Updated Feb. 28, 2023: The Senate Judiciary Committee passed Senate Bill 337 on a party-line vote Monday. The bill was amended to address several concerns, including the ability of school employees to provide emergency medical assistance to students and the ability to protect students and educators in situations involving potential domestic abuse. The amendment also explicitly grants enforcement authority to the state superintendent of public instruction.
House Bill 502 and House Bill 566 were both passed Monday evening by the House Education Committee, the former on an 8-5 vote and the latter unanimously. HB 502 was amended to strike language that required parental notification of student-initiated conversations about human sexuality and that established a penalty of “gross neglect of duty” for educators who violate the law. HB 566 was amended to clarify that student-initiated discussions are not considered sex ed instruction, to specify materials that districts are required to post online, and to clarify that violation of the law may result in disciplinary action against an educator’s license by the Board of Public Education.
The Senate Education and Cultural Resources Committee also heard testimony Monday on Senate Bill 413, sponsored by Sen. Carl Glimm, R-Kila, barring public school districts from providing human sexuality instruction to students below sixth grade. Proponents including Superintendent Elsie Arntzen said the bill would address parental concerns about the “sexualization” of young students, a point raised repeatedly regarding previous sex ed bills. Opponents also echoed earlier testimony, arguing that SB 413 would infringe on the constitutional authority of the Board of Public Education and local school boards to set instructional standards and would endanger students who enter puberty before sixth grade by preventing them from receiving information about their experience.
The discussion on education policy at the Montana Legislature recently shifted towards the topic of human sexuality. Specifically, the focus was on the content of K-12 public school instruction and the communication between schools and parents regarding these lessons.
The conversation came to a culmination late last Friday as lawmakers on the House Education Committee heard public testimony on a proposal to change parental notification laws for sex education. House Bill 502, sponsored by Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe, R-Billings, is a follow-up to a 2021 law requiring that schools give parents 48-hour notice of any sex-based instruction. HB 502 would expand the notification window to a maximum of 10 days and require advance notice of any such instruction introduced by students. The bill also seeks to increase the penalty for educators who violate the law.
HB 502, brought forward by state Superintendent Elsie Arntzen, aims to address parental concerns regarding sex education in public schools. Additionally, it aims to tackle various issues raised by educators throughout Montana following the passage of the 2021 law.
Supporters of the bill largely echoed the first part of Seekins-Crowe’s argument. A trio of parents — two of them representing the Yellowstone County chapter of the conservative nonprofit Moms for Liberty — characterized HB 502 as a step toward greater transparency in sex ed curriculum and criticized the type of instruction currently being delivered throughout the state.
Jessie Browning, representing Moms for Liberty, emphasized the importance of parental notification regarding the inclusion of sex education or sexually explicit material in school curriculum. According to Browning, a yearly notification is insufficient, as parents desire real-time awareness to either opt their children out of such classes or engage in meaningful discussions with their kids at home, addressing the specific topics covered.
Montana’s major education associations have expressed serious doubts about the approach taken by HB 502 in addressing ongoing concerns raised by teachers. Lance Melton, the Executive Director of the Montana School Boards Association, spoke against the bill, stating that requiring repeated notifications throughout the year would detract from classroom instruction. He also pointed out that increasing the penalty to “gross neglect of duty” not only jeopardizes teachers’ jobs but also their ability to earn a living in Montana or elsewhere. Additionally, Melton raised concerns about including students as potential sources of sexual instruction, as this raises a multitude of questions regarding the law’s application. He suggested that school employees may be required to monitor conversations between students in hallways or playgrounds to ensure no impropriety occurs, making them liable for any oversight that parents might hold them accountable for.
“This is a Pandora’s box you don’t want to open, or at least that we recommend you do not do so,” said Melton, adding that his organization and others worked with lawmakers in 2021 to remove a similar student inclusion provision from that session’s sex ed proposal, Senate Bill 99.
Friday’s debate was in many ways a reversal of the education committee’s discussion earlier in the week over House Bill 566. That proposal, introduced by Rep. Fred Anderson, R-Great Falls, would strike last session’s 48-hour notice requirement from state law, effectively returning Montana schools to a once-a-year sex-ed notification. HB 566 would also remove lessons related to reproductive rights, sexual orientation and gender identity from the state’s definition of human sexuality instruction.
During an initial hearing Wednesday, Anderson likewise referred to HB 566 as an effort to address concerns arising from SB 99’s passage nearly two years ago. His approach, crafted in consultation with Melton and a collection of school law attorneys, garnered support from state education associations, including the Montana Federation of Public Employees and the School Administrators of Montana. The latter’s executive director, Rob Watson, acknowledged that respecting a parent’s decision regarding their child’s exposure to sensitive topics is an important part of a strong parent-teacher relationship. But, Watson continued, portions of SB 99 have created confusion for teachers and parents about what qualifies as sex education, resulting in “inconsistent application” of the notification requirements.
Arntzen expressed her disagreement with HB 566, stating that it is important for stakeholders to reach a consensus on what parental notification should entail and establish a suitable timeline that accommodates both perspectives. She also criticized the limited scope of HB 566, which mandates notification only for science or health enhancement courses where students are segregated by sex. Jeff Laszloffy from the Montana Family Foundation shared a similar viewpoint, opposing the exclusion of lessons on gender identity and sexual orientation from the definition of sex-based instruction, referring to these topics as contentious issues that have provoked parental concerns.
The hearings on HB 566 and HB 508 were relatively short compared to last Monday’s two-hour debate over Senate Bill 315. That proposal, sponsored by Sen. Mary Ann Dunwell, D-Helena, would enable school districts to implement “age and developmentally appropriate” education on personal and sexual health, safety and consent.
During her address to the Senate Education and Cultural Resources Committee on February 20th, Dunwell emphasized the objectives of SB 315. The bill aims to guarantee that teachings regarding comprehensive sex education are both medically precise and inclusive of the potential consequences adverse experiences can have on a student’s well-being and decision-making. Additionally, Dunwell highlighted that the legislation mandates school districts to submit reports on comprehensive sex education to the Office of Public Instruction. Furthermore, the bill prohibits districts from compelling students to attend these classes if their parents object, and strives to ensure that all related curriculum is readily available for parents to access.
According to Dunwell, the legislation mandates that parents have the option to review the instructional materials either electronically or in-person. Additionally, schools are obligated to publish this curriculum on their websites, along with the contact details of individuals who can address any inquiries.
The public hearing regarding SB 315 brought together various individuals who supported the focus on sex education in this session. Among the supporters were educators, civil rights advocates, health care professionals, and students. Together, they presented SB 315 as a means to promote instruction on human sexuality that is based on facts and culturally sensitive, while also discouraging discrimination against LGBTQ individuals in the classroom. Max Berndt, a student from Missoula who identifies as non-binary, emphasized that SB 315 would directly tackle the challenges currently faced by LGBTQ students in the state.
“I’ve grown weary of my identity being treated as a forbidden topic,” expressed Berndt, “and I’m exhausted by the confines placed on educators, reducing them to mere caretakers instead of mature individuals who inspire young minds to delve into and comprehend all the relevant issues and challenges present in today’s society.”
Paul Reisig, the executive director of the Montana Quality Education Coalition, expressed his opposition to SB 315 on behalf of his organization and five other statewide education associations. He argued that the bill encroaches on the constitutional responsibilities of the Board of Public Education and locally elected school boards, which are responsible for setting instructional standards. However, opponents of the bill had a different perspective. They believed that teaching children about human sexuality is the responsibility of parents, not public school teachers. Many parents voiced their concerns that Montana’s public school students are being exposed to a significant amount of sex-related instruction, some of which includes teachings on “controversial ideologies.”
Montana resident Jacob Handy expressed his belief that the committee members possess sufficient moral integrity and character to resist the introduction of such a matter to children, thus preserving their innocence. He further added that he does not believe anyone would willingly accept such a burden on their conscience.
Those same parental concerns emerged again on Friday during testimony on Senate Bill 337, a proposal from Sen. Theresa Manzella, R-Hamilton, to outline nearly a dozen specific rights guaranteed to parents under state law. Manzella’s list includes the right to direct the education and upbringing of a child and to access all educational records related to that child.
Supporters, including Browning with Moms for Liberty, applied the frustrations over sex education more broadly, arguing before the Senate Judiciary Committee that public schools in general need to be subject to greater transparency and contain their instructional efforts to core areas such as math, reading and science. Cheryl Tusken, former director of the Montana chapter of Parents’ Rights in Education, claimed that past parental efforts to bring more transparency to school curriculum in Bozeman were met with “contempt.” Several other proponents said they felt Montana’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey — conducted annually by the Office of Public Instruction — contained inappropriate questions about student sexual activity and drug use.
Watson and other critics from the public education sector expressed their support for certain provisions in SB 337 that aim to legalize current policies and practices. They also emphasized the significance of parental engagement and collaboration in education, highlighting its crucial role in ensuring student achievement.
Jenny Murnane Butcher, who serves as the deputy director of Montanans Organized for Education, raised concerns about certain aspects of the bill. She argued that the sections pertaining to parental consent, not only for human sexuality education but also for medical and mental health interventions, could be burdensome and potentially dangerous. In addition, Watson pointed out that other provisions in the bill might violate the rights of minors as outlined in both the U.S. and Montana constitutions, specifically in terms of equal protection and freedom of assembly. Representing the Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, Beth Brenneman expressed fear that requiring parental access to medical records, counselor evaluations, and other information could put victims of domestic abuse, as well as their teachers, at risk.
The destiny of these bills, as well as the larger discussion driving them, will be decided this week as the Legislature nears its halfway point on Friday. Dunwell’s SB 315 has already been postponed in committee based on a party-line vote. However, the conflicting propositions regarding sex education notification by Seekins-Crowe and Anderson are still awaiting consideration in the House Education Committee, as is SB 337 in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
This story was updated Feb. 28, 2023, to include post-publication bill activity.
