Dozens of teachers and parents filled the halls of the Nebraska Capitol Tuesday to speak for and against a bill centered around the amount of control parents should have over what their children are taught in public schools.Â
Legislative Bill 374, introduced by state Sen. Dave Murman of Glenvil, would require schools adopt a policy giving parents access to review all learning materials the school uses, and give parents an opportunity to object and withdraw their students from lessons or activities in which materials are used that conflict with the “parent’s firmly held beliefs, values, or principles.â€
"Above all else, this bill aims to make clear that every parent is the foremost decision maker in every child's life," Murman said.Â
The bill was the subject of a public hearing Tuesday in the state Education Committee, which is chaired by Murman. The hearing stretched for more than four hours, with opinions pretty evenly split. In addition, more than 400 people submitted comments — 194 in support, and 212 opposed, according to vice chair Sen. Joni Albrecht of Thurston.Â
People are also reading…
The bill outlines the right of a parent, student or teacher to sue their school if they believe the school has violated the bill’s regulations. Parents would also have the ability to submit a complaint to the Nebraska Department of Education if their school refuses to remove library content deemed inappropriate.
The bill also prohibits what Murman described as "data mining," which he said refers to surveys and questionnaires schools send out that ask personal questions, such as requesting students define their sexual orientation or gender identity.Â
Murman refuted claims that LB374 is related to critical race theory, noting that the specific words "critical race theory" do not appear in the bill. Though that is true, the bill includes language frequently used by conservative advocates in debates on critical race theory.Â
One part of the bill prohibits instruction that promotes that members of a specific race are “inherently inferior or superior,†or “bear collective guilt and are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race.â€
At least four supporters, and many other opponents, brought up critical race theory in their testimony. One of these testifiers was State Board of Education member Kirk Penner, who supported LB374, although he clarified he was not speaking on behalf of the board. He said Nebraska schools promote several ideas parents would object to, including "critical race theory and gender ideology."
Most of the remaining supporters were parents, primarily mothers, along with several members of advocacy groups, school board members and teachers. Many shared their own anecdotes about material they considered inappropriate being taught in local schools, including material that was sexually explicit, racially prejudiced — primarily against white people — and inclusive of the LGBTQ+ community.Â
The general consensus among the supporters is that parents should have the right to excuse their students from material they find inappropriate. They also criticized what they described as the lack of transparency and flawed processes some school districts currently have for challenging such material.Â
"Don't make my job as a grandmother any harder," said supporter Robbie Adams.
The opposing group also included a mix of parents, students and teachers, as well as officials from various advocacy groups and education organizations such as the Nebraska State Education Association, the Nebraska Association of School Boards, the Greater Nebraska Schools Association and the public school districts of Omaha and Lincoln.Â
The most common argument among the opposition was that the bill would decrease the quality of education for Nebraska students, and would be impractical for most schools to comply with. Tim Royers with the NSEA said the bill could increase as it "implies teachers cannot be trusted."
"I'm giving LB374 an F- and I recommend it being held back indefinitely," said retired teacher Mark Metcalf.
Multiple opponents also argued that the processes suggested in LB374 are already in place in most public schools. Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln, an Education Committee member, mentioned this, and asked Murman what the bill would do to improve the current state regulation. Murman said the bill would make it "more clear" to parents that they have the option to challenge their school district.Â
Conrad argued that the current system already strikes the right balance, and expressed concern that the bill would give individual parents "veto power" on material that could affect other students' education. Although the bill would establish a review process that could remove material from schools, Murman said it would take multiple concerned parents to do that. The intent of the bill is to give parents more control over their specific child's education, he said.Â
A few opponents also objected to language in LB374 that could give parents the right to opt their students out of any and all vaccinations. The bill asserts that each parent has "the right to make health care and medical decisions for such child, including the right to make decisions regarding vaccinations and immunizations."
Several other opponents vouched for teaching all history, even if it is "uncomfortable." Some accused LB374 supporters of being privileged and not wanting their views challenged.Â
"I can't help but think this bill is based in fear," said elementary teacher Rebecca Britt.Â
When pressed by Conrad, Murman argued that LB374 doesn't discourage the teaching of accurate history, but argued that history education should be "divorced from race" and shouldn't degrade a particular race.
"We can teach history in Nebraska without being racist," Murman said.