Mainers had the opportunity on Tuesday to testify on three Republican-led bills that aim to protect students from sexually explicit material and give parents more say in what happens to their children in school.
“Parents should be the decision makers on all matters regarding their children,” said Rep. Sheila Lyman (R-Livermore Falls), presenting a bill to the committee.
The two bills aimed at expanding parental rights came from Rep. Lyman, while Rep. Reagan Paul (R-Winterport) proposed a bill to protect children from obscene material and sex trafficking.
LD 919
The first of Lyman’s bills, LD 919, drew support from nine Republican co-sponsors and would simply require schools to obtain written permission from parents before administering a survey or questionnaire that asks for or includes a student’s full name.
Though the bill may initially appear to target an innocuous practice, Lyman’s testimony explains how the bill will serve to protect student privacy and preserve parental authority.
“I firmly believe that our children’s privacy should always come first. Requiring the full name of a minor for surveys can lead to data breaches and misuse of sensitive information. By mandating parental consent for such disclosures, this bill ensures that parents are fully aware of what information is being collected from their children and how it will be used,” said Lyman.
She recounted stories shared with her by two educators who were forced to administer questionnaires to sixth-grade and middle school students, asking them about their social relationships, their preferred pronouns, and even their sexual activity.
“These surveys prompted some discomfort, and for other students they brought forward confusion and questions that should be presented to minors for consideration only when and if parents/guardians determine the appropriateness of the content. The educator expressed frustration and even concern for being responsible for delivering social emotional content inappropriate for some individuals,” she said.
Lyman pointed out that if parents had to be consulted prior to surveys, they would have been aware of the sexual content being presented to their children and could have declined to opt in.
She argued that the opt-in system respects the role of parents in raising their children with the values they choose. She claimed that the opt-in system would not be unnecessarily burdensome for schools, as the school could inform parents of opt-in requests using one of many already existing communication methods.
Nevertheless, multiple education groups, including the Maine Principals Association (MPA), testified against the bill.
Holly Blair, testifying for the MPA, argued that schools are already required to ask parental permission before administering surveys.
“This bill is unnecessary because existing laws and regulations already require parental consent for surveys and questionnaires administered to students in schools,” said Blair.
According to the Maine Department of Education (MDOE), Blair’s testimony is correct, and schools do need parental consent before administering surveys involving sensitive subjects based on federal law, though Lyman’s testimony suggests that the rules are not always followed.
Harris Van Pate submitted testimony in favor of the bill on behalf of the Maine Policy Institute and addressed concerns raised by the MPA about the bill’s redundancy.
“Under federal law, namely the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), parents have the right to inspect surveys administered to their children and opt them out of surveys that probe into sensitive areas. However, enforcement of PPRA has been uneven, and many parents are unaware of their rights. LD 919 goes further by establishing a state-level requirement for written parental consent, reinforcing federal protections and ensuring greater compliance,” said Van Pate.
LD 1439
Lyman’s LD 1439 functions very similarly to her other bill and drew eight Republican co-sponsors along with one Democrat, Rep. Joseph Rafferty (D-York).
Where LD 919 took aim at surveys extracting personally sensitive information, LD 1439 requires parental permission before a school can evaluate a student’s intellectual, emotional, behavioral, psychological, or physical development or conduct any other evaluations intended to diagnose conditions.
“Without this legislation, schools could conduct evaluations that have serious implications for our children’s future without parental awareness or involvement. This bill not only promotes transparency but also fosters trust between parents and educational institutions,” said Lyman in her testimony on the bill.
She argued that schools do not always share important behavioral information with parents, even if that information is used to change the way a student is taught or treated while in school.
The MDOE raised concerns that the bill would violate federal law by preventing a school from evaluating a child with disabilities if parents refused to consent.
“This bill conflicts with federal guidance in the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) [20 USC 1414(a-c) and 34 CFR 300.300- 306], which allows SAUs [school administrative units] to evaluate children for an initial referral in the absence of parental contact for the purposes of child find. If an SAU is unable to obtain consent, an evaluation may take place,” said the MDOE.
The MPA testified neither for nor against the bill, arguing that, though they support the purpose of the bill, laws aimed at the same end already exist, and the proposal could add unnecessary confusion.
“Efforts may be better directed towards reinforcing awareness and consistent application of the current legal framework, and providing clarity on the scope and definition of ‘assessment’ as it pertains to this bill,” said the MPA.
LD 1395
Rep. Paul’s bill, LD 1395, drew eight Republican co-sponsors and takes a somewhat different approach to protecting children in schools.
Paul’s bill requires that any digital or online library provided by a K-12 school ensure the database prevents the reception, transmission, or viewing of child pornography or other obscene material. If an online database provider fails to comply, schools are required to cease payments to them.
The bill also removes the exception to the law prohibiting the distribution of obscene material to minors that allows the material to be used for educational purposes in public schools. The exception regarding other educational institutions such as private schools and museums is not affected by the bill.
Finally, the bill allows schools to instruct students on identifying and preventing sexual abuse or sex trafficking, and allows schools to offer employee training on the same topics.
“Maine’s children face unprecedented challenges in today’s digital age. Unfiltered online platforms, often accessed through educational vendors, can expose students to sexually explicit or exploitative material–content no child should encounter under the guise of learning,” said Paul during her testimony
“The bill also eliminates Maine s outdated educational exemption under Title 17, §29l l(2)(A), which allows obscene material in schools if deemed for purely educational purposes. Closing this loophole ensures that content legally deemed as obscene has no place in our classrooms or libraries, reflecting common-sense standards that protect students while respecting the integrity of education,” she added.
The MPA also testified in opposition to Paul’s bill, claiming that its ban on obscene material for public schools could lead to unwarranted censorship.
“It could also result in the exclusion of literature-based, historically significant, and age-appropriate materials that are essential to a comprehensive education. The vague language and broad scope of the bill risk unintended consequences that could undermine the quality and integrity of public education in Maine,” said Blair speaking for the MPA.
The three bills are unlikely to pass through the Democratic-controlled legislature, and no dates have yet been set for work sessions on any of the bills.
The bills come as Maine’s education system faces national scrutiny after the MDOE, MPA, and Gov. Janet Mills (D-Maine) repeatedly refused to comply with federal Title IX antidiscrimination laws by allowing transgender-identifying males to compete in high school girls’ sports.
