Weeks two and three of South Carolina’s legislative session saw lively debate over proposals both new and familiar. This second edition of the Statehouse Insider highlights three bills that made progress that board members and parents should know about.
Changes to school board training, ethics policy
One of the most significant bills taken up this month flew largely outside the media’s view. That bill, S.70, proposes a series of changes relating to board member ethical conduct and required training. These include:
• Requiring the State Board of Education (SBE) to create a new model code of ethics for local school board members, including penalties for violations determined by SBE
• Mandating local boards adopt a local policy that, at a minimum, meets the standards set by SBE
• Requiring SBE to establish a model training program for board members, which must also be adopted by local boards
• Clarifying that mandatory board member training must be completed after every re-election, shifting the focus from new-member orientation to a continuing education model
• Adding “nepotism” and “conflicts of interest” to the list of required training topics
• Directing districts or their designees to provide the training program, seemingly replacing the current process in which SBE approves training providers
Strengthening training requirements for board members—and shifting this model to focus on continuing education—represents a positive change. The added criteria (nepotism and conflicts of interest) may also enhance the quality and scope of ethics training board members receive. At the same time, we find areas for improvement in this bill and at least one point of concern.
Under the bill, a district or its “designee” must provide this required training; however, the bill does not specify who determines the designee. In practice, this could vary by district. For some, it might be the superintendent who decides; for others, the board chair or the full board. What seems unlikely, however, is that—as written—individual board members would be able to choose their training source. We believe this would be the optimal approach, enabling board members to select from different high-quality training options best aligned with their public service needs.
This could be resolved by keeping the current process intact—under which SBE approves sources for board member training—while removing references to any particular entity from the related statute. This would ensure that all training providers are viewed equally under state law.
With regard to required training topics, we also support adding “student achievement” or similar language to ensure board members receive education on how their duties relate to improving academic outcomes.
Before passing the bill on Jan. 22, the Senate Education subcommittee made a change to shorten the deadline for completing the required training from one year to six months after a trustee takes office, an improvement recommended by CALN in its testimony.
Parental Rights Act
A sweeping measure known as the Parental Rights Act cleared a House 3M subcommittee last week, on Jan. 20, by a 4–2 vote. Among other changes, the bill would enshrine fundamental parents’ rights in state law, such as the right to direct the education of their children, make and consent to their physical and mental healthcare decisions, and participate in parent-teacher or school organizations offered by a district.
Additionally, school boards would need to adopt a local parents’ rights policy that allows parents to review their children’s curriculum and teacher-training materials. It must also give parents advance notice of any instruction on gender identity or related topics, allowing parents to opt their child out.
Under the bill, parents could also pull their child from specific instruction they deem harmful.
With a staggering 60 House co-sponsors, the bill underscores broad and urgent support for strengthening parental authority and providing recourse for noncompliance. H.4757 establishes a complaint process similar to the state’s K–12 instructional materials regulations, allowing parents to file a complaint with a local district that may be appealed to the State Board of Education. Where the bill differs is that parents may file suit in civil court after exhausting these options and may recover up to $5,000 per violation.
Student Physical Privacy Act
If the Student Physical Privacy Act (H.4756) sounds familiar, that’s because it is. The bill seeks to codify existing state budget protections that require public schools to designate multi-use restrooms, changing facilities, and sleeping quarters by biological sex, while extending similar requirements to public colleges and universities.
It also ensures that during overnight stays for school-authorized events, students are not required to share a bedroom, restroom, or changing facility with a person of the opposite sex, unless that person is a family member. Finally, the bill establishes a private right of action for certain violations, giving affected students and employees grounds to sue offending schools.
While the budget has done its job as a temporary vehicle for these protections, a law would give them permanency and stronger legal footing.
The bill soared through the House Judiciary Committee and passed the full House by a 96–19 vote on Thursday, Jan. 29.
***
North Carolina news will be included in later updates when its General Assembly convenes in February.