Like people in other professions, educators face ethical decisions that range from everyday questions, such as whether to allow a student to turn in a late assignment, to traumatic situations, such as how to respond to an active shooter. But because of a new spate of parental rights laws driven by culture wars, a new dilemma has arisen, and it involves whether educators should tell parents that their children are gender-nonconforming or trans.
Because of a new spate of parental rights laws driven by culture wars, a new dilemma has arisen, and it involves whether educators should tell parents that their children are trans.
On Wednesday, the California Superior Court placed a temporary hold on a new policy passed by the Chino Valley Unified School District requiring educators to alert parents if their child identifies as, or asks to be treated as, a gender that differs from the biological sex or if their child uses a bathroom or attempts to participate in sex-segregated sports that are not designated for the biological sex. That temporary hold followed California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s lawsuit against the school district.
Multiple states, including Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky and North Carolina, have passed laws that ban school employees and independent contractors from using a student’s chosen pronouns if they differ from that student’s biological sex unless the district has such permission from the student’s parents. While the legal mechanisms may vary, the results of these so-called out laws are the same: Parents must be notified that their child is, in practical terms, gender-nonconforming.
For some parents, the discovery that their child is, or may be, gender-nonconforming may hit them with the force of a physical blow, but educators face a different dilemma when laws are passed mandating that they tell parents their child is gender-nonconforming. The real policy and practice question that educators face is this: Should they be mandated to disclose this information if there’s even a remote possibility that in response, the reported student will be subjected to abuse or neglect or get kicked out of the house?
This is not a strawman response. Abuse at home is an ongoing concern for educators, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported at least 1 in 7 minors are abused or neglected by parents or guardians. “This is likely an underestimate because many cases are unreported,” the CDC said. According to Youth.gov, “LGBTQ+ youth are overrepresented in child welfare systems, even though they are likely to be underreported because they risk harassment and abuse if their LGBTQ+ identity is disclosed.” A 2021 article in Pediatrics reported that transgender adolescents reported higher rates of physical, psychological and sexual abuse relative to their heterosexual cisgender peers.
This concern is so pressing that Iowa, Kentucky and North Carolina have clauses in their parental notification laws that provide exceptions for when educators don’t have to inform parents. In Iowa, educators can withhold that information “based on actual threats” to the child. In Kentucky, an exception can be made “if a reasonably prudent person would believe, based on previous conduct and history, that the disclosure would result in the child” being harmed.
A 2021 article in Pediatrics reported that transgender adolescents reported higher rates of physical, psychological and sexual abuse relative to their heterosexual cisgender peers.
Similarly, North Carolina allows an exception “when a reasonably prudent person would believe that disclosure would result in the child becoming an abused juvenile or neglected juvenile.” Alabama’s law says “no nurse, counselor, teacher, principal or other administrative official at a public or private school attended by a minor” shall withhold “from a minor’s parent or legal guardian information related to a minor’s perception that his or her gender or sex is inconsistent with his or her sex.” There doesn’t appear to be any exceptions in that law. Indiana says educators have to report such children to their parents and then says the new law “does not change an individual’s duty to report child abuse or neglect.”
But those exceptions don’t do what lawmakers may believe they do. What if educators suspect a child might be harmed if they share such information but can’t make a legally sound argument for why they have such a suspicion? What if an educator has no evidence that the child has been abused and then makes a report that leads to that child being abused?
Though these laws deal with students, which is to say children and adolescents, it seems to me that some people pushing such laws are forgetting (or, worse, not caring) that they’re arguing to expose children and adolescents to possible harm in ways that these minors cannot remedy or truly navigate.
It cannot be ignored that these laws are the result of the heterosexual, cisgender majority disregarding the voices of gender-nonconforming youth, but too many pundits and politicians have engaged in philosophical discussions rather than engage in conversations about how the most vulnerable human beings among us should be treated. Regardless of how one feels about “gender ideology,” gender-nonconforming students are still youths with little, if any, political power in society, and these laws have a significant impact on their lives.
In response to my using the phrase “outing laws,” some may argue that a student identifying as gender-nonconforming at school is already out. However, if the student has not told their parent how they identify, that’s a concern that an educator would have to consider. There’s not one blanket answer as to whether educators should reveal a student’s gender identity to their parents. There’s not one blanket answer as to whether educators should reveal a student’s gender identity to their parents. What if, for example, a student is being bullied for being gender-nonconforming? Parents unequivocally have a right to know when and why, if the reason is known, their child is being bullied, but what does a teacher or principal do if they’re concerned that telling the parents may lead to the student being hurt by the parent? The National Education Association’s code of ethics says educators “shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or to health and safety.” The sentiment expressed by this principle is found in many state teacher codes of ethics or conduct, including the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing’s ethical standard of establishing and maintaining “learning environments that are physically, intellectually, and emotionally safe.” Outing laws and many states’ code of teacher ethics, which teachers are mandated to obey, contradict. What then, are educators to do? Follow the law and violate the profession’s ethics or follow the profession’s ethics and break the law? What happens when the professional ethics by themselves create a contradiction, as it does with the bullying example? I do not pretend to have an answer, but the questions are real. As in all questions of ethics, there’s rarely just one answer. All situations aren’t the same. The problem with such laws, then, is that they mandate an answer that’s supposed to apply in all situations. Rather than pretending this debate is simple or purely philosophical, lawmakers, school board members and the rest of the public need to grapple with the hard complexities and the moral implications of what educators are being told to do. And they need to recognize that the gender-nonconforming youths who are subject to these laws and policies are not a culture war abstraction or a political talking point. They are living, breathing human beings, and the arguments concern how they are to be treated by government institutions they are legally obligated to attend. At a minimum, we owe it to them and to ourselves to be honest about what it is we’re debating. And be honest about whether new laws that policymakers insist are for their good will put them more at risk.
Nicholas Mitchell
Nicholas Mitchell is an assistant professor of curriculum studies at the University of Kansas. He is a curriculum theorist whose scholarship focuses on the intersection of education theory, policy and practice. He is the author of "On Bigotry" by Bloomsbury Publishing. 
