This first appeared on and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The North Carolina Senate passed the controversial on party lines Tuesday, sending the legislation on to the House.

Senate Republicans argue the is needed to safeguard parents’ integral role in their children’s lives, while opponents say it is dangerous to LGBTQ+ kids and will damage educators’ relationships with students.

, R-Alamance, a primary sponsor of the bill, said that there are diverse worldviews contained in North Carolina’s schools and among students’ families, but that schools shouldn’t determine which worldviews are discussed or promoted.

“The Parents’ Bill of Rights is really about acknowledging parents’ vital roles in their children’s lives,” she said.

Bill highlights

The bill has a slew of provisions. It contains the same 10 rights that were in a . Those are things like the right to direct a child’s education, direct moral or religious training, ability to access education and medical records, and make medical decisions for a child.

You can see the complete list below.

It also contains a list of “legal rights” for parents, which are as follows:

The right to consent or withhold consent for participation in reproductive health and safety education programs.

The right to seek a medical or religious exemption from immunization requirements.

The right to review statewide standardized assessment results as part of the State report card.

The right to request an evaluation of their child for an academically or intellectually gifted program, or for identification as a child with a disability.

The right to inspect and purchase public school unit textbooks and other supplementary instructional materials.

The right to access information relating to the unit’s policies for promotion or retention, including high school graduation requirements.

The right to receive student report cards on a regular basis that clearly depict and grade the student’s academic performance in each class or course, the student’s conduct, and the student’s attendance.

The right to access information relating to the State public education system, State standards, report card requirements, attendance requirements, and textbook requirements.

The right to participate in parent-teacher organizations.

The right to opt out of certain data collection for their child.

The right for students to participate in protected student information surveys only with parental consent.

The right to review all available records of materials their child has borrowed from a school library.

In addition, there are a series of notification requirements on physical and mental health listed in the bill. They include notifications to parents “of changes in services or monitoring related to his or her child’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being” and “prior to any changes in the name or pronoun used for a student in school records or by school personnel.”

There is an exception to these provisions “when a reasonably prudent person would believe that disclosure would result in the child becoming an abused juvenile or neglected juvenile, as those terms are defined in G.S. 7B-101,” according to the bill.

The bill also says “an employee of the State who encourages, coerces, or attempts to encourage or coerce a child to withhold information from his or her parent may be subject to disciplinary action.”

Under the legislation, any instruction on gender identity, sexual activity, or sexuality is prohibited in the curriculum for kindergarten through fourth grade. According to the bill, this does not include “responses to student-initiated questions.”

Floor debates

, D-Wake, a new representative who referenced herself as the only LGBTQ+ person in the room, kicked off the debate. She said she takes the bill sponsors at their word when it comes to the intent of the bill.

But she said that it isn’t intent that matters, it’s the consequence.

She referenced the many students, parents, and teachers that have come forth to talk about or speak against the bill. She said they understood that most of the bill is just restating current law, but that other parts actually change the law: provisions related to notifying parents about pronoun changes, or making sure that gender identity, sexual activity, or sexuality aren’t discussed in grades K-4.

Of the latter, she said it amounted to policing references to LGBTQ+ people.

“We now know that no matter the intent, the consequence of this bill is widespread fear and concern,” she said.

, D-Orange, said he spoke as a parent and a former social worker in public schools. He said he believed in strong school and family partnerships, but said parts of this bill will make that harder.

He talked about working in schools and having kids come to him to talk, but they didn’t want him to tell their parents what they said. He said sometimes it was because they were gay, pregnant, experiencing addiction, or in a gang. But he said he knew they really did want to tell their parents, they just needed guidance on how to do it.

“They want to tell their parents because they want to be loved by their parents,” he said.

He said that a partnership between schools and parents is important, and cautioned his fellow lawmakers about the damage this bill could do to that relationship.

“This bill undermines that partnership because it falsely assumes that one side, the school side, does not believe in that partnership,” he said.

Galey responded by emphasizing that the bill pertains to the pronoun used by children in their official school record and that to keep changes about that from parents would be damaging.

She also responded to Meyer, referencing students coming to teachers with questions that cover topics in the bill.

“When the teacher is asked questions by the children that are not pertinent to the curriculum … the teacher should tell the child, ‘Ask your mom and dad,'” she said.

She went on to to say that there should be no confidential relationship between students and government employees that exclude parents.

Other reactions

At a press conference today, House and Senate Democrats discussed their own “Parents’ and Students’ Bill of Rights.”

In a joint statement, the and the came out against the Republican-sponsored bill.

“North Carolina’s Senate Bill 49, better known as the , threatens to violate students’ rights to an equal education free from discrimination, and could create school environments that are hostile and unsafe for certain students,” the statement said.

The groups took aim at multiple provisions in the bill, including the requirement to notify parents in the event that a child changes their pronoun.

“While parental involvement in the lives of their children is critically important, the reality is that  of LGBTQ+ youth live in homes that are affirming of their identities. Regardless of its intention, this bill could create dangerous environments for young people who may not have families who are willing or ready to provide the support they need,” the statement said.

Read the

The also came out against the bill, saying that it “unfairly targets vulnerable LGBTQ children and contains several provisions that would hamstring school operations and harm broad swaths of students.”

“Many of the ‘rights’ enumerated in this bill are already established in state and federal law. Similarly, the bill’s prohibition of instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in the K-4 curriculum is redundant—sexual orientation and gender identity are not part of the K-4 curriculum. To the extent new “rights” are provided, they open new avenues for bad actors to tie up school district operations and resources by filing frivolous requests for information and objections to instructional materials,” the statement said.

Read that whole

This first appeared on and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.