Last week, I mentioned the topic of indoctrination of students in public schools. By unintentional coincidence, last week the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case before them, from Maryland, on that topic.
The Court will decide, “Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out?”
Here is a segment of the Court’s description of the undisputed facts of the case:
Respondent Montgomery County Board of Education requires elementary school teachers to read their students storybooks celebrating gender transitions, Pride
parades, and same-sex playground romance. The storybooks were chosen to disrupt “cisnormativity” and “either/or thinking” among students. The Board’s own principals objected that the curriculum was “not appropriate for the intended age group,” presented gender ideology as “fact,” “sham[ed]” students with contrary opinions, and was “dismissive of religious beliefs.”
Note two significant elements of this case:
1) That the children were compelled to participate without notice to the parents;
2) School principals objected that the curriculum was inappropriate.
This column is not about that case specifically, but about the relationship between schools and parents on the issue of gender identity, and about teachers notifying parents before communication with a student about that subject.
In 2023, the Florida legislature passed a law that prohibited public school personnel from withholding information from parents about a student’s desire to change sexual orientation. The law required parental notification, and consent, before engaging in any discussion about, or encouragement of, the subject with a student.
The prohibition included addressing a student by other than their legal name without parental permission. The law does not prohibit doing any of those things — with parental consent.
Here in Brevard County, Florida, a teacher was the first in the state to become unemployed for violating that law. She called the student by a “preferred first name” rather than legal name. The violation was not inadvertent. The teacher did so deliberately — because she disagrees with the law.
Of course the media reporting of the episode has stirred up controversy, with the usual collateral craziness that often accompanies such media-hyped drama.
According to reporting in the April 23 edition of Florida Today newspaper, an expletive-laced email in support of the teacher was sent by a high school student to members of the Brevard County School Board. The email declares that parents have “no right over there kids”.
When you include the grammatically incorrect use of “there” instead of “their” with the author’s attitude, this email presents a sad microcosm of the failure of our public schools. Even the student appears to recognize that.
She went on “I learn more off of social media than your stupid (expletive) teaching lessons. The Brevard public schools has done nothing but prepared me for failure so i hope you’re happy. The way you guys run (expletive) is not right and it’s stupid.”
While there is much to unpack there — which I’ll get to — the reason it’s front page news is because of what prompted the email. Here is the background.
Regardless of what you think of the law, it was duly enacted by the state legislature If you don’t like it, get it changed through the legislature; or move to another state; or don’t teach in the public schools.
What you don’t do, if you are a public school teacher, is deliberately defy the law.
That’s what the Brevard public school teacher did. She admitted doing so because she disagreed with the law. As a result, she is no longer employed after the end of this school year. The April 23 news article was one of a series in the ensuing media circus.
Despite the media repeatedly declaring the teacher was “fired” by the school board, that is not true. The board simply declined to renew her annual contract, a significant factual difference the media either can’t distinguish, or intentionally ignores.
At this point I need to explain some basic contract law.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a contract is “An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable and otherwise recognized at law.”
An employment contract is “A contract between an employer and employee in which the terms and conditions of employment are stated.”
Section 1012.335, Florida Statutes sets forth the types of employment contracts under which teachers work in public schools.
Subsection (1)(a), specifies “Annual contract” means an employment contract for a period of no longer than 1 school year which the district school board may choose to award or not award without cause.”
The teacher at the center of this media-hyped controversy was employed under an annual contract. So the law is clear that the school board could decline to renew her contract without needing to justify their decision. The school board simply exercised their lawful discretion not to renew her contract, discretion she was aware of, and agreed to, when she was hired.
Notwithstanding that they didn’t have to justify the non-renewal of her contract, in the interest of public transparency the school board did so anyway. Their reason was that the teacher, by her own admission, deliberately violated a state law. The school board believed that someone teaching in public schools should, at the very least, obey state laws.
But it seems, like the foul-mouthed high-schooler who sent the email, this teacher apparently doesn’t think parents have any “right over there kids”. So the teacher believed she didn’t have to notify the parents that a student wished to be called by a different-gendered name than their legal name.
The student was apparently experiencing what the American Psychiatric Association refers to as “gender dysphoria” — defined as “psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity.”
In what alternate universe does a teacher who recognizes a student suffering “psychological distress” feel no obligation to alert the parents? Particularly when the law expressly requires parental notification?
There is, of course, what the media describes as “public outrage” over the “firing” of the teacher. Yeah… OK.
Read Part Two, tomorrow…