Educators must disclose student’s gender identity to parents
Originally published by EdSource
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this week to reinstate parents’ right to be notified of their child’s gender identity has left California schools in temporary legal limbo and advocates concerned for the safety of transgender students.
In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal to a conservative legal group and reinstated a San Diego federal judge’s ruling that parents have a constitutional right to be informed of a child’s “gender incongruence” at school. The Supreme Court stated that California’s student privacy policies allow schools to “facilitate” a student’s gender transition without parental notification, violating free religious expression and substantive due process.
“The Supreme Court’s reaffirmation that parents — not the government — hold primary authority over their children’s upbringing and mental health decisions sets a national precedent,” Paul M. Jonna, plaintiff attorney at the Thomas More Society, told EdSource. “States with similar secrecy regimes are now on notice.”
Justices did not decide the Mirabelli v. Bonta case; instead, they vacated a stay issued by the Ninth Circuit of Appeals, reinstating a previous ruling until a final decision is made in the appeals court. Two former teachers from the Escondido Unified School District, later joined by parents, had sued against a now-withdrawn district policy prohibiting school employees from notifying parents about a child’s gender identity.
In the meantime, California school districts are caught between legal compliance with the federal ruling and state law. Schools must now discern their own procedures and parameters of disclosure while complying with California’s SAFETY Act, a 2024 law that prohibits schools from requiring teachers to out students.
Jorge Reyes Salinas, a spokesperson for LGBTQ advocacy group Equality California, said school administrators will be forced to make case-by-case decisions under potential legal risks until the courts issue a final ruling.
“If a parent right now goes to a teacher and asks, ‘Is my child using different pronouns, or are they socially transitioning?’ They are now required to tell the parents, which does not mean that teachers or administrators are required to volunteer” that information, Salinas said.
“It’s not forced outing, but this is still an issue for the safety of LGBTQ youth, because (the court) is basically saying their privacy doesn’t matter,” he added.
Although the Supreme Court’s decision does not strike down California’s SAFETY Act, the revived lower court rules against the California Department of Education’s interpretation of the state constitution’s privacy clause. Jonna argued that the state used the clause to give “minor students the right to transition” at school.
“As a result, parents were systematically excluded from decisions regarding their children’s gender transitions at school. Teachers were compelled to withhold information from families, and school districts that attempted to implement parental notification policies were warned they would be violating multiple provisions in state law,” Jonna said.
LGBTQ advocates warned that the Supreme Court’s decision does more to jeopardize than protect students’ mental health. About a third of LGBTQ youth outed to their families were more likely to report major symptoms of depression than those who weren’t, with transgender and nonbinary youth reporting the highest levels of depression, according to the University of Connecticut.
Heron Greenesmith, deputy director of policy at the Transgender Law Center, said that parents always have a right to know about a child’s growth and development. But children also have a right to explore their identity privately, they said.
“Nothing in (California) law prevents youth from coming to their parents and inviting them into their lives,” Greenesmith said. “I’m a parent of a 15-year-old, so I can truly understand parents wanting to know and understand everything going on in their child’s life. And I can truly understand children’s points of view as they age and mature and learn more about themselves, that sometimes they don’t want everyone in their lives to know everything about them.”
The right to privacy is also a right to physical safety, Greenesmith said. A third of transgender and nonbinary children reported experiencing housing instability or homelessness, according to The Trevor Project. Those rejected by their families were up to three times more likely to experience housing instability than those with supportive families.
The Supreme Court’s decision marks a win for the conservative campaign against inclusive policies in schools. As California has bolstered mental health support for LGBTQ students, the parental rights movement has zeroed in on gender dysphoria as a perceived contagion to students’ mental health.
“The reaction from the parents and teachers we represent has been one of profound relief and vindication,” Jonna said. “They are mothers and fathers who care deeply about their children’s well-being and teachers who entered education for their love of teaching and who saw that California’s policies were causing real harm to students and undermining their partnerships with parents.”
With the Supreme Court decision, California moves closer to joining North Dakota and Alabama as the only states requiring teachers to out transgender students if a parent asks for the information.
“Teachers are going to have to walk this line between seeing a student who is clearly struggling and does not have a safe place at home and decide: Do I support this student and risk violating state law?” Greenesmith said. “Or do I do what state law requires me and risk harming someone whose life and safety and success are in my hands?”
“It puts teachers in an impossible position,” Greenesmith said.
The California Department of Education has not yet provided guidance on disclosure to schools, stating that the department is unable to comment on ongoing litigation. Because the Supreme Court did not grant injunctive relief to the teachers in the lawsuit, it remains unclear what teachers can disclose to parents when unprompted.
“No educator should experience retaliation or have their livelihood jeopardized for following the law and providing safe and supportive learning environments for our students,” David B. Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association, told EdSource. “Our union will continue to fight for our students and against politically motivated attacks on the rights, safety and dignity of LGBTQ+ youth.”
San Diego federal Judge Roger Benitez gave California 20 days to notify school districts of the lower court’s ruling. Jonna said the Ninth Circuit has already amended its prior order and is expected to rule in favor of the “binding precedent” set by the Supreme Court’s decision.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Seems to me that the underlying concern of parents is more-closely related to what the teachers/counselors are doing to enable, or even encourage kids to undergo “transitioning” in secret.
Or at least, that’s their fear.
In other words, it’s not really about the kids at all. It’s about what parents suspect school districts of doing behind their backs.
And that fear may not, and probably does not have a basis in reality
Overall, I would agree.
However, it might depend on the views of exactly “who” a kid is turning to, at school, and how they interpret their own role.
And if this type of thing is done in secrecy due to “privacy”. In other words, not even documented/monitored within the school system itself – let alone not allowing parents in on it . . .
What if the kid is turning to someone like our local “pro-trans” advocate, assuming she worked at a school district? (I think you know who I’m referring to, here.)
But that’s the whole point – this whole thing is driven by this irrational fear by parents that somehow teachers, who can’t get kids to learn or do homework, can convert them to being gay or transgender (why they would want to do that is beyond me). But that’s the mindset. It’s basically a form of QAnon paranoia that has latched onto the issue of transgender students. Or it’s pizzagate.
“why they would want to do that is beyond me”
Well, me too.
But again, I’m not sure I’d want “my” theoretical kid to be talking to someone like Anoosh about this in private (without even the school district itself having any control or knowledge), behind my back.
Assuming of course, that someone like her might be hired as a teacher or counselor.
This is serious business – if it ultimately leads to medical intervention.
I don’t agree with that assessment of Anoosh, but let’s use this as an example. They are not a teacher or employed by the school district so this law doesn’t impact them. But the law does impact the ability for the student to talk to teachers or district staff in a confidential setting, so who does it leave them to talk to if they don’t trust the parent? This has been my point – you can’t force a student to come out to their parents, so they are going to seek a safe person, better for it to be an adult who can help them than someone who might not have that ability.
Oh please, it’s not QAnon or Pizzagate paranoia for parents to want to know what’s happening with their children when they go to school.
I’ve been reading for the past week this stated belief based on zero evidence that teachers want to indoctrinate and convert students to become trans – call it what you want.
The “safe” person they might seek out is someone like Anoosh, if someone like her worked at a school district.
They’re not going to be seeking someone like Beth (assuming that she worked for a school district).
I don’t have an answer regarding your underlying question, however. That question being is there a way for students to seek confidential help, without being inappropriately influenced by the views of the person they’re speaking to.
Of course, I also can’t help but think of what happened in some religious institutions, when kids were apparently left alone with clergy (men, in that case).
Maybe you need at least one “witness” in the room, taking notes. (Yes, that’s a joke.)
“A February 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that about a third of teachers (33%) believe students should learn that a person’s gender can be different from their sex at birth, while 50% believe this should not be taught. Additionally, 53% of Democratic teachers say this should be taught, compared to 5% of Republican teachers.”
That’s different than actively attempting to get someone to *become* trans.
So even a strong majority of teachers believe this shouldn’t be taught in schools.
“That’s different than actively attempting to get someone to *become* trans.”
No one, not even someone like Anoosh – is doing this.
It’s more of a statement like “come on in if you want – it’s perfectly normal, and the water is fine”.
(With a sign in fine print next to the pool stating that your “assigned” genitalia are optional and interchangeable.)
It’s always the “fine print” that gets you.
“Teachers are going to have to walk this line between seeing a student who is clearly struggling and does not have a safe place at home and decide: Do I support this student and risk violating state law? . . . Or do I do what state law requires me and risk harming someone whose life and safety and success are in my hands?”
I don’t get this idea of the moral sanctity of teachers, or their own high praise of themselves and their colleagues to take such things on. I think back on the teachers at the schools I went to and wouldn’t want them taking on decisions and responsibilities like this . . . have we somehow grown ‘better moral quality’ teachers for today? I doubt it.
That was my reaction, as well. Though in this particular case it seems that there’s some remaining conflict between existing state law and the court’s decision.
From article: “In the meantime, California school districts are caught between legal compliance with the federal ruling and state law. Schools must now discern their own procedures and parameters of disclosure while complying with California’s SAFETY Act, a 2024 law that prohibits schools from requiring teachers to out students.”