Connecticut Democrats continue to attempt to keep information about what teachers teach away from concerned parents. Last month several lawmakers in the state proposed a new state bill that would “protect public school teachers.”
The legislation would keep conversations between teachers and students regarding “sensitive subjects” from being accessed by a Freedom of Information Act request, according to Fox Digital News.
If this legislation, Proposed Bill No. 6192, is enacted, it will change the state’s general statutes and parents will be prevented from accessing conversations between teachers and students about sexual orientation, gender identity, or race.
The legislation, “An Act Concerning the Nondisclosure of Certain Communications Between Teachers and Students,” was introduced to the state joint committee by four Democratic state representatives: Sarah Keitt, Dominique Johnson, Cristin McCarthy Vahey, and Jennifer Leeper.
They also proposed another bill to the Education Committee in January “to study how best to accommodate religious holidays for all students without negatively impacting the school calendar.”
Sarah Keitt serves as an assistant majority leader and vice chair of the Children’s Committee. McCarthy Vahey is chair of the Public Health Committee, and Leeper is vice chair of the Education Committee.
The legislation was posted on Twitter by Nicole Solas, a senior fellow with the Independent Women’s Forum. She wrote in the post, “Connecticut wants to make it illegal to obtain ‘any communication between a teacher and a student regarding sensitive subjects such as sexual orientation, gender identity, and race.’ That’s state-sanctioned grooming.”
She also noted that the bill aims to protect teachers and not protect children.
One of the comments to the post said, “Teachers aren’t trained counselors or therapists & this is beyond their scope of practice so why? Why legal confidentiality protection? What code of ethics are teachers bound to for this subject? Ultimately this hurts families & exposes kids to risk. Maybe that’s the point.”