Bob Chapek's response to Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill

[Vegas Disney Fan]

It’s not about what you or even 99.9999999% of the population thinks is age appropriate. One unreasonable parent is all it takes to cause an issue. A school district writing a letter explaining how whatever is widely used, developed by professionals and was approved as part of an open curriculum development process is meaningless to that one unreasonable person who has now been given undue power to act. Nothing about Florida allowed for the supposed problems this bill addresses. I’ve posted the relevant laws. Nobody has provided a link to a district’s age inappropriate materials that are approved at open school board meetings. The whole purpose is enabling the lawsuits. l that don’t require reasonableness of consensus.

This law gives parents an easier avenue to complain and requires a response from the school, that’s a far cry from giving one rouge parent undue power to decide curriculum though, that honor still belongs to the state…

"The text states that teachings on sexual orientation or gender identity would be banned “in kindergarten through grade 3 that is not in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

The school system and the state determine those standards, not rouge parents, a parent complaining won’t change that, this new law entitles that parent to an answer to their complaint, it doesn’t entitle them to the answer they want or changes as a result of the complaint, if they don’t like the answer the law also gives them the right to sue, but that still doesn’t mean they’ll get the answer or the change they want.

It’s a framework to complain and get an answer, not change.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Concerns about the recent, huge spike in transgenderism among students, and if this is or isn’t related to social contagion and suggestibility in children. Concerns about what students are being taught on the topic when good information is hard to come by either way, regarding curriculum specifics. Remember that a lot of this angst started during Covid because parents were actually seeing what their kids were being taught for the first time… I think we shouldn’t have situations where parents are fairly clueless about what their kids are learning.

As we talked about before, to my mind the middle ground here is increased transparency. Start with policies requiring lesson plans to be made available to parents, and then create an appeal process if parents object to specific content, where the parent has to show said content is truly not age appropriate in whatever way.

What particular areas of children’s education lack transparency? Are parents unable to ask children what they are learning and see what they are bringing home? Are teachers unavailable to parents or regularly deceptive? Is information on the curriculum not publicly availible?

This was not sparked by parents having some never-before-availible glimpse into the shadowy world of thier children’s education. It is because there has been a massive push, orchestrated and spearheaded by a network of special interest groups and individuals like Steve Bannon and Chris Rufo and publicized by a number of closely aligned “news” outlets, to target teachers and school boards with culture war assaults. Topics include the matters involved in this bill as well as CRT, masking, and vaccinations. School boards and teachers tend to be ill-equipped to respond to such assaults, to have fairly limited resources, and to be more easily intimidated then traditional political targets. The long term goal is to destabilize public education, but the more immediate goal is to create a wedge issue that can be used in elections at every level.

 

[lazyboy97o]

This law gives parents an easier avenue to complain and requires a response from the school, that’s a far cry from giving one rouge parent undue power to decide curriculum though, that honor still belongs to the state…

"The text states that teachings on sexual orientation or gender identity would be banned “in kindergarten through grade 3 that is not in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

The school system and the state determine those standards, not rouge parents, a parent complaining won’t change that, this new law entitles that parent to an answer to their complaint, it doesn’t entitle them to the answer they want or changes as a result of the complaint, if they don’t like the answer the law also gives them the right to sue, but that still doesn’t mean they’ll get the answer or the change they want.

It’s a framework to complain and get an answer, not change.

A parent could already attend the required annual board meeting for questions about the district’s curriculum. There was no need for a framework. It already existed. There was no uproar or inciting incident that exposed a major gap in the established process. This whole thing is a charade because it absolutely does center around singular individuals who are now empowered to enact.

Will you at least agree that the bills author and sponsors should not be re-elected since they are not good at their job and apparently write legislation that is not what they intend?

 

[Casper Gutman]

I don’t live in Florida but I‘d be more likely to vote for them since I think parents should have more involvement in their kids education and more recourse if they feel their voice isn’t heard.

I’m not a fan of the vagueness of this bill, and it’s very far from a perfect bill, but I’m a fan of the intent to give parents more of a voice in their kids education.

That isn't its intent. That's why its vague. That's why amendments that would have actually focused it on the problem it was supposedly meant to address were continuously rejected. That's why it contains an unusual enforcement mechanism. That's why its supporters, including the governor's spokesperson, have engaged in a hatefully slanderous but deeply revelatory assault on its opponents.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

You altered the text of the bill here and altered its meaning. Your "quote" leaves out an "or" between 3 or not, which makes the ban in K through 3 absolute AND extends the effect of the bill to every age group. And the point is that this law allows any parent to sue under its very vague, ill-defined wording. This enforcement method, increasingly popular among GOP state legislators, is intended to sidestep judicial review (you know, the Constitution) and terrify teachers and administrators with the threat of arbitrary, illogical lawsuits. Each such lawsuit will require the district to spend a significant amount of time and money on legal defense, and school districts lack both. And there is a very big, very targeted network of special interest groups ready to support those lawsuits. So the intention is that scared school districts will cut anything that even the most zealous parent could possibly find objectionable. Why not just write a law that says schools can't teach a certain thing? Why include the private lawsuit enforcement method?

Either the supposedly "very clear" text of this bill is not very clear after all or a lot of its supporters feel they need to grossly mischaracterize what is actually in it.

My mistake, I copy and pasted the text from the post responded to, the “or” doesn’t change anything though, the state still sets the standards.

 

[Casper Gutman]

My mistake, I copy and pasted the text from the post responded to, the “or” doesn’t change anything though, the state still sets the standards.

The "or" massively changes the text. It means that education on the vaguely defined topics is banned absolutely in K-3 and that the effect of the bill extend to every grade, which is not how its proponents have been arguing.

 

[lazyboy97o]

My mistake, I copy and pasted the text from the post responded to, the “or” doesn’t change anything though, the state still sets the standards.

If this is all about the state standards then why are the suits directed at districts and not the state? Why can’t parents ask questions about the curriculum at the required annual meeting? Why can’t parents have kids excused from instruction as already required?

 

[Casper Gutman]

If this is all about the state standards then why are the suits directed at districts and not the state? Why can’t parents ask questions about the curriculum at the required annual meeting? Why can’t parents have kids excused from instruction as already required?

Oh, by the way, the bill will go into effect A FULL SCHOOL YEAR before the Education Department is required to provide the "standards" mentioned in the bill. In other words, for a year teachers at every level will be required to comply with standards that do not exist. Why do you suppose the bill was written that way? Gee, it's almost like it's INVITING a flood of lawsuits.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

The "or" massively changes the text. It means that education on the vaguely defined topics is banned absolutely in K-3 and that the effect of the bill extend to every grade, which is not how its proponents have been arguing.

And what’s the effect of this bill extended to the other grades? All I see is they must meet state standards.

3. 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’m not seeing how ensuring instruction is in accordance with state standards is a bad thing.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And what’s the effect of this bill extended to the other grades? All I see is they must meet state standards.

3. 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’m not seeing how ensuring instruction is in accordance with state standards is a bad thing.

The districts were already required to follow state standards. The districts were already required to follow an open adoption process required by state law. The districts already required to provide the relevant materials online. The schools were already required to excuse students at the request of their parents. There is only one major new thing this bill actually introduces.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Oh, by the way, the bill will go into effect A FULL SCHOOL YEAR before the Education Department is required to provide the "standards" mentioned in the bill. In other words, for a year teachers at every level will be required to comply with standards that do not exist. Why do you suppose the bill was written that way? Gee, it's almost like it's INVITING a flood of lawsuits.

Which will be an easy lawsuit to win and delay the implementation for at least a year, checks and balances work.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Which will be an easy lawsuit to win and delay the implementation for at least a year, checks and balances work.

Where are districts getting this money? Is the state going to support districts that put up a reasonable, good faith fight with additional funds?

 

[Casper Gutman]

Which will be an easy lawsuit to win and delay the implementation for at least a year, checks and balances work.

This misses the entire point and isn't what will happen. Whether the school districts win or lose the lawsuits DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. The point is they have to spend time and money they don't have on defending themselves from every single lawsuit. To avoid this they will take out anything even the most extreme parent - or bad-faith special group - could consider offensive. That's the chilling effect.

And the point of the "vigilante citizen lawsuits as enforcement mechanism" is to AVOID typical checks and balances. To sidestep the Constitution. This is their authors specific intention.

Also, even after the standards are established, lawsuits can still be brought. School districts and teachers will still have to spend time and money they don't have. And while many may be rightfully tossed, if you don't think there's a fair number of "activist" judges eager to nail those "woke" teachers, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

The districts were already required to follow state standards. The districts were already required to follow an open adoption process required by state law. The districts already required to provide the relevant materials online. The schools were already required to excuse students at the request of their parents. There is only one major new thing this bill actually introduces.

Which leads us back to the circular argument that if it gender identity, etc wasn’t being taught before in k-3 and grades 3 and up were already following state standards this bill doesn’t actually change anything in the classroom.

I’m regretting I waded back into this thread, nobody’s changing their views on this, it’s just endless circular arguments based on all our personal ideologies and world views.

Agreeing to disagree is the only way to end the circle.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Where are districts getting this money? Is the state going to support districts that put up a reasonable, good faith fight with additional funds?

Well, the parents bringing the lawsuits will certainly be supported. There will be a whole bunch of special interest groups ready to offer advice and money (and to initiate the suit.) Certain lawsuits will be covered nightly on tremendously popular cable news shows. Gofundme dollars will flow in.

I fear the school districts might have a slightly rougher time.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Which leads us back to the circular argument that if it gender identity, etc wasn’t being taught before in k-3 and grades 3 and up were already following state standards this bill doesn’t actually change anything in the classroom.

I’m regretting I waded back into this bread, nobody’s changing their views on this, it’s just endless circular arguments based on all our personal ideologies and world views.

Agreeing to disagree is the only way to end the circle.

This isn't a circle. You refuse to address or even acknowledge the intention behind and impact of the lawsuit enforcement mechanism. You aren't actually addressing the issue.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Which leads us back to the circular argument that if it gender identity, etc wasn’t being taught before in k-3 and grades 3 and up were already following state standards this bill doesn’t actually change anything in the classroom.

I’m regretting I waded back into this bread, nobody’s changing their views on this, it’s just endless circular arguments based on all our personal ideologies and world views.

Agreeing to disagree is the only way to end the circle.

The circle is only in denying the additional enforcement mechanism, the lack of a problem and the explicit statements of sponsors.

If this doesn’t change anything then why is there a need for a new enforcement mechanism entirely separate from the established process that apparently works, since nothing is supposedly changing?

 

[DisneyHead123]

What particular areas of children’s education lack transparency? Are parents unable to ask children what they are learning and see what they are bringing home? Are teachers unavailable to parents or regularly deceptive? Is information on the curriculum not publicly availible?

This was not sparked by parents having some never-before-availible glimpse into the shadowy world of thier children’s education. It is because there has been a massive push, orchestrated and spearheaded by a network of special interest groups and individuals like Steve Bannon and Chris Rufo and publicized by a number of closely aligned “news” outlets, to target teachers and school boards with culture war assaults. Topics include the matters involved in this bill as well as CRT, masking, and vaccinations. School boards and teachers tend to be ill-equipped to respond to such assaults, to have fairly limited resources, and to be more easily intimidated then traditional political targets. The long term goal is to destabilize public education, but the more immediate goal is to create a wedge issue that can be used in elections at every level.

I just think this (school transparency - not the Florida bill, which I oppose) is a change whose time has come, and there's no going back at this point. In a way it's surprising that schools haven't already gone to full transparency - with parent input - on lesson plans. This generation is very different than the ones before. Fewer and people are having fewer and fewer children, and so the shrinking number of children who are born are more highly protected and invested in than ever before. There is more and more pressure on parents to help their children succeed in the crucible of meritocracy as working class jobs disappear, so academics and what kids learn at school is more obsessed over. And the old days where schools existed within communities where everyone shared more or less the same values and probably knew all the teachers long before their kids were in school are gone. Today, ideologically diverse groups of people who are pretty much strangers to each other end up sharing a school district.

Summary - I think the logical result of this will be that parents will be demanding increased transparency and input, before they hand their child's mind off to strangers.

 

[Disney4Lyfe]

The school curriculum is already dictated by appointed roles at the state, and elected officials at the local level. People elect people to lead the subject matter experts in the field. That's where parents have a say - with leadership. And, they already have this!

The curriculum is already controlled - it's not rouge. There is no need for this kind of language in legislation except to overstep, playcate certain audiences, and weaponize disagreement.

I’d advise you to look into NJs newest state curriculum. Then tell me this again with a straight face.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I just think this is a change whose time has come, and there's no going back at this point. In a way it's surprising that schools haven't already gone to full transparency - with parent input - on lesson plans. This generation is very different than the ones before. Fewer and people are having fewer and fewer children, and so the shrinking number of children who are born are more highly protected and invested in than ever before. There is more and more pressure on parents to help their children succeed in the crucible of meritocracy as working class jobs disappear, so academics and what kids learn at school is more obsessed over. And the old days where schools existed within communities where everyone shared more or less the same values and probably knew all the teachers long before their kids were in school are gone. Today, ideologically diverse groups of people who are pretty much strangers to each other end up sharing a school district.

Summary - I think the logical result of this will be that parents will be demanding increased transparency and input, before they hand their child's mind off to strangers.

How is the curriculum having to be approved on an annual basis at an open board meeting and that adopted curriculum and associated instructional materials being posted online an opaque process?