Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parental Rights Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects parental-involvement education bill after extended floor debate
Summary
Senate Bill 22-44, which would have imposed new parental-involvement requirements and statutory protections for parental control in K-12 public education, failed in the House 41–49 after extensive debate over scope, legal terms and potential impacts on schools and students.
Senate Bill 22-44, as presented in its engrossed form, failed on the House floor by a vote of 41–49. The bill would have created new statutory provisions describing parental involvement in a child's education and restating parental control over upbringing and educational decisions.
Representative Heiner, chair of the House Education Committee, reported the committee’s recommendation against the bill, calling it "overly restrictive, redundant, and likely to create unintended negative consequences for schools, teachers, and students." He cited existing federal and state protections—Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and prior state legislation codifying parental rights—as reasons the bill duplicated existing law and would burden school staff.
Floor debate featured multiple Representatives. Representative Casper said proficiency scores show systemic problems and argued parental engagement is part of the solution. Representative Jonas, a school board member and committee member, warned against allowing a small vocal group to dictate policy to 68 school districts and noted national NAEP rankings praising North Dakota in several subjects. Representative Hager and Representative Koppelman argued the bill would spur lawsuits and create liability concerns because it grants parents remedies and attorney fees; Representative Hager said the bill's language could instill fear among teachers and administrators.
Other members raised concerns about the term "fundamental right" in statutory code. Representative Heiner said committee counsel advised that ‘‘fundamental rights’’ are typically constitutional and not properly created by statute; he urged a red vote on that basis. Supporters such as Representative Martin and Representative Twite framed the bill as providing recourse to parents when local boards or superintendents do not listen. Representative Satrim and Representative de Ruby raised child-protection and medical-consent concerns and noted the bill includes specific carve-outs to avoid preventing healthcare or abuse-reporting.
After extended debate and multiple members’ remarks, the clerk recorded 41 yea and 49 nay; the clerk declared the bill failed.
