Kansas hearing on SB 76 pits parental-rights and teacher free-speech arguments against student privacy and safety concerns

Chairwoman Carolyn Estes convened a Senate Committee on Education hearing on Senate Bill 76, known in testimony as the Given Name Act, which would restrict school employees from addressing K‑12 students by a pronoun or name that differs from the name on a student’s birth certificate without written parental permission and would create a private right of action for alleged violations.

The bill’s reviser, Jason, told the committee that “Senate bill 76 would enact a given name act, regarding the use of pronouns and, proper names of students in school districts and at post secondary educational institutions.” He summarized the measure’s core provisions, including a statutory cause of action allowing an aggrieved person to sue a school district, post‑secondary institution or individual employee for injunctive relief or monetary damages and to recover reasonable attorney’s fees. He said the Senate amended the measure so that the parental‑permission requirement in subsection b applies only to minor students in the K‑12 setting, while subsection c preserves protections from adverse employment action for employees who decline to use inconsistent pronouns or names. Jason said the bill passed the Senate on a final vote of 26 to 14 and “would go into effect this July 1, and therefore, would be in effect for the 2025–2026 school year.”

Why it matters

Proponents argued the bill protects parents’ authority and teachers’ First Amendment rights; opponents said it would harm transgender and gender‑expansive students, undermine privacy, and invite litigation.

Supporters included parents and conservative policy groups who said district policies or practices had sometimes kept parents uninformed. Brittany Jones, director of policy engagement at Kansas Family Voice, said the bill is “a simple bill to remedy the situation and ensure that going forward we don't have lawsuits like these because school boards were able to adopt policies to protect the first amendment rights of parents and teachers.” Matt Sharp, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, described court decisions he said protect educators who decline to use terms they believe are untrue and said the bill “simply protects the freedom of every student and every teacher to ensure that they are never forced to abandon their beliefs.”

Opponents — including school board officials, educators, medical and mental‑health practitioners, civil‑rights advocates and families — said the bill’s language is vague, unenforceable in practice, and dangerous to vulnerable students. Angie Stalbomber, deputy director and general counsel for the Kansas Association of School Boards, told the committee the statute duplicates existing parental‑rights cause‑of‑action language in Kansas law and could conflict with anti‑bullying policies. School board member Amy Covey described adopting a local policy requiring parental permission in USD 469 Lansing and said that district’s policy also preserves staff and student choice not to use preferred names, which she said avoids compelling speech.

Several mental‑health and medical witnesses cited research and clinical concerns. Rachel McDaniel, a clinical social worker, warned that measures that make students feel unsafe can increase trauma and suicide risk. Molly Stevenson, co‑founder of Wildflower Community School, summarized peer‑reviewed research showing that gender‑expansive youth face high rates of school discrimination and that supportive school environments substantially reduce those harms.

Legal and operational questions

Witnesses and committee members asked how the bill would work in practice. Jason, the reviser, said the bill requires school employees to use the name on the birth certificate for minor students in K‑12 unless written parental permission for a different name is on file, but he acknowledged the draft does not require parents to submit birth certificates and does not prescribe a verification mechanism. Opponents noted that Kansas law does not uniformly require a birth certificate for school enrollment and raised privacy concerns if districts retain sensitive medical or identity data.

Critics also warned of litigation risk and broad damage remedies. Melissa Steiler of Loud Light Civic Action described the bill as “overly broad” and “unenforceable,” and said the damages clause lacks protections against frivolous lawsuits. Conferees noted federal litigation in other jurisdictions addressing misgendering, privacy and Title IX/Title VII questions; Racheenay Hamby cited court rulings that found misgendering and certain denials of accommodations can trigger federal claims.

Debate tone and committee context

Testimony was sharply divided and included multiple personal stories. Several parents described immediate, observable improvements in children when schools and teachers used their preferred names; other witnesses recounted instances they said showed teachers compelled to act against their beliefs. Timothy Graham, speaking as an opponent, told the committee, “This bill is not pro teacher,” and urged caution about changing law on the basis of isolated anecdotes. Rabbi Mote Reber of Kansas Interfaith Action characterized the bill as “legaliz[ing] bullying” and warned it would put vulnerable students at risk. Committee members asked detailed questions about definitions, the bill’s interaction with existing district policies and state statutes, and the scope of protection for post‑secondary institutions.

What the bill would do, as described in testimony

- Require written parental permission before K‑12 school employees may address a minor by a name other than that on the student’s birth certificate or by a pronoun inconsistent with the student’s biological sex (as revised by the Senate Committee on Education to limit the parental‑permission clause to minors in K‑12).

- Protect employees from adverse employment action for declining to use names or pronouns inconsistent with biological sex or birth‑certificate name, and protect students from disciplinary action for refusing to use such names or pronouns; those disciplinary‑action protections were described as applying at both K‑12 and post‑secondary levels.

- Create a private statutory cause of action allowing an aggrieved person to seek injunctive relief and monetary damages, including reasonable attorney’s fees.

- The reviser stated the bill passed the Senate on a final vote of 26–14 and, as drafted in testimony, would take effect July 1, making it operative for the 2025–2026 school year.

No committee vote or floor action occurred during the hearing; the session recorded only testimony and questioning.

Ending

Committee members and witnesses acknowledged the complexity of balancing parental authority, employees’ speech rights and student safety. Several conferees urged legislators to leave such decisions to local school boards and to consider the operational and privacy implications of requiring birth‑certificate verification. Others pressed that statutory clarity is needed to protect teachers and parents. The hearing record shows deep disagreement about whether SB 76 addresses a widespread problem or would create new harms for students and school staff.