Discussion on FL "Don't Say Gay" bill

[Flasch186]

I don’t need you to concede

You’re wrong


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Not sure if this concludes our discussion? I'll give it till Sun and if I don't hear back, I'll assume we are done.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You are referring to the teacher and not the 3rd grader. You are extrapolating that this may happen ...

1) A teacher "instructs" a 3rd grader on "sexual orientation or gender identity"
2) A parent/student complains about it and the teacher is reprimanded or fired
3) The teacher takes the state of FL to court
4) The teacher is killed/murdered (lets not change your orig wording from "die" to "attacked") by a loon because he/she brought this lawsuit

Wonder what the odds of this happening is. Can you provide a similar example in recent times (let's since 2000's) of a gay 3rd grade teacher who was murdered because of teaching/instructing a child?

1) Wow, after all of the maybes, possibilities and inferences from earlier in the thread, those highlighted parts are interesting choices of words.

2) This is a very specific request again given the general nature of your responses throughout. I have not done the research but I am guessing that it would be a very small if not nonexistent sample size of gay 3rd grade teachers being murdered for teaching/instructing a child in the 2000's. It may have something to do with most parents not fearing that the gay 3rd grade teachers in that time span were teaching/instructing their children enough to create bills similar to this one until very recently.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

1) Wow, after all of the maybes, possibilities and inferences from earlier in the thread, those highlighted parts are interesting choices of words.

Absolutely, guilty as charged. I thought it'd be good to point out others do it also. Any criticism of them? Crickets

2) This is a very specific request again given the general nature of your responses throughout. I have not done the research but I am guessing that it would be a very small if not nonexistent sample size of gay 3rd grade teachers being murdered for teaching/instructing a child in the 2000's. It may have something to do with most parents not fearing that the gay 3rd grade teachers in that time span were teaching/instructing their children enough to create bills similar to this one until very recently.

Just as I was challenged to find occurrences where 3rd graders were "instructed" on "sexual orientation and gender identity", why isn't it valid to do similar challenge on the below statement re: FL bill?

I’ve already described how people will die

When a teacher goes to court and is attacked by a loon

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Okay, assume you do want to have a discussion.

The article with the statute says this. If there is more that you think is relevant, please post.



As with the "Don't Say Gay" bill, the above is neutral and not pointed explicitly towards LGBTQ or heterosexuals. Me, as a parent, would want to know everything the school personnel knows about my child's "health, well-being, and education" and would definitely appreciate school personnel to "try and facilitate discussions of the issue with the parent".

What is wrong with this?

I'm assuming you'll provide some scenarios about LGBTQ kids not wanting to share their their challenges with school personnel if they know the school will need to inform the parents about this?

My scenario is if my child was feeling depressed, bullied, suicidal, approached school nurse about being pregnant etc. I would want the school to inform the parents.

For clarity, this policy affects students in ALL grades not just K-3 graders. I think I made reference to this being the overall intention in this or the other thread.

This is the piece that i found interesting.

There is an exception if school employees think notifying parents will result in "abuse … abandonment or neglect" of the student.

So who gets to make the determination if the result will be abuse, abandonment or neglect? How are they are going to do that one? Is that one person liable if they make the wrong call or will they be liable along with the school district, county, state etc.?

If a student knew that their parents cared more and were more invested for the student's well being than school personnel, they probably would have gone to the parents first with their issues instead of the school personnel. The students may not be right 100% of the time but I would go with the 80-20 rule. 80% of the time the students will have a better understanding of whether or not they will be in danger of abuse, abandonment or neglect if their parents are notified by the school than school personnel. The student is probably better positioned to determine this danger than the school personnel.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

For clarity, this policy affects students in ALL grades not just K-3 graders. I think I made reference to this being the overall intention in this or the other thread.

Clarification request - are you referring to the "Parental Rights in Education" bill aka the "Don't Say Gay" bill? or are you referring to the one by the Duval School board he posted Duval School Board OKs new policy to line up with controversial state law critics say could harm LGBTQ+ students

If referring to "Parental Rights in Education", no I thought it just applied to K-3 graders, not all grades. Maybe the intent was there to apply to all grades, but as it's written I thought it was limited to 3rd graders and under?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Absolutely, guilty as charged. I thought it'd be good to point out others do it also. Any criticism of them? Crickets


Just as I was challenged to find occurrences where 3rd graders were "instructed" on "sexual orientation and gender identity", why isn't it valid to do similar challenge on the below statement re: FL bill?

It is valid, which is why I addressed it in my response. The law went into effect in March. The circumstances for what you described did not exist before the law so asking for examples of anything that might result from the law. You were speculating about things that could have possibly happen and was challenged to find evidence that had happen in the past to justify the law.

For the record I don't believe that teachers will be in danger of being murdered because of the law. Most won't have issues because they are not invest in the law either way so why mess up their go along to get along approach. Many have families to raise and are not going to jeopardize their families' future for this. The rest are only a few years from retirement so why bother. Many who might have fought have already left the profession as the reward of winning is not worth the fight to them.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If referring to "", no I thought it just applied to K-3 graders, not all grades. Maybe the intent was there to apply to all grades, but as it's written I thought it was limited to 3rd graders and under?

Both.

The K-3 part is just a provision in the Parental Rights in Education bill. This part is for all students.

or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

Banned for K-3, we will let you know for everyone else.

While everyone has rightly focused on the sexual orientation and gender identity bit because well we have debated that, the Parental Rights in Education bill is mostly about requiring schools to notify a parent if there’s 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. It allows parents access to any records involving their child. Finally, it also allows parents to complain and sue if the above is not followed.

The reality is the parents would have already been informed about all or most of this stuff anyway. If a student came up to a teacher and said he felt suicidal, the teacher would inform the counselor or school psychiatrist and call the parents. If a student was pregnant, teachers were not required to say anything to the parents but they are mandatory reporters so they may be required to tell the police which would probably lead to the police telling the parents or convincing the student to tell the parents. If the student said he was gay, they would say nice and move on with the class. If he need support services, they would give the student that and try to facilitate getting that student to come out to his parents if it was safe for the student during that process. All records (if required) involving any of the situations I described would have been turned over to the parents if requested except in certain cases of confidentiality which may still apply.

But as we have already discussed, the general way the bill is written means anything in that bill could be anything. So now, the suicidal kid situation will remain exactly the same. The pregnant girl situation would remain the same. Unless it is completely out in the open before that the kid is gay, that could represent a change in 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. As such, now the parents must be notified.

That is the reason for calling it the "Don't Say Gay" bill. Nothing in the bill changed the way the schools interact with the parents and students or the way the parents and students interact with the schools for anyone who is non LGBTQ+. Anything that would have caused parents to be notified before will have have the parents notified now. The only things that they would not have been notified about before is a kid coming out to a teacher and a kid identifying as a different gender. Many of us have had kids in high school. I have already had a kid go through high school and have another one going starting this year. The idea that the high school would call me every time my son had a "change in his mental, emotional, or well being" in just his freshman year alone would have caused me to change my number. Because "OH MY GUY they gave us homework during the first week of school!" High School is all about changes in the mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being of a student. The idea that a school will be calling parents every time that occurs is unrealistic at best.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

It is valid, which is why I addressed it in my response. The law went into effect in March. The circumstances for what you described did not exist before the law so asking for examples of anything that might result from the law. You were speculating about things that could have possibly happen and was challenged to find evidence that had happen in the past to justify the law.

FWIW, in my orig question below, it did not say "gay 3rd grade teacher who was murdered because of teaching/instructing a child on sexual orientation and gender identity". (It also does not say "gay 3rd grade teacher who, while fighting the case in court, was murdered ...")

It was a more generic question, left out the controversial phrase, and intentionally so. But I can understand if it was assumed to include it because we were talking about that phrase and I did not specifically point out its exclusion.

With that said, same question but assume it is just teaching/instructing any topics.

Wonder what the odds of this happening is. Can you provide a similar example in recent times (let's since 2000's) of a gay 3rd grade teacher who was murdered because of teaching/instructing a child?

For the record I don't believe that teachers will be in danger of being murdered because of the law. Most won't have issues because they are not invest in the law either way so why mess up their go along to get along approach. Many have families to raise and are not going to jeopardize their families' future for this. The rest are only a few years from retirement so why bother. Many who might have fought have already left the profession as the reward of winning is not worth the fight to them.

I certainly agree with first sentence. You point out examples/rationale why this is won't happen. I'll say even if a gay teacher was to fight the reprimand/termination in court, it'll still be zilch.

If you disagree, find me examples per my first paragraph quote and I'll concede the point.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Both.

The K-3 part is just a provision in the Parental Rights in Education bill. This part is for all students.

Banned for K-3, we will let you know for everyone else.

Okay. Sorry, I was somehow thinking I/we were mixing up with the Duval link and didn't want to go there since I was told I was conflating the Duval with the Parental Right in Education bill and that wasn't the real discussion.

Regarding rest of your post, it'll take longer to respond so give me till later today or early Sat.

[Flasch186]

Spoiler

It’s concluded because all you do is pretzel yourself to dodge accountability

Dot example I posted the Duval article as supporting documentation of what is currently happening in the chill of the legislation that was passed

Now you can’t stop conflating and twisting between the two whenever convenient to dodge discussing the points you’ve made that have been debunked, the counterfactuals you want proven, the evidence that can’t happen in the past prior to the legislation being passed, the fact you admit the bill is only passed to for up the base of which you’re moot a part of (I guess), etc etc etc

So it’s just gas lighting and a waste of time because it’s disingenuous over and over again


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatal

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

FWIW, in my orig question below, it did not say "gay 3rd grade teacher who was murdered because of teaching/instructing a child on sexual orientation and gender identity". (It also does not say "gay 3rd grade teacher who, while fighting the case in court, was murdered ...")

I did not say that either. Here is what I said.

This is a very specific request again given the general nature of your responses throughout. I have not done the research but I am guessing that it would be a very small if not nonexistent sample size of gay 3rd grade teachers being murdered for teaching/instructing a child in the 2000's. It may have something to do with most parents not fearing that the gay 3rd grade teachers in that time span were teaching/instructing their children enough to create bills similar to this one until very recently.

That being said, there does seem to be some evidence that physical and verbal attacks on teachers have increased.

Violence, Threats Against Teachers, School Staff Could Hasten Exodus from Profession | NEA

Combined with evidence that attacks on the LGBTQA+ community have also increased.

New FBI Hate Crimes Report Shows Increases in Anti-LGBTQ Attacks - Human Rights Campaign

While also acknowledging these key findings that came from an analysis of the 2017 National Crime Victimization Survey, the first nationally representative and comprehensive criminal victimization data to include information on the sexual orientation and gender identity of respondents.

Key Findings

LGBT people (16+) are nearly 4 times more likely to experience violent victimization, compared to non-LGBT people.

LGBT people are about 6 times more likely to experience violence by someone who is well known to them and about 2.5 times more likely to undergo it at the hands of a stranger, compared to non-LGBT people.

LBT women are 5 times more likely than non-LBT women to experience violent victimization. The risk of violence for GBT men is more than twice that of non-GBT men.

About half of all victimizations are not reported to police. LGBT people are as likely as non-LGBT people to report violence to police.

I can understand why someone would speculate that gay teachers might be at greater risk of being killed given that at the very least indirectly they are also being labeled as groomers and pedophiles. I still don't think a gay teacher would be killed for the reasons I spelled out. I would definitely not create a law banning all interactions between parents and teachers to eliminate the possibility.

It is probably of no interest to anyone but me. It seems to be something to consider when we discuss what parents what. I honestly had not given this any thought. Bad on me.

An estimated 19% of transgender adults in the U.S. are parents, according to a new study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. The majority of transgender parents are women (53%), while approximately one-third are transgender non-binary (36%) and one-tenth (12%) are transgender men.

[Edward64]

It’s concluded because all you do is pretzel yourself to dodge accountability

Dot example I posted the Duval article as supporting documentation of what is currently happening in the chill of the legislation that was passed

Now you can’t stop conflating and twisting between the two whenever convenient to dodge discussing the points you’ve made that have been debunked, the counterfactuals you want proven, the evidence that can’t happen in the past prior to the legislation being passed, the fact you admit the bill is only passed to for up the base of which you’re moot a part of (I guess), etc etc etc

So it’s just gas lighting and a waste of time because it’s disingenuous over and over again

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatal

Fine with me.

Just in case our discussion comes up again, and for ease of reference, I'll post the outstanding questions I'm waiting from you on.

1) Do you believe that "instruct" = "mention". An example is a gay teacher introduces his gay spouse as his husband and you believe can get reprimanded/fired. I'm pretty sure from your posts above the answer is yes, but want to establish a clear baseline now. - Ans: Yes

2) The bill deals with 3rd graders and below. Why do you believe teachers are better than parents in discussing "sexual orientation or gender identity" topics with their 3rd grader?

3) I can extrapolate what you mean by gaslighting. But still waiting on goal post moving

4) Can you provide a similar example in recent times (let's since 2000's) of a gay 3rd grade teacher who was murdered because of teaching/instructing a child?

5) Please provide your quote where you have previously told me this? I honestly don't see it in prior posts re: "I’ve already described how people will die"

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I did not say that either. Here is what I said.

This is fair counter but my response was to your below quote which I inferred meant you were discussing about the conditions/circumstances of "instructed" on "sexual orientation and gender identity". I'll take this as I read too much into it.

Originally Posted by miami_fan View Post
It is valid, which is why I addressed it in my response. The law went into effect in March. The circumstances for what you described did not exist before the law so asking for examples of anything that might result from the law. You were speculating about things that could have possibly happen and was challenged to find evidence that had happen in the past to justify the law.

I can understand why someone would speculate that gay teachers might be at greater risk of being killed given that at the very least indirectly they are also being labeled as groomers and pedophiles. I still don't think a gay teacher would be killed for the reasons I spelled out. I would definitely not create a law banning all interactions between parents and teachers to eliminate the possibility.

I can also understand that speculation (or extrapolation). I was just asking for evidence as I was asked same for my positioning. I understand your position and think this specific issue is a distraction from the larger discussion.

I will get back to you on your earlier post. I do want to put some thought and additional research to it.

An estimated 19% of transgender adults in the U.S. are parents, according to a new study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. The majority of transgender parents are women (53%), while approximately one-third are transgender non-binary (36%) and one-tenth (12%) are transgender men.

Out of curiosity, for LGBTQ, I found below. I'm not sure this is applicable for our discussion though unless there is a stat that shows if LGBTQ parents support or don't support the FL or like bill?

Facts about LGBTQ+ Families - Family Equality

Overall, it is estimated that 29% of LGBTQ+ adults are raising a child who is under 18 (LGBT Demographic Data, 2019; Press Release 2019; Gates, Marriage and Family 2015).

[Edward64]

miami_fan, after your posts in #55 & #58 which reference passages/additional details in the bill that I was not aware of (e.g. I/we were focused on the 3rd grader in our earlier discussions), I read through the bill https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bil...illText/er/PDF

Of the 7 sections, only 2 of them referenced the 3rd grader. The other sections deal with parental notification and resolving concerns. I'm thinking the section that was the focus of our earlier discussion was considered the most controversial and that's why I saw the below quote in the articles I read.

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.

I don't claim to understand the legalese so if I'm saying something out of context, per my original request in #1

Obviously there are more details but I've used this paragraph as a condensed summary. If you do not believe this is sufficient for our discussion, feel free to quote other passages.

Responding to your posts shortly.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

For clarity, this policy affects students in ALL grades not just K-3 graders. I think I made reference to this being the overall intention in this or the other thread.

This is the piece that i found interesting.

So who gets to make the determination if the result will be abuse, abandonment or neglect? How are they are going to do that one? Is that one person liable if they make the wrong call or will they be liable along with the school district, county, state etc.?

I'm thinking its pretty logical and glad they added that phrase explicitly. I think abuse notification process is pretty standard nowadays. I know my wife is to report suspicions of abuse to nurse/school admin. From what I've heard, better to err on the side of caution and let the school nurse/admin make the final determination. So it makes sense not to notify abusive parents without taking caution.

Admittedly, abandonment or neglect is more subjective.

If a student knew that their parents cared more and were more invested for the student's well being than school personnel, they probably would have gone to the parents first with their issues instead of the school personnel. The students may not be right 100% of the time but I would go with the 80-20 rule. 80% of the time the students will have a better understanding of whether or not they will be in danger of abuse, abandonment or neglect if their parents are notified by the school than school personnel. The student is probably better positioned to determine this danger than the school personnel

I found your quote in section #2 and this does not explicitly deal with 3rd graders.

I would agree on your 80-20 rule when talking about older kids but not on 3rd graders. So as a general assumption (not backed by any research) my guess is

Elementary school - 20-80
Middle school - 50-50
High school - 80-20

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

While everyone has rightly focused on the sexual orientation and gender identity bit because well we have debated that, the Parental Rights in Education bill is mostly about requiring schools to notify a parent if there’s 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. It allows parents access to any records involving their child. Finally, it also allows parents to complain and sue if the above is not followed.

You are right. This is a big component of the bill that I wasn't focused on because the quotes I read weren't either.

The reality is the parents would have already been informed about all or most of this stuff anyway.

I agree on some but disagree on others, see below.

A caveat to my discussion below (and future discussions) - if the parent(s) are abusive, then no doubt do take the necessary precautions, inform the right people etc. and don't assume the parents need to be notified right away.

If a student came up to a teacher and said he felt suicidal, the teacher would inform the counselor or school psychiatrist and call the parents.

Yes, that's pretty clear cut to me. How about if its not as verbally straightforward as that? Teacher see drawings or teachers overhearing other kids talking about kid's depressive behavior etc.

If a student was pregnant, teachers were not required to say anything to the parents but they are mandatory reporters so they may be required to tell the police which would probably lead to the police telling the parents or convincing the student to tell the parents.

In googling more on this, I found a distinction made for "school counselors" (not nurse which was the example I used). Additionally, I also found NY, IL (and presumably CA), articles stating there was no responsibility to inform parents.

I understand we are talking about FL, and have not found anything explicitly on yes or no. If you have it, please provide link.

Bottom line to me. If my daughter told the school nurse/counselor she was pregnant and needed advice, meds etc. I would want the school to tell me right away. If a teacher overheard my daughter tell a friend she was pregnant, I would want the teacher/admin to notify me that the teacher overheard this comment.

If the student said he was gay, they would say nice and move on with the class. If he need support services, they would give the student that and try to facilitate getting that student to come out to his parents if it was safe for the student during that process.

In general agree with you that would be the result. But yeah, I would want teacher/admin to let me know even if they deemed he did not need "support services".

All records (if required) involving any of the situations I described would have been turned over to the parents if requested except in certain cases of confidentiality which may still apply.

Not trying to be facetious about this (but know it can be taken that way) but when I read above, my question to you is what happens if parents don't know to request?

Additionally, when I touched on this re: Duval link (which is separate from this discussion) but is related, I said below quote. We talked about suicidal and pregnant but not the others.

My scenario is if my child was feeling depressed, bullied, suicidal, approached school nurse about being pregnant etc. I would want the school to inform the parents.

But as we have already discussed, the general way the bill is written means anything in that bill could be anything. So now, the suicidal kid situation will remain exactly the same. The pregnant girl situation would remain the same. Unless it is completely out in the open before that the kid is gay, that could represent a change in 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. As such, now the parents must be notified.

See my above comments and dispute it remains the same, but yes, I do want parents to be notified

That is the reason for calling it the "Don't Say Gay" bill. Nothing in the bill changed the way the schools interact with the parents and students or the way the parents and students interact with the schools for anyone who is non LGBTQ+. Anything that would have caused parents to be notified before will have have the parents notified now.

The only things that they would not have been notified about before is a kid coming out to a teacher and a kid identifying as a different gender.

We'll disagree about this. The bill causes changes. It forces the teacher/admin to be more proactive, diligent, and accountable in informing parents.

Many of us have had kids in high school. I have already had a kid go through high school and have another one going starting this year. The idea that the high school would call me every time my son had a "change in his mental, emotional, or well being" in just his freshman year alone would have caused me to change my number. Because "OH MY GUY they gave us homework during the first week of school!" High School is all about changes in the mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being of a student. The idea that a school will be calling parents every time that occurs is unrealistic at best.

I get its a judgement call. And parental notification is less important the higher grades (unless the kid is wearing all black, talking about shootings and like). There are hormonal changes going on in older kids etc. Yes, I understand the difficulty. See next post on how I would approach this.

[Edward64]

I'm going to try condense this down to what I believe are the 3 points you are making. Please correct as needed

1) The law re: parental notification (not specific to 3rd graders) is not needed because parents are notified already anyway (except for LGBTQ situations)
2) The law is geared toward discrimination against LGBTQ situations because of #1
3) Even if it was needed, how would teachers know what to report or not? (Other than for the most obvious ones like self-harm, harm to others)

For #1, we are going to agree to disagree. I believe I have provided some examples of where a school does not have to report, care to report, nor consistently report about below quote. And the examples you and I discussed are not all inclusive.

... monitoring related to the student's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being

For #2, I concede the original intentions of those that created this bill was geared towards LGBTQ. No doubt. The actual need for the substance of the bill (parental notification) is where we disagree.

So I (believe) understand your concern about how it will discriminate. My response is as the bill is written, it is neutral and the law will/should protect gay, straight etc. as we go through a period of inevitable lawsuits to clarify the law.

For #3, this is the one I struggle with most. For me, there are clear cut (1) don't need to report and (2) do need to report. But there is a large grey area for (3) judgement call if need to report.

Some context first. In my line of work, I sometimes have to solve for or respond to something but I don't have all the answers. The approach I take is to describe the problem, and draft my proposed solution with all the applicable assumptions. It's almost always a team group think effort. I then let my manager and/or client read it and react to it, and hopefully we come with a solution we all agree to.

The key here is not to say this is absolutely right, the key is to say we (e.g. me, manager, client) agree this is what we think is right, get buy-in (e.g. there is an understanding if it's not right, there won't be pointing fingers, but we'll address whatever comes up together).

So for (3), if I was the top person, I would convene workgroup session(s) over 1 month (?) with the necessary people (attorneys, key admin, teacher representatives, LGBTQ representatives, child psychologist etc.), sit down and write up some guidelines, think up of X use cases/scenarios and the appropriate processes/responses.

I'd publish the guidelines to subset of interested public, and get all their comments & feedback. I'll get the team back together and make sure we incorporate their feedback or have explanations as to why we did not. Then publish the guidelines to the schools, teachers & parents (and maybe rinse and repeat a couple more times with a different group(s)).

(One more thing. As I'm a big proponent of change management/enablement (e.g. when I want to get the message out and increase "acceptance" of the new stuff), I'd implement a change campaign to go along with these new guidelines & processes)

[Flasch186]

This assumes that there are good faith actors involved in the bills creation and it’s intentions along with theirs

There aren’t


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[miami_fan]

Yes, that's pretty clear cut to me. How about if its not as verbally straightforward as that? Teacher see drawings or teachers overhearing other kids talking about kid's depressive behavior etc.

I believe they would if for not other reason than CYA. I offer this similar example. I know it is not an exact comparison but I think it is a suitable comparison.

Teacher alarmed by Oxford suspect's drawings ahead of shooting, warned school leaders

The teacher saw the drawing, alerted the administration, and they admin called the parents. We all know what happened afterwards but I am really dealing with that part. I am just think that it is how for most teachers would react.

Bottom line to me. If my daughter told the school nurse/counselor she was pregnant and needed advice, meds etc. I would want the school to tell me right away. If a teacher overheard my daughter tell a friend she was pregnant, I would want the teacher/admin to notify me that the teacher overheard this comment.

You and every other parent in the world would. Why would the school nurse/counselor want to hide this? What is the incentive to hide this from the parents outside of the father being the person or being related to the person who was told which creates its own set of issues? Again, if the student came to school nurse/counselor instead of the parent before, the student and now the school nurse/ counselor have concerns about abuse, neglect and/or abandonment. So they are not calling the parents right away anyway. If the student now knows that the person they were going to tell instead of their parents is now just going to turn around and in theory immediately tell the parents, why would the student tell that first person at all? How is that a good thing for anybody involved?

If the student said he was gay, they would say nice and move on with the class. If he need support services, they would give the student that and try to facilitate getting that student to come out to his parents if it was safe for the student during that process.

And because we are not going to ask like homosexuality is some sort of mental illness because it is 2022, we are going to do the same for a student who says he is heterosexual? Administration who we don't want to give instructions about sexual orientation now has to track it and inform parents of changes?

Not trying to be facetious about this (but know it can be taken that way) but when I read above, my question to you is what happens if parents don't know to request?

Request what? Services? A record of what services were provided? A record of what the student said? I got this out of the information the school sent to us last year.

Parental consent is required if the consultation about a particular child or adolescent is likely to be extensive and ongoing and/or if school actions may result in a significant intrusion on student or family privacy beyond what might be expected in the course of ordinary school activities.

My scenario is if my child was feeling depressed, bullied, , approached school nurse about being pregnant etc. I would want the school to inform the parents.

Same as before. I think this one is interesting from the other side. Should the parents be responsible for telling the school that their child is depressed or is being bullied? What if your child is the person causing the depression of or is bullying another student?

[miami_fan]

I think this will end up hurting parents rather than helping them. While some parents may not have gotten all the information that they wanted from the teachers, I think we can all acknowledge we got some. The only way the bill works is if the students tell the teachers what ails them or if the teachers sneak around to try to find out information. As I said before, there is no need to use the teacher as a middle man if the student actually wanted the parents to immediately know what ails them. I feel we have lost the resource of a teacher at the very least giving some guidance until the student is convinced that telling the parents is the right thing to do. I get it. The teacher may give the child some advice that the parents may not agree with. But it is also possible for them to at the least get them to talk to you about whatever is going on.

From the teacher's POV, why? Why wouldn't I stop a student and provide him with my version of the Miranda rights before they said anything to me? Why would I go looking for those drawings that might indicate a problem unless I am trying to make sure that when the student is shooting up the school, I am not on the list. What student who seems to be getting a bit round in the belly? I did not notice. I don't have a need to know for any of that information and if I am just going along to get along, my conscious is better off if I don't know.

Finally let's not act like all parents will feel the same way about the school calling them about these changes that someone at the school has determined needed parental notification. We keep making the assumption the teachers are notifying parents they don't know or disapprove of. I am not exactly sure what the administration says next if upon notification of a perceived issue, the parents say "And?" while looking for the number of a good lawyer.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I believe they would if for not other reason than CYA. I offer this similar example. I know it is not an exact comparison but I think it is a suitable comparison.

Teacher alarmed by Oxford suspect's drawings ahead of shooting, warned school leaders

And below is an example where there was not a clear alert.

Her son shared thoughts of suicide in a class paper. The school never told her.

You and every other parent in the world would. Why would the school nurse/counselor want to hide this? What is the incentive to hide this from the parents outside of the father being the person or being related to the person who was told which creates its own set of issues? Again, if the student came to school nurse/counselor instead of the parent before, the student and now the school nurse/ counselor have concerns about abuse, neglect and/or abandonment.

re: school counselor, some privacy concerns? See below links. The first link seems to be ambiguous on how they should act (or at least not a clear cut "inform parents"). Second link provides a scenario where parent was not informed and what counselor should have done. So evidence that school counselors (have not read about nurses) don't have to tell.

FAQs - American School Counselor Association (ASCA)
District Policy and Student Pregnancy - American School Counselor Association (ASCA)

Also in my earlier post I said

Additionally, I also found NY, IL (and presumably CA), articles stating there was no responsibility to inform parents.

re: your statement on abuse & neglect, I stated my below caveat before getting into this discussion with you. I accept there will be exceptions to the rule.

A caveat to my discussion below (and future discussions) - if the parent(s) are abusive, then no doubt do take the necessary precautions, inform the right people etc. and don't assume the parents need to be notified right away.

So they are not calling the parents right away anyway. If the student now knows that the person they were going to tell instead of their parents is now just going to turn around and in theory immediately tell the parents, why would the student tell that first person at all? How is that a good thing for anybody involved?

I'm not concerned if they don't call parents right away (other than for most time sensitive situations). I'm more concerned if they don't tell parents at all or in a reasonable timeframe (see example above about suicide). No science to this but I'm going to say within a week.

There will be situations where student won't verbally tell teacher/admin but they will observe it.

Question - you've used "right away" and "immediately tell" in your paragraph above. Are you okay with school/admin not reporting something "right away" but eventually will report it (pick a period, I'm going to say within a week)?

Or are you saying there are some things (outside of abuse, neglect, abandonment) that still should not be reported to parents at all? If its the latter, can you provide a couple examples?

And because we are not going to ask like homosexuality is some sort of mental illness because it is 2022, we are going to do the same for a student who says he is heterosexual? Administration who we don't want to give instructions about sexual orientation now has to track it and inform parents of changes?

I'd say bring it up in my above section of creating guidelines & use case scenarios and get everyone to weigh in. There are (rightfully) a lot of whatabouts that needs to be answered. My answer below but can be persuaded otherwise ...

I think the teacher/school will have to decide within the context of that statement.

Heterosexuality is the assumed default state. I've read census says 8% are LGBTQ (I thought I read previously 10-12%). So no, I do not believe school needs to report if a kid expresses his heterosexuality.

If the kid expresses his heterosexuality in class (or is overheard) and talks about having gotten STDs or having gotten a girl pregnant, absolutely report it.

I think its perfectly reasonable to assume if a kid comes out, out of the blue as LGBTQ in class, a teacher can/may assume the kid needs/wants support as the kid likely has not told parents or has told parents and have not gotten the parental support kid needs or wants.

If the "male" has been coming to school in a "dress", I think its perfectly normal to assume no need to inform parents if he says "I'm LGBTQ".

Request what? Services? A record of what services were provided? A record of what the student said? I got this out of the information the school sent to us last year.

As an example, record of pregnant female student discussing with nurse/counselor, see above discussion and links. How is parent to request those records if they don't know student discussed with nurse/counselor? And by the time they know (e.g. student is showing pregnancy, it'll be late).

Same as before. I think this one is interesting from the other side. Should the parents be responsible for telling the school that their child is depressed or is being bullied? What if your child is the person causing the depression of or is bullying another student?

Legally, as the law is written, no obligation to. But yes, parents should inform school. And yes, parents should take action if their kid is doing the bullying.

Unfortunately, if the kid is bullying, that is likely (I think) a reflection of the home the kid is from. So parents taking action is a maybe (?).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I think this will end up hurting parents rather than helping them. While some parents may not have gotten all the information that they wanted from the teachers, I think we can all acknowledge we got some. The only way the bill works is if the students tell the teachers what ails them or if the teachers sneak around to try to find out information. As I said before, there is no need to use the teacher as a middle man if the student actually wanted the parents to immediately know what ails them. I feel we have lost the resource of a teacher at the very least giving some guidance until the student is convinced that telling the parents is the right thing to do. I get it. The teacher may give the child some advice that the parents may not agree with. But it is also possible for them to at the least get them to talk to you about whatever is going on.

The law (as I understand it) does not require teachers to sneak around or go through extraordinary steps to get information. If this is wrong, let me know.

On the broader point I think you are making - students sometimes need someone other than parents to talk to/share problems with. I agree. Does that mean parents should not be informed at all? I say have the teacher/admin/counselor talk with the kid but yes, eventually share that information with parent.

Simply put.

The kid is living with parent. The kid does not want to tell the parent and talks to teacher/admin/friends. Whatever the issue is will come to light or manifest itself one way or another at home/with parents. So IMO much better to let parents know as they (kid & parents) will have to deal with it sooner or later (and in my experience, it is almost always best to deal sooner rather than later).

From the teacher's POV, why? Why wouldn't I stop a student and provide him with my version of the Miranda rights before they said anything to me? Why would I go looking for those drawings that might indicate a problem unless I am trying to make sure that when the student is shooting up the school, I am not on the list. What student who seems to be getting a bit round in the belly? I did not notice. I don't have a need to know for any of that information and if I am just going along to get along, my conscious is better off if I don't know.

No need for teacher to be proactive on providing the Miranda. Just had a bunch of posters explaining what's going on and provide a FAQ link if need more info.

Yes, if a teacher can honestly say "didn't know, didn't notice", no problem.

Finally let's not act like all parents will feel the same way about the school calling them about these changes that someone at the school has determined needed parental notification. We keep making the assumption the teachers are notifying parents they don't know or disapprove of. I am not exactly sure what the administration says next if upon notification of a perceived issue, the parents say "And?" while looking for the number of a good lawyer.

And ... nothing? If there is a formal notification and a parent says "and", then nothing. The school will say to the effect "we were required to inform you, we need to inform you about X-Y-Z, do you want to discuss more as we may have some school support services or can refer you to other services etc." and go from there.

If your point is parents will initiate lawsuits against the school because of being informed, I don't know why unless the parent thinks there was negligence in some way?

[miami_fan]

Question - you've used "right away" and "immediately tell" in your paragraph above. Are you okay with school/admin not reporting something "right away" but eventually will report it (pick a period, I'm going to say within a week)?

Or are you saying there are some things (outside of abuse, neglect, abandonment) that still should not be reported to parents at all? If its the latter, can you provide a couple examples?

First question, sure. That is what they have been doing all along without being told. From what I have heard from educators, parents are being over notified about things like suicide, bullying, and things involving student's physical and mental health. I found out that my youngest needed eyeglasses because his teacher observed that he was having issues seeing the board. I have no idea when she first observed it.

Second question, yes because why? Of course it is contingent on the student's grade level but for the most part, teachers have far more important things to do than to monitor who is hanging with who and who is holding who's hands in the hallway. If the students are not breaking school rules or the actual law, what exactly is the teacher reporting? For example, let's say a student is from a strict religious family who does not allow the student eat pork. The student then chooses to eat pork at lunch because the student is not nearly as committed to the religion as his parents. I don't think the teacher needs to tell the parent that it happened no matter how important it is to the parent and how much they may want to know that.

Heterosexuality is the assumed default state. I've read census says 8% are LGBTQ (I thought I read previously 10-12%). So no, I do not believe school needs to report if a kid expresses his heterosexuality.

Heterosexuality is YOUR assumed default state. I am pretty sure what you are describing is discrimination based on sexual orientation if done in a public school system. You can't have it both ways. Either you want the schools to inform parents of sexual orientation or not.

I think its perfectly reasonable to assume if a kid comes out, out of the blue as LGBTQ in class, a teacher can/may assume the kid needs/wants support as the kid likely has not told parents or has told parents and have not gotten the parental support kid needs or wants.

Schools shouldn't make that assumption either. Just because a student informed the teacher that they were a part of the LGBTQ community, that does not mean that they are coming out as LGBTQ for the first time. That would require a level of in depth conversation with the student that backers of the law say they don't want teachers to have with the students.

As an example, record of pregnant female student discussing with nurse/counselor, see above discussion and links. How is parent to request those records if they don't know student discussed with nurse/counselor? And by the time they know (e.g. student is showing pregnancy, it'll be late

I am not sure on the first part. There seems to be contradictions between the confidentiality laws. As for the second part, late for? It is not like the student will not be having the child anymore.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

First question, sure. That is what they have been doing all along without being told. From what I have heard from educators, parents are being over notified about things like suicide, bullying, and things involving student's physical and mental health. I found out that my youngest needed eyeglasses because his teacher observed that he was having issues seeing the board. I have no idea when she first observed it.

I've provided you some links/evidence to show that pregnancy & suicidal thoughts are not being reported (or at least consistently) to parents.

I have absolutely no issues in making these mandatory to report concerns to parents in a timely manner (e.g. 1 week) other than for the standard caveat of abuse, neglect, abandonment etc.

Second question, yes because why? Of course it is contingent on the student's grade level but for the most part, teachers have far more important things to do than to monitor who is hanging with who and who is holding who's hands in the hallway. If the students are not breaking school rules or the actual law, what exactly is the teacher reporting? For example, let's say a student is from a strict religious family who does not allow the student eat pork. The student then chooses to eat pork at lunch because the student is not nearly as committed to the religion as his parents. I don't think the teacher needs to tell the parent that it happened no matter how important it is to the parent and how much they may want to know that.

On what exactly is the teacher reporting, I'll go back to an earlier paragraph

My scenario is if my child was feeling depressed, bullied, suicidal, approached school nurse about being pregnant etc. I would want the school to inform the parents.

In your example, I see no need to report student eating pork. I don't think the FL law says that is a requirement?

The only situation that comes to mind is if the student is obviously upset, distressed, tore up about it because students are teasing him/her for it etc. then yes, teacher should consider reporting it.

Let me reword my question -

Provide a couple examples that you believe should not/never be reported to parents that breaks the law (e.g. not reporting a student eating pork does not break the law IMO).

(I honestly cannot think of a scenario outside of the overarching caveat)

Heterosexuality is YOUR assumed default state. I am pretty sure what you are describing is discrimination based on sexual orientation if done in a public school system. You can't have it both ways. Either you want the schools to inform parents of sexual orientation or not.

I think its perfectly reasonable to assume a default state in whether to report or not.

Also assume default state of someone (1) not suicidal (2) not pregnant (3) not physically unwell etc. No need to report those unless there is a specific reason. If you are concerned about being reprimanded or terminated because of this assumption, I'm pretty sure any reasonable jury will be on your side.

Schools shouldn't make that assumption either. Just because a student informed the teacher that they were a part of the LGBTQ community, that does not mean that they are coming out as LGBTQ for the first time. That would require a level of in depth conversation with the student that backers of the law say they don't want teachers to have with the students.

I've provided an example where a student coming out as LGBTQ does not need to be reported. And yes, there are other examples to. The context needs to be considered.

I will say if a student comes out to a teacher about being LGBTQ and is visible upset, distressed etc. then yes, teacher should understand the situation with student. But ultimately disclose to parents that student is really upset about this

I am not sure on the first part. There seems to be contradictions between the confidentiality laws. As for the second part, late for? It is not like the student will not be having the child anymore.

On your first sentence, yes there seems to be contradiction or ambiguity specific to pregnancy (and likely other situations also). Shouldn't this be clearly addressed then, provide some standardized baseline for what should be reported? That's ultimately what the FL law is proposing

On your second sentence, the scenario I was thinking of was student misses a couple periods, has a positive pregnancy test, talks to nurse/counselor. There is now 6-7 months before birth, there may be X months before she is obviously showing ... so yeah, I want to know pretty quick.

[miami_fan]

The law (as I understand it) does not require teachers to sneak around or go through extraordinary steps to get information. If this is wrong, let me know.

On the broader point I think you are making - students sometimes need someone other than parents to talk to/share problems with. I agree. Does that mean parents should not be informed at all? I say have the teacher/admin/counselor talk with the kid but yes, eventually share that information with parent.

Simply put.

The kid is living with parent. The kid does not want to tell the parent and talks to teacher/admin/friends. Whatever the issue is will come to light or manifest itself one way or another at home/with parents. So IMO much better to let parents know as they (kid & parents) will have to deal with it sooner or later (and in my experience, it is almost always best to deal sooner rather than later).

All of this is contingent on the student actually telling a teacher/admin/counselor in the first place. That is the important part, isn't it? The students are actually going to a teacher/admin/counselor for help/advice as opposed to fellow students or the internet. I reject the narrative that school staffs are hiding things like thoughts of suicide, pregnancies, depression, bullying etc. from parents on a regular basis. While you can find the examples to the contrary, I believe there are far more examples of students not wanting to talk to a parent about something, talking to a teacher/admin/counselor, the teacher/admin/counselor providing some guidance, and eventually the student being comfortable to talk to the parent about the issue and/or yes the teacher/admin/counselor letting the parent know because they know it is in the best interests of the child. Will it be as fast as the parent would want? Maybe not. I still think it is better than the alternative of the students not talking to anyone and suffering in silence or even worse going to Reddit or Tik Tok for advice on what to do.

And ... nothing? If there is a formal notification and a parent says "and", then nothing. The school will say to the effect "we were required to inform you, we need to inform you about X-Y-Z, do you want to discuss more as we may have some school support services or can refer you to other services etc." and go from there.

If your point is parents will initiate lawsuits against the school because of being informed, I don't know why unless the parent thinks there was negligence in some way?

If the school is notifying parents, it is because the school has determined that some is a problem. Parents are not notified because kids are on time for all their classes. They are notified when the kids are late and/or skip class.

Calling a parent and providing them with a formal notification that their child does not match the school's "default" is going to be a problem. Especially if the school can not explain why that notification is the best interests of that child's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

All of this is contingent on the student actually telling a teacher/admin/counselor in the first place. That is the important part, isn't it? The students are actually going to a teacher/admin/counselor for help/advice as opposed to fellow students or the internet. I reject the narrative that school staffs are hiding things like thoughts of suicide, pregnancies, depression, bullying etc. from parents on a regular basis.

Yes, its good student is going to teacher/admin/counselor in the first place, the issue is if it's disclosed to parents within a reasonable amount of time.

Pregnancies is an easy one to research and provide evidence. It is not consistent nationwide, but there are states that are not required to report to parents. I did not find a site with consolidated policies for all 50 States but see below links.

For California - Know Your Rights: Pregnant & Parenting Students | ACLU of Northern CA
For Illinois - 400 Bad Request.
For NY - https://www.nyclu.org/en/rrp-student-pregnancies-are-not-reportable-school-officials-or-parents#:~:text=New%20York%2C%20Federal%20and%20constitutional,parents%20without%20the%20student's%20permission
Maine - https://mainefamilyplanning.org/wp-c...hure_web-1.pdf

If you are saying - it may not be legally required to inform parents but its mostly done anyways. I don't think there are any studies to affirm or contradict that, nor any studies that says how long it takes to finally inform parents.

From my POV, there's enough evidence to where if a State wants to mandate it as a parental right, I don't have a problem at all.

While you can find the examples to the contrary, I believe there are far more examples of students not wanting to talk to a parent about something, talking to a teacher/admin/counselor, the teacher/admin/counselor providing some guidance, and eventually the student being comfortable to talk to the parent about the issue and/or yes the teacher/admin/counselor letting the parent know because they know it is in the best interests of the child. Will it be as fast as the parent would want? Maybe not.

I've stated 1 week. I understand it will vary based on complexity of the situation, but what do you think is the appropriate time, for the vast majority of situations, to let the parents know.

I still think it is better than the alternative of the students not talking to anyone and suffering in silence or even worse going to Reddit or Tik Tok for advice on what to do.

Oh yeah, no disagreement here.

If the school is notifying parents, it is because the school has determined that some is a problem. Parents are not notified because kids are on time for all their classes. They are notified when the kids are late and/or skip class.

Calling a parent and providing them with a formal notification that their child does not match the school's "default" is going to be a problem. Especially if the school can not explain why that notification is the best interests of that child's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being.

I understand the school has to inform the parents in a proper way and provide some level of assistance & support. Maybe I said it inelegantly but see below

The school will say to the effect "we were required to inform you, we need to inform you about X-Y-Z, do you want to discuss more as we may have some school support services or can refer you to other services etc." and go from there.

I was reacting more to your "parents say "And?" while looking for the number of a good lawyer.". I don't understand what a lawyer is needed? Only situation I can think of is if there is negligence involved (e.g. not reporting knowing about a pregnancy in Month 2 until Month 7)

[miami_fan]

I've provided you some links/evidence to show that pregnancy & suicidal thoughts are not being reported (or at least consistently) to parents.

I have absolutely no issues in making these mandatory to report concerns to parents in a timely manner (e.g. 1 week) other than for the standard caveat of abuse, neglect, abandonment etc.

From the first link

It is important to know your state laws around this topic (i.e., age of consent, issues around pregnancy decision-making, etc.) as well as your school board policies and community norms. Find out how or if the student has confirmed her pregnancy. Other issues to consider include whether the sex was consensual and the age difference of both parties. Understanding the student’s relationship with her parents/guardians will provide insights for how you might advise the student to tell her parents/guardians.

Exactly what I have seen most school staffs do. The second link is even better as it explains what blanket immediate notifications are not good ideas. This one part is telling.

A districtwide parental notification policy is likely meant to protect the district from angry parents should they threaten to flex their legal muscles when not informed about their child’s pregnancy. Other proponents of such a policy hold the view that parental notification requirements will result in parents persuading their child to carry their baby to term when studies show the opposite appears to be true. One-fifth of minors whose pregnancy was revealed by a third party were forced by their parents to have an abortion, and more than 90 percent of the parents expressed the stance that an abortion is in their minor child’s best interest. Minors whose pregnancy was revealed by a third party were more likely to report physical violence between them and their parents or concerns that there might be such violence.

In your example, I see no need to report student eating pork. I don't think the FL law says that is a requirement?

The only situation that comes to mind is if the student is obviously upset, distressed, tore up about it because students are teasing him/her for it etc. then yes, teacher should consider reporting it.

1. In accordance with the rights of parents enumerated
in ss. 1002.20 and 1014.04, 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.

An argument can be made that the parent made a decision about that student's upbringing that included the student will not eat pork. The law is all all about how the parents feel. So yes according to the law, the school should probably notify the parents if they think the parent might feel that the student's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being has been compromised and if they believe that fundamental right of parents to make decisions for their children has been compromised. Finally, they have to encourage the student to discuss that with the parents since it was observed. If they don't, the parents can file a complaint and the school (and the tax payers) will need to defend itself. How the student feels about things does not seem to be relevant according to the law. If we are basing everything on if the student is okay with whatever, then the law is irrelevant. If the student is cool with whatever is going on, there is nothing to tell the parents even if they disagree. If the student is in distress, the school already has rules in place to deal with that.

I think its perfectly reasonable to assume a default state in whether to report or not.

Also assume default state of someone (1) not suicidal (2) not pregnant (3) not physically unwell etc. No need to report those unless there is a specific reason. If you are concerned about being reprimanded or terminated because of this assumption, I'm pretty sure any reasonable jury will be on your side.

They are not computers. Also the point was not about whether they were suicidal, pregnant or physically unwell. It was about their sexual orientation. That is what my comment was about. An assumption of that and an assumption that is something the school gets to decide what the default is for a student is wrong.

I've provided an example where a student coming out as LGBTQ does not need to be reported. And yes, there are other examples to. The context needs to be considered.

I will say if a student comes out to a teacher about being LGBTQ and is visible upset, distressed etc. then yes, teacher should understand the situation with student. But ultimately disclose to parents that student is really upset about this

So if the student is not, no need for notification? The law is not about looking out for the students. It is about the parents. There is no need to try to couch this as looking out for the kids.

On your first sentence, yes there seems to be contradiction or ambiguity specific to pregnancy (and likely other situations also). Shouldn't this be clearly addressed then, provide some standardized baseline for what should be reported? That's ultimately what the FL law is proposing

PARENT/GUARDIAN CONSENT EXCEPTIONS
A parent or legal guardian must provide consent on behalf of a minor (under age 18) before health care services are provided, with several important exceptions.
• Emergency care
• Care for independent minors
o Age 16 or older, living apart from parents and managing their own financial affairs; OR legally
married; OR minors who are prosecuted as an adult in the justice system and confined to a
correctional institution (except for abortion and sterilization procedures)
• Specific health care services related to:

 Sexual health  Mental health  Substance use treatmen

Patients under 18 have the right to the following WITHOUT parent/guardian consent:
• Pregnancy testing, birth control information, and contraceptives only if:
o minor is married, pregnant, or a parent OR
o a physician determines probable health hazards would occur if services are not provided
• Medical and surgical care related to pregnancy
• Emergency contraception
• Testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections/STIs (including HIV)
• Substance abuse treatment, including alcohol or drugs
• Outpatient mental health services (age 13 and above) if:
o Treatment may not exceed 2 visits during a 1-week period
o Does not include mental health medications and some types of therapy

Patients under 18 have the right to the following WITHOUT parent/guardian consent:
• Pregnancy testing, birth control information, and contraceptives only if:
o minor is married, pregnant, or a parent OR
o a physician determines probable health hazards would occur if services are not provided
• Medical and surgical care related to pregnancy
• Emergency contraception
• Testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections/STIs (including HIV)
• Substance abuse treatment, including alcohol or drugs
• Outpatient mental health services (age 13 and above) if:
o Treatment may not exceed 2 visits during a 1-week period
o Does not include mental health medications and some types of therapy

HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS MUST OVERRIDE THE MINOR’S CONFIDENTIALITY AND REPORT IF:
• The minor is a risk to themselves or someone else
• There is suspicion of abuse or neglect
• Sexual activity occurred that was nonconsensual, without equality, or as a result of coercion
• The minor is under age 16 and has been sexually active with an adult over the age of 24

The reason I say it is confusing is I don't know whether a nurse for example is a medical provider or a part of the school staff. As the links show, trying to take a one size fits all approach on this is dangerous.

On your second sentence, the scenario I was thinking of was student misses a couple periods, has a positive pregnancy test, talks to nurse/counselor. There is now 6-7 months before birth, there may be X months before she is obviously showing ... so yeah, I want to know pretty quick.

Would you trade knowing at the 2-3 month mark with the student getting good medical advice and encouragement to tell you before that timeframe for not knowing until she begins to show because she did not say anything to anyone because she does not want anyone to tell you and try to handle those first 2-4 months on her own? This law may not get you the information you are looking for any faster.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

From the first link

The gist of all the links I provided show that not all State's school will require teachers/admin to report a student coming to them about a pregnancy within a "reasonable" amount of time (which I arbitrarily define as within 1 week but can flex a little here).

The second link is even better as it explains what blanket immediate notifications are not good ideas. This one part is telling.

Yes, I can believe negative things happen after a pregnancy is revealed to parents. Using my example above of pregnant student after 2 months ... what will happen if the pregnancy is NOT shared with parents until month 5 when the bump will be obvious? On abortion, her choices will be much less (especially now). On threat of violence, will that really lessen?

An argument can be made that the parent made a decision about that student's upbringing that included the student will not eat pork. The law is all all about how the parents feel. So yes according to the law, the school should probably notify the parents if they think the parent might feel that the student's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being has been compromised and if they believe that fundamental right of parents to make decisions for their children has been compromised. Finally, they have to encourage the student to discuss that with the parents since it was observed. If they don't, the parents can file a complaint and the school (and the tax payers) will need to defend itself. How the student feels about things does not seem to be relevant according to the law. If we are basing everything on if the student is okay with whatever, then the law is irrelevant. If the student is cool with whatever is going on, there is nothing to tell the parents even if they disagree. If the student is in distress, the school already has rules in place to deal with that.

Your paragraph quoted is predicated on "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."

If a the kid eats pork and is not distressed (e.g. well being aka mental, emotion or physical health) about it, how does your quote apply? Why would is the kid's well being compromised?

We're just going to have to disagree here. Let's leave it at my proposed working group will come up with guidelines and use case scenarios to prepare teachers/admin on how to react. I'm pretty sure if this is a use case for them, they'll say no need to report.

They are not computers. Also the point was not about whether they were suicidal, pregnant or physically unwell. It was about their sexual orientation. That is what my comment was about. An assumption of that and an assumption that is something the school gets to decide what the default is for a student is wrong.

The point you brought up was heterosexual/LGBTQ coming out scenarios. I said its normal to assume a default state and NOT have to report the default state. I shared some examples of when other default states does not need to be reported (e.g. (1) not suicidal (2) not pregnant (3) not physically unwell etc.).

It was to illustrate the point that your example (heterosexual kid having to be reported to parents) is IMO not the intent of the law (unless there is, for some reason, distress in kid saying it). It is also not the intent of the law for non-suicidal, not pregnant, not physically unwell to be reported to parents.

So if the student is not, no need for notification? The law is not about looking out for the students. It is about the parents. There is no need to try to couch this as looking out for the kids.

I can see that you are characterizing this law as "its for the parents" and implying it's not for their child. I disagree with this characterization.

The law is about looking out for their child because, as a whole, parents are better to help their child with their issue(s) than a teacher/admin who come in go and have little vested long term interest in the student.

The reason I say it is confusing is I don't know whether a nurse for example is a medical provider or a part of the school staff. As the links show, trying to take a one size fits all approach on this is dangerous.

The links were specific to school counselors who I assume are different from nurses. Regardless, it is confusing and IMO

From my POV, there's enough evidence (of inconsistencies, confusion) to where if a State wants to mandate it as a parental right, I don't have a problem at all

Would you trade knowing at the 2-3 month mark with the student getting good medical advice and encouragement to tell you before that timeframe for not knowing until she begins to show because she did not say anything to anyone because she does not want anyone to tell you and try to handle those first 2-4 months on her own? This law may not get you the information you are looking for any faster.

If it was either or, I would definitely trade not knowing for my child getting good medical advice. But is that really the trade off?

Schools shouldn't be saying "Parent, your kid is pregnant, bye". They should be saying similar to below.

I understand the school has to inform the parents in a proper way and provide some level of assistance & support. Maybe I said it inelegantly but see below

Question - it seems you do believe there are situations where a student's privacy supersedes a parent's right to know in a timely manner (which I've defined as 1 week but can flex a little). We've discussed examples back and forth and I may have missed it.

My question to you is provide a couple examples where you believe a student's privacy supersedes the parent's right to know that breaks the FL law. In other words, here are some examples where a teacher/admin does not need to tell the parents anything at all like being pregnant, being bullied, being depressed, being LGBTQ

[Flasch186]

You said internet off the law above but in other posts you’ve said that the authors intent of the law was in fact to discriminate against those not in your idea of default. You’re ok with the legislation because they coached their *phobic ideas behind your acceptance of neutral language but that’s one of my points about your arguments being disingenuous. You cannot have it both ways as the authors are not banking on courts to expose the Wolf in sheep’s clothing, they’re banking on the group think of those that are in their tribe to tread on those that they don’t want treading on them.

It’s not authentic good actors that you keep banking on. They’re phobes shoving down their ideals and you are granting them immunity for it because you have somehow read neutrality somewhere in there when it’s just simply the wrapping on the shitty gift they put under the tree.

I’m not sure you’re a phobe and if you want to argue we all have some phobia in us then I’ll concede that and say I don’t now hope much is in your personal arguments but it ain’t zero and this bill over been able to look beyond the authors fruit of the poisoned tree but it is simply that.

Note I know you’re going to focus on your 5 questions above to strawman it but this is the point that comes before all others. The legislation and is admitted purposes or intent is *phobic and you cannot move past that. It is an attack on the lgbtq+ community and it is written in a way that throws an iron curtain up because it’s so opaque.

Why will people die? C’mon, for the third time I’ll answer it that when a teacher gets caught up in a Karen parents attack and gets on the right wing extremist forum (Facebook) and that teacher becomes that poster child for why this bill is horrible and joe plumber decides to defend the children from said groomer there will be violence. Please don’t ask again because you seem to constantly pretzel around direct adverts like you don’t understand but you do. It’s just part of the game you play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[miami_fan]

We started this discussion with what I believe is a common understanding of the intent of the law. To quote you.

I do believe the intent of the supporters of the FL law is targeted towards LGBTQ

If this is not the case, there is no reason for further discussion. The law is not about bullying, depression, etc. There are already laws on the books for that and for the most part, there is not some national outcry for schools to inform parents of bullying and mental health issues that students may have. These things are a priority for schools. The law was written in a neutral way because that is the political game. The intent to target the LGBTQ community. When I say that it targets the LGBTQ communnities and show that, you say that the law is not written that way. When I provide the examples that should how this law would apply to all communities, you say that is not the intent of the law. Are we going with how it is written or what the intent is?

You can't say that if the student is not distressed by their heterosexuality, parents should not be notified and in the same breath say that if a student is not distressed by their non-heterosexuality, the parents should be notified. If that is the case, obviously it is not about the student's distress. It is about letting the parents know their child is "not normal" and at it worst, placing a judgement on the parents for allowing such "abnormal" behavior.

The law is only 7 pages long. I am taking the words in the law at face value and applying them. If we are serious about applying the law for all as it is written, then the things I brought up have to occur as that would the same for all. If we are doing what we believe both believe is the intent of the law, we will use the law to intentionally target the LGBT community as I feel you are suggesting because IMO there is a belief that they are "not normal" and we need to let the parents know as soon as possible so they can "fixed their child's issues". We can pick the one, two, three or four examples of schools and staffs that have screwed this up. I can acknowledge they screwed it up and they should be disciplined for it. There was no need for the law. Not to compare apples to oranges, but if one or two mass shootings can't lead to consistent gun banning laws, one or two screw ups in this area should not lead to this law.

This law purports itself about being for parents wanting to control the narrative of their child as opposed to the school. In general I have no problem with that. In general, I agree with that. However it is up to the parent to create the atmosphere and relationship with their student that will make the parent the first stop for the student when the student's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being has been compromised. If that is the case, guess what? The kids are not bringing their LGBTQ issues (if they have them as identification/embracing LGBTQ does not equate to having issues) to the school, they are bringing them to their parents first and foremost whether the parents agree with them or not, whether the parents will be angry with them or not, because all the evidence of the relationship says that the student can bring those issues to their parents without fear of abuse, neglect or abandonment.

But that is not the intent of the law IMO. The intent of the law is to target LGBTQ students, punish school staff that might support them and expose them to potential dangers from parents who have not created that relationship I mentioned as far as LGBTQ is concerned.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

You said internet off the law above but in other posts you’ve said that the authors intent of the law was in fact to discriminate against those not in your idea of default. You’re ok with the legislation because they coached their *phobic ideas behind your acceptance of neutral language but that’s one of my points about your arguments being disingenuous. You cannot have it both ways as the authors are not banking on courts to expose the Wolf in sheep’s clothing, they’re banking on the group think of those that are in their tribe to tread on those that they don’t want treading on them.

It’s not authentic good actors that you keep banking on. They’re phobes shoving down their ideals and you are granting them immunity for it because you have somehow read neutrality somewhere in there when it’s just simply the wrapping on the shitty gift they put under the tree.

I’m not sure you’re a phobe and if you want to argue we all have some phobia in us then I’ll concede that and say I don’t now hope much is in your personal arguments but it ain’t zero and this bill over been able to look beyond the authors fruit of the poisoned tree but it is simply that.

Note I know you’re going to focus on your 5 questions above to strawman it but this is the point that comes before all others. The legislation and is admitted purposes or intent is *phobic and you cannot move past that. It is an attack on the lgbtq+ community and it is written in a way that throws an iron curtain up because it’s so opaque.

Why will people die? C’mon, for the third time I’ll answer it that when a teacher gets caught up in a Karen parents attack and gets on the right wing extremist forum (Facebook) and that teacher becomes that poster child for why this bill is horrible and joe plumber decides to defend the children from said groomer there will be violence. Please don’t ask again because you seem to constantly pretzel around direct adverts like you don’t understand but you do. It’s just part of the game you play.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you really want to have a discussion with me, I'll wait for your answers to my questions first.

But yeah, I won't hold my breath. Big hat, no cattle.

Just in case our discussion comes up again, and for ease of reference, I'll post the outstanding questions I'm waiting from you on.

1) Do you believe that "instruct" = "mention". An example is a gay teacher introduces his gay spouse as his husband and you believe can get reprimanded/fired. I'm pretty sure from your posts above the answer is yes, but want to establish a clear baseline now. - Ans: Yes

2) The bill deals with 3rd graders and below. Why do you believe teachers are better than parents in discussing "sexual orientation or gender identity" topics with their 3rd grader?

3) I can extrapolate what you mean by gaslighting. But still waiting on goal post moving

4) Can you provide a similar example in recent times (let's since 2000's) of a gay 3rd grade teacher who was murdered because of teaching/instructing a child?

5) Please provide your quote where you have previously told me this? I honestly don't see it in prior posts re: "I’ve already described how people will die"

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

We started this discussion with what I believe is a common understanding of the intent of the law. To quote you.

I'd say you left out a key part and important part of my quote.

I do believe the intent of the supporters of the FL law is targeted towards LGBTQ but as it's written, it is not written that way.

And I'll toss in for good measure

I support the substance of the law as its written ... it is written in a neutral manner meaning it applies to both gay & straight.

If this is not the case, there is no reason for further discussion. The law is not about bullying, depression, etc. There are already laws on the books for that and for the most part, there is not some national outcry for schools to inform parents of bullying and mental health issues that students may have. These things are a priority for schools. The law was written in a neutral way because that is the political game. The intent to target the LGBTQ community. When I say that it targets the LGBTQ communnities and show that, you say that the law is not written that way. When I provide the examples that should how this law would apply to all communities, you say that is not the intent of the law. Are we going with how it is written or what the intent is?

You can't say that if the student is not distressed by their heterosexuality, parents should not be notified and in the same breath say that if a student is not distressed by their non-heterosexuality, the parents should be notified. If that is the case, obviously it is not about the student's distress. It is about letting the parents know their child is "not normal" and at it worst, placing a judgement on the parents for allowing such "abnormal" behavior.

The law is only 7 pages long. I am taking the words in the law at face value and applying them. If we are serious about applying the law for all as it is written, then the things I brought up have to occur as that would the same for all. If we are doing what we believe both believe is the intent of the law, we will use the law to intentionally target the LGBT community as I feel you are suggesting because IMO there is a belief that they are "not normal" and we need to let the parents know as soon as possible so they can "fixed their child's issues". We can pick the one, two, three or four examples of schools and staffs that have screwed this up. I can acknowledge they screwed it up and they should be disciplined for it. There was no need for the law. Not to compare apples to oranges, but if one or two mass shootings can't lead to consistent gun banning laws, one or two screw ups in this area should not lead to this law.

This law purports itself about being for parents wanting to control the narrative of their child as opposed to the school. In general I have no problem with that. In general, I agree with that. However it is up to the parent to create the atmosphere and relationship with their student that will make the parent the first stop for the student when the student's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being has been compromised. If that is the case, guess what? The kids are not bringing their LGBTQ issues (if they have them as identification/embracing LGBTQ does not equate to having issues) to the school, they are bringing them to their parents first and foremost whether the parents agree with them or not, whether the parents will be angry with them or not, because all the evidence of the relationship says that the student can bring those issues to their parents without fear of abuse, neglect or abandonment.

But that is not the intent of the law IMO. The intent of the law is to target LGBTQ students, punish school staff that might support them and expose them to potential dangers from parents who have not created that relationship I mentioned as far as LGBTQ is concerned.

I can go through rebuttals of your above points (and some I agree with) and we'll rinse-and-repeat. But I do think we've reached an impasse on this topic where you and I have expressed our beliefs & rationale, and we'll agree to disagree.

Thanks again for IMO a productive discussion where each of us has learn a little more about each other's POV.

Let me know if there are any outstanding questions you want me to try answer.

[Flasch186]

Don’t need any exploration or back and forth as it’s a waste of time but out of curiosity at what point will there be a mea culpa?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/13/polit...nda/index.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Don’t need any exploration or back and forth as it’s a waste of time but out of curiosity at what point will there be a mea culpa?

Florida students return to schools reshaped by Gov. DeSantis' anti-'woke' education agenda | CNN Politics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm pretty sure DeSantis doesn't follow this forum?

[whomario]

THREAD. We are at emergency levels. Gov DeSantis is crashing through practices, standards & regimes designed to maintain the provision of secular, public education by professionally licensed educators. This is a direct assault on a fundamental building block of healthy democracy. https://t.co/fs0J13m5pF

— Sherrilyn Ifill (@SIfill_) August 14, 2022

[Flasch186]

Oh E I’m talking to you… when you start to see evidence of what we were talking about occurring I’m wondering when you’ll say…

“Damn, I goes y’all were right.”

Can that ever occur and under what circumstance? Let’s go ahead and put the goal posts up.

BTW with the shortage of teachers Gov Desantis said if he had to choose between a well trained teacher to teach in a classroom or a 4 year marine he'd take the marine, SMH.

Once this plays out I just want you to be open to the ability to be contrite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

You're really going to have to tell me what you think I need to do a mea culpa on re: the article?

Let me go ahead and add that to the list ...

Just in case our discussion comes up again, and for ease of reference, I'll post the outstanding questions I'm waiting from you on.

1) Do you believe that "instruct" = "mention". An example is a gay teacher introduces his gay spouse as his husband and you believe can get reprimanded/fired. I'm pretty sure from your posts above the answer is yes, but want to establish a clear baseline now. - Ans: Yes

2) The bill deals with 3rd graders and below. Why do you believe teachers are better than parents in discussing "sexual orientation or gender identity" topics with their 3rd grader?

3) I can extrapolate what you mean by gaslighting. But still waiting on goal post moving

4) Can you provide a similar example in recent times (let's since 2000's) of a gay 3rd grade teacher who was murdered because of teaching/instructing a child?

5) Please provide your quote where you have previously told me this? I honestly don't see it in prior posts re: "I’ve already described how people will die"

6) What does E have to do a mea culpa on re: https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/13/polit...nda/index.html

[whomario]

I'm sure this will be great, absolutely no stone unturned type of stuff:

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You're really going to have to tell me what you think I need to do a mea culpa on re: the article?

I think Flasch is asking (as are we all), at what point would you be willing to admit that the GOP's public schooling-related legislation/actions (DeSantis first in this thread, twice, now also Noem) is actually an assault on public schooling?

Like, specifically, is there a line where if they cross it, you'll suddenly agree that none of their actions (that you spent multiple pages defending) were actually done in good faith?


The point of contention between you and everyone who is criticizing you (and honestly, not just on this topic) is that you do not see the bad faith behind these efforts (political considerations, as you have noted) aside.

You are tying yourself into knots attempting to explain how this is all just "neutral" (your word, used several times) governance, which is only true when shorn of context. With context, clearly, it absolutely is not. And that is why you're getting hammered by the board with it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I think Flasch is asking (as are we all), at what point would you be willing to admit that the GOP's public schooling-related legislation/actions (DeSantis first in this thread, twice, now also Noem) is actually an assault on public schooling?

I wouldn't use the description "assault" but to the rest of your statement, see below.

Like, specifically, is there a line where if they cross it, you'll suddenly agree that none of their actions (that you spent multiple pages defending) were actually done in good faith?

The point of contention between you and everyone who is criticizing you (and honestly, not just on this topic) is that you do not see the bad faith behind these efforts (political considerations, as you have noted) aside.

Er, see below my quotes from the first half of first page, there's more but you get the idea. I've acknowledged "none of their actions were actually done in good faith" a long time ago. I do see the "bad faith behind these efforts". See below.

I do believe political leaders who support it are doing it primarily for their own political gains,

I do believe it is a reaction of (real or not) wokeness that DeSantis wants to leverage (for political gain).

I do know the politicians that wrote the bill was really thinking about LGBTQ, wokeness etc.

I've said I believe the political intent was primarily against LGBTQ and therefore bad.

If this is the "mea culpa" you expect, then hopefully you see my confusion as I've not argued against your above statements.

You are tying yourself into knots attempting to explain how this is all just "neutral" (your word, used several times) governance, which is only true when shorn of context. With context, clearly, it absolutely is not. And that is why you're getting hammered by the board with it.

If you do not believe it is neutral in how the bill says the restrictions should be applied to straight/LGBTQ, then provide quotes from the bill and let's discuss.

If you do not believe it is neutral in how it will be applied, I absolutely do not dispute there will be those situations.

If FL really wants to keep this law, they better make sure it's applied as written & consistent (and amend as needed). Otherwise, there will be a ton of lawsuits challenging different standards on gay vs straight (as there should be).

[flere-imsaho]

Then honestly, I'm just confused as to what you're arguing.

If you concede that the politicians were targeting LGBTQ ("thinking about" & "primarily against") and you concede that it is not neutral in how it will be applied, then why the reticence to agree that these actions by DeSantis, Noem, et. al. constitute an assault on public schooling, individual liberties, etc...?

Is the idea simply too shrill for you?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Then honestly, I'm just confused as to what you're arguing.

If you concede that the politicians were targeting LGBTQ ("thinking about" & "primarily against") and you concede that it is not neutral in how it will be applied, then why the reticence to agree that these actions by DeSantis, Noem, et. al. constitute an assault on public schooling, individual liberties, etc...?

Is the idea simply too shrill for you?

Well, let's first get back to the mea culpa topic before going into the tangent of "assault".

I was confused because I didn't know what mea culpa was expected of me. You chimed in with your thoughts and I responded. Can we conclude that based on what you wrote and how I responded, that you acknowledge your request for a mea culpa (based on your original statements) is not needed?

Way too easy to shift topics before concluding the original topic first.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Well, let's first get back to the mea culpa topic before going into the tangent of "assault".

I was confused because I didn't know what mea culpa was expected of me. You chimed in with your thoughts and I responded. Can we conclude that based on what you wrote and how I responded, that you acknowledge your request for a mea culpa (based on your original statements) is not needed?

Considering flere wasn't the one asking for a mea culpa, why would he need to conclude or acknowledge anything?

SI

[sterlingice]

oh, and lol

Way too easy to shift topics before concluding the original topic first.

of course, it's not possible to answer questions in parallel

SI

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Considering flere wasn't the one asking for a mea culpa, why would he need to conclude or acknowledge anything?

SI

I guess below can be read as not really asking for a mea culpa. But reads that way to me.

I think Flasch is asking (as are we all), at what point would you be willing to admit that the GOP's public schooling-related legislation/actions (DeSantis first in this thread, twice, now also Noem) is actually an assault on public schooling?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

oh, and lol

of course, it's not possible to answer questions in parallel

SI

It absolutely is possible to discuss multiple items at one time. But then I find when discussing these topics with many here, that the parallels take a life on their own and we never get back to the original topic.

So why not finish the first one before jumping to something else.

[Flasch186]

https://counterhate.com/wp-content/u...ngle-pages.pdf

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I guess below can be read as not really asking for a mea culpa. But reads that way to me.

I didn't ask for a mea culpa. I might once teachers in Florida start getting arrested or lynched.

Nevertheless, in asking for a mea culpa, Flasch is being provocative. I reframed the gist of what Flasch was saying into the following:

If you concede that the politicians were targeting LGBTQ ("thinking about" & "primarily against") and you concede that it is not neutral in how it will be applied, then why the reticence to agree that these actions by DeSantis, Noem, et. al. constitute an assault on public schooling, individual liberties, etc...?

Is the idea simply too shrill for you?

[Flasch186]

I think what I meant to say is that is there a line that exists that when crossed E will admit that we were right?

I didn’t mean to ask for a mea culpa today just that if it was even something considerable or is all of this debate, as I suspect it is, a worthless waste of time?

Hopefully that clears it up


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk