Senate panel narrows "grooming" definition in educator discipline bill after heated debate

A Senate subcommittee on education on Wednesday amended and advanced a bill that defines "grooming behavior" for disciplinary purposes, adopting language that describes grooming as a pattern of conduct that may include, but is not limited to, engaging in a "*** act."

The amendment, offered by the bill sponsor, replaces the prior formulation and states: "grooming behavior means any pattern of behavior which in light of all relevant circumstances constitutes actions to entice or entrap a student with the intent to take advantage of such student for the benefit of the individual engaging in the pattern of behavior including but not limited to by engaging in a *** act with the student." The amendment passed on a recorded vote of 11-5 and the bill was advanced to the calendar under Rule 39.

The measure drew sustained opposition from several senators who said the amended language is too broad and risks sweeping in normal, mutually beneficial adult–student interactions. "When people hear the word grooming, they automatically assume that that is a *** act," Senator Donahue said. "This could catch up a lot of good teachers ... If you get called in to the BOEE as a groomer, because you built a relationship with a student that was not *** and was not to entice them to do anything other than do their schoolwork, you're ruined." Senator Kornbach warned the bill could label coaches or club advisors as groomers for ordinary encouragement, saying the statute's phrases such as "take advantage of" are not defined and could apply to mutually beneficial relationships.

Sponsor Senator Salmon said the Department of Education wants a definition that addresses a middle ground between inappropriate relationships and criminal sexual acts, aimed at stopping predatory conduct earlier. Salmon described the amendment as clarifying that grooming is not dependent solely on a sexual act but rather on a pattern intended to entice or entrap a student.

Senators recorded a mix of aye and no votes during floor calls and three senators were explicitly recorded as voting no during the bill's consideration. The committee clerk conducted a roll-call for the amendment; it passed 11-5. After debate, the subcommittee moved the bill forward; members noted it will return to the full committee or calendar for later action.

Because the text uses a pattern-based standard rather than a single-act definition, senators opposing the amendment urged additional specificity tied to existing criminal code provisions. Several asked that the language mirror statutory provisions already in Iowa law that define exploitation or grooming in criminal terms. The sponsor responded that the change is intended to allow the Department of Education to act where relationships show a pattern of enticement or entrapment even before a criminal act occurs.

The bill as amended will proceed to the committee calendar under Rule 39 for further consideration.