Parents' rights law takes center stage at board meeting
WCPSS' recently approved book challenge policy runs afoul of the new law
The new parents’ rights law was the subject of the majority of public comments given at the September Wake County Public Schools (WCPSS) board meeting.
Member Lynn Edmonds claimed the law harms LGBT students and could impact recruiting more teachers, yet didn’t really elaborate. Member Wing Ng sees the new law as reinforcing parental rights at a time when parents have increasingly questioned school board actions.
Public comments lead off with a woman upset she was notified about the name her child is using.
Elle Prince, a mom with two juniors at Enloe High School, complained she was notified by a teacher that one of her "trans kids" was going to use the same name as last year. For what it's worth, prior to speaking to the school board, I'm told she had already made a big deal out of being told something she already knew in an Enloe parent Facebook group.
She said she "emailed a cease and desist to the principal and teacher to convey the legal weight of his actions,” and that "His call created legal exposure for this County and in our case, there wasn't even a change in name or pronouns."
Prince then gave an interpretation of SB 49's notification under abuse and neglect.
"Of profound importance when considering SB 49 is that clearly outlined in NCGS 115c 76.45 C2 is an exception to parental access, quote, when a reasonably
prudent person would believe that disclosure would result in a child becoming an abused juvenile or neglected juvenile, end quote," said Prince.
Prince's argument cites the law governing education in the state (115c) says parental notification can be avoided if someone believes abuse might occur. She's only half right.
Senate Bill 49, which is now SL 2023-106, also has that text:
(c) The procedures shall not prohibit parents from accessing any of their child's education and health records created, maintained, or used by the public school unit, except as follows:
(1) As limited by G.S. 114A-10(6)a.
(2) When a reasonably prudent person would believe that disclosure would result in the child becoming an abused juvenile or neglected juvenile, as those terms are defined in G.S. 7B-101.
Note the citation "7B-101" in item 2 which Prince left out of her remarks. This statute describes the circumstances under the law pertaining to established abuse of a minor by an abusive guardian/parent. In other words, abuse and neglect have to have been documented for the record by making a report to DSS.
Sara DePasquale has outlined this abuse reporting criterion in a post at UNC's website Coates' Cannons NC Governmental Law website.
In the post, DePasquale documents one of the exceptions to the notification of parents as follows, emphasis added:
If a state employee (which includes employees of a political subdivision of the state and public school units) who suspects the child is a victim of a crime has made a report to law enforcement or DSS and notifying the parent of the employee’s suspicions would impede DSS’s or law enforcement’s assessment, the parent does not have a right to be promptly notified. G.S. 114A-10(10).
The following section of DePasquale's post (below) calls into question the idea that DSS might end up being used as an end-run around notifying parents due to strict privacy laws about reports they may receive if school officials start placing such reports.
To recap, the possible implication here is that parents/guardians who may not be abusive whatsoever might be reported as such by teachers or school officials in order to hide information like pronouns from parents.
What's more, the parent or guardian won't even know they've been reported as abusive. As DePasquale noted, "The state employee is not obligated to inform the parent they made a report to DSS."
Prince also claimed that based on the new parents' rights law, personnel can "just opt out" of notifying parents about anything.
"If you hear nothing else that I say please hear this all North Carolina School Personnel in every County regardless of their board's policies have the right under the current law to just opt out of these parental notifications. The solution is simple," said Prince.
She also added, "You don't need to be a lawyer simply read the new law."
Given what appears to be either a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the parents' rights law and statutes on abuse and neglect, maybe she should have asked a lawyer.
In a nutshell, her overarching argument seems to be that notifying parents of pronoun changes for their child "creates liability" for the district based on a misinterpretation of multiple laws. These are minor children, so her argument ignores the fact the parents are the legally responsible parties.
Prince's argument claims that notifying parents about the pronouns their child has requested to use creates potential for "abuse or neglect of the child," by "unsupportive families." That argument rests on the idea parents should first be viewed as "unsupportive," the implication being that the district, not the parent, should make decisions for that minor child. In other words, the child belongs to the district, not the parents.
Prince recommends the board adopt a policy to "inform students that all Personnel have been instructed to opt out but they can always confidentially share their
name and pronouns with a counselor and the council will share their name and pronouns with their teachers for them without anyone notifying their parents."
"I've heard of plans for this board to distribute name change forms leaving students without supportive families to either use the form and out themselves or not use the form and suffer through being misgendered and dead named," said Prince. "These forms violate Title IX and expose our district legally these forms emotionally disregulate students which disrupts our primary function to educate children to feel safe."
With regard to the "name change" forms mentioned by Prince, I've never encountered such a measure. My kids have been in WCPSS for well over a decade now and we've only seen the typical forms parents fill out at the beginning of a year for contact info, notes about the child that may help the teacher, etc.
It's a bit of a stretch to claim collecting basic student data such as a name (which every single school does at the onset of a school year) violates Title IX, the focus of which is protecting against sexual discrimination.
Renee Sekel, following the same theme as Prince on the parents' rights law, tried to cast parents as untrustworthy by citing a TikTok influencer parent who has made headlines for having abused her kids.
"I am asking you to protect our kids to realize that when a child tells a teacher that they are in danger the teacher has every right and in fact the obligation to believe that child and not put them in further danger," Sekel said.
She then went on to mislead on the content of certain books that are, in fact, pornographic in nature, by saying that "just as somebody claiming that a book about worms is pornographic doesn't actually make it so."
The book Sekel is likely referring to is "Worm Loves Worm," a popular choice at Drag Queen story hours which blurs the lines of biological sex related to marriage.
The description for the book reads, "When a worm meets a special worm and they fall in love, you know what happens next. They get married! But their friends want to know—who will wear the dress? And who will wear the tux? The answer is: it doesn't matter. Because Worm loves Worm."
“Worm Loves Worm” has been rated by various literacy venues as "LGBT" material and as appropriate for audiences 3 years old and up.
She also misrepresented other speaker's comments on the law, by saying, "The folks telling you tonight that SB 49 demands that you remove schools the library books also it doesn't make it so. The law does not say one single word about library books, supplemental, materials, and does not include library books."
While the law doesn't specify materials by name or category, it does enumerate the right of parents to be notified of materials their child will be encountering as well as the right to object to them.
Speaker Michele Morrow, a registered nurse, came to talk about the busing situation, but in her opening comments directly addressed Sekel, telling her to look up the definition of "Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy."
The syndrome is a mental health disorder defined typically as situations in which a caregiver makes up fake symptoms or causes real symptoms in a victim, usually a child, in order to make it seem that the victim has a real illness or mental health issue in order to gain attention for themselves.
Chair Lindsey Mahaffey interrupted Morrow almost immediately for attempting to address Sekel. Morrow redirected, telling the board instead what the syndrome involves.
Morrow then went on to blast the notion presented earlier by Sekel and Prince that parents should be deemed abusive and that the district telling parents they are being abusive if they talk to their kids about changing their gender identity before they are done with puberty
"Calling that abusive is actually the opposite of what it is," Morrow said. "You guys might want to look into that because I think it might end up being an issue here in the not-so-distant future."
After Morrow had finished her comments she started to leave the podium but Mahaffey called her back and reminded her comments should be directed at the board and not to members of the audience.
Morrow shot back, "As soon as you make sure that everybody does that and doesn't call us names, then I'll be happy to comply.”
More To The Story
Pavement Education Project (PEP) came and put the board on notice that its new book challenge policy violates the new parents' rights law.
WCPSS board of education successfully passed a policy banning parents from re-challenging a book or books for a two-year period. Once a title has been challenged a single time, the two-year ban on future challenges starts and it applies to all parents. Read more about the book challenge policy:
PEP's Colleen Miller said they submitted a letter to the board and went on to read it. The letter discusses the ratification of the parents' rights law and the intent to hold districts accountable to parents. It also says the new book challenge policy runs afoul of the new parents’ rights law.
"As the local government and body of the Wake County Public School System, you're responsible for the implementation of policies that are consistent with current laws. Chapter 114a enumerates many rights of parents that need your immediate attention,” Miller said as she read the letter. “For instance, the board recently policy code 3210 parental inspection of and objection to instructional materials. This policy now is in direct conflict with the new law as it severely restricts parents from challenging the presence of objectional books and other materials."
The PEP letter also asks the board to respond on how they will comply with the new law as it pertains to policy 3210.