In response to the Republicans鈥� controversial parental rights bill, House Democrats plan to introduce alternative legislation Friday that will call for 鈥渋nclusive鈥� schools and oppose efforts to censor curriculum.

Led by Oregon Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, the resolution follows Wednesday鈥檚 marathon education committee session, which stretched 16 hours into Thursday morning and further clarified the partisan split over parents鈥� role in their children鈥檚 education. 

While the GOP鈥檚 approach emphasizes accommodating parents鈥� requests for information, the Democrats鈥� version focuses on ensuring schools provide a high-quality education and don鈥檛 discriminate against students. 

Republicans say their , which passed 25 to 17 and now moves to the full House, would increase transparency into curriculum, school funding and safety efforts. But Bonamici said during the committee meeting that it has 鈥渄iscriminatory undertones,鈥� because parents could use it to remove materials about topics they oppose, and would 鈥減it parents and families against their kids鈥� teachers and schools.鈥� 

For a month, her staff has worked with the National PTA, the National Parents Union, an advocacy group, and others on the Democratic 鈥淏ill of Rights for Students and Parents.鈥� The resolution says 鈥渟tudents benefit from opportunities to learn in diverse, well-funded 鈥� schools alongside peers who have had different life experiences鈥� and calls for schools to use materials that are 鈥渉istorically accurate鈥� and 鈥渞eflect the powerful diversity of the nation.鈥�

The passionate debate this week, which at times turned argumentative, was likely a preview of what鈥檚 to come in the full House. Democrats characterized the bill as an effort to weaken public education and micromanage how schools operate. Republicans, however, said schools have silenced parents, excluded them from discussions of their children鈥檚 gender identity and prioritized teachers unions鈥� demands during the pandemic.

鈥淭his bill is about one simple and fundamental principle 鈥� parents should always have a seat at the table,鈥� said Louisiana Rep. Julia Letlow, lead author of the Republicans鈥� bill. 鈥淩ather than opening the doors to welcome parents as partners, [schools] would rather slam them shut and have government bureaucrats make all the decisions.鈥�

Along those lines, the House Judiciary Committee is investigating a past incident that contributed to why the GOP thinks such legislation is needed. On Monday, committee Chair Jim Jordan of Ohio former leaders of the National School Boards Association to revisit the controversy surrounding a September 2021 letter asking for federal law enforcement鈥檚 help in addressing threats of violence against school officials. 

Republicans argue the letter prompted Attorney General Merrick Garland to in assessing whether some parents 鈥� angry about school closures, masking and curriculum issues 鈥� posed a threat. The association .

Democrats said school districts were never trying to stifle parents鈥� legitimate concerns. They argued Wednesday that the Republicans鈥� Parents Bill of Rights is unnecessary because states and districts already have policies in place that allow for and welcome parent input. 

Rep. Jamaal Bowman, a former Bronx, New York, teacher and principal, described past situations when parents were uncomfortable with books taught in a course. He met with them and they opted to remove their children from those lessons. 

鈥淯s sitting here, having this conversation is a waste of taxpayer time and money,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e are dealing with an issue that is already on the books.鈥�

Other Democrats asked the majority how such a law would be enforced and whether it would lead to withholding funds from schools if there鈥檚 a violation.

Debate over curriculum

Members of both parties introduced a wide array of amendments that would significantly expand the bill 鈥� topics ranging from cyberbullying and teacher pay to third-grade reading and charging parents fees for copies of curriculum. Two of the 30 amendments Democrats proposed were accepted, one that supports all students having internet access and another prohibiting the federal government from getting involved in curriculum and school administration issues. All 15 of the Republicans鈥� amendments passed. 

An amendment from New York Republican Brandon Williams, which says it鈥檚 important for schools to teach students about the Holocaust, was among those approved. But Republicans rejected amendments from Democrats that would prevent schools from excluding Black, Latino, LGBTQ and Asian American/Pacific Islander history, saying that the federal government has no place in curriculum. Democrats called it a double standard.

鈥淚t is highly hypocritical that the argument can be made for the history that affects you and your family yet the history that affects me and my family is unwanted, unaccepted and oftentimes offensive on this committee,鈥� said Rep. Jahana Hayes of Connecticut, a one-time National Teacher of the Year. 鈥淚f we are in fact saying that the federal government has no place in dictating curriculum, either we teach it all or we don’t teach anything.鈥�

Democrats opposed other amendments that they said target transgender students, including one from Rep. Bob Good of Virgina that would require schools to notify parents if their student鈥檚 gender identity is inconsistent with their sex assigned at birth. 

鈥淲e have legislators who want to make trans kids a problem in this country,鈥� said Rep, Primala Jayapal of Washington, who has a trans daughter. 鈥淪top doing this to our kids.鈥�

During the same meeting, the committee passed that would prohibit students identified male at birth from competing in girls sports.

鈥楳ore bureaucratic requirements鈥�

Despite the committee devoting so much time to parental rights, some experts note that there鈥檚 no legal basis for the Republicans鈥� law in the first place because education is a state matter and is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

鈥淭his is not constitutional and would mainly create more bureaucratic requirements, not truly empower parents,鈥� said Neal McCluskey, director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. 

Keri Rodrigues, president of the National Parents Union, who worked with Bonamici on the resolution, said parents could use such a bill to tie educators鈥� hands by suing in federal court.

鈥淚t鈥檚 going to make it incredibly messy for anything to happen in classrooms at all, because literally everything will be challenged,鈥� she said. 

At the same time, she said Bonamici鈥檚 resolution would better define a high-quality education and offer a legal recourse for parents when states don鈥檛 adequately fund schools.

鈥淭he only way we have ever started down the path toward equity in education in large-scale, meaningful ways has been when parents have been able to sue for justice in federal court,鈥� she said, naming desegregation cases Brown v. Board of Education and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education as examples. 鈥淲e need to strengthen our federal laws to continue down that path.鈥�

McCluskey said Republicans could more productively spend their time focusing on school choice, adding that states have made 鈥済reat strides鈥� in passing education savings accounts. Other parent advocates would like to see the federal government guarantee students a high-quality education, but argue the debate over parents鈥� rights misses the mark.

鈥淏oth parties have swung and missed on post-pandemic parent empowerment,鈥� said Ben Austin, founder of Education Civil Rights Now, which has been working in states to pass laws requiring students to receive a high-quality education. “Transparency is necessary, but it鈥檚 far from sufficient. Just because [parents] can see a budget doesn鈥檛 mean [they] can do anything about it.鈥�