Groups representing Iowa educators say legislation designed to stop teachers from grooming their students for sexual relationships is too broadly written and could have “a chilling effect” on educators connecting with their pupils.
Lawmakers on an Education subcommittee Wednesday advanced legislation proposed by the Iowa Department of Education to require mandatory reporting to the Board of Educational Examiners of licensed school employees who engage in “grooming behavior” toward students or abuse students.
Current law requires school boards, superintendents, Area Education Agency administrators and private school officials to report to the Board of Educational Examiners any instance of disciplinary action taken against a licensed school employee for “soliciting, encouraging or consummating a romantic or otherwise inappropriate relationship with a student.” The bill adds reporting is also required for conduct that constitutes grooming behavior toward a student or for conduct that constitutes abusing a student.
Eric St. Clair, legislative liaison for the Iowa Department of Education, said the bill allows the Board of Educational Examiners to take disciplinary action against licensed educators for “more nuanced forms of inappropriate relationships” with students.
Groups representing Iowa teachers and school administrators raised concerns about trying to define "grooming.“ They said the wording in the bill was too broad and could discourage educators from forming close connections and having one-on-one interactions with students that are not inappropriate or sexual in nature.
“I will tell you grooming is a problem,” said Melissa Peterson, a lobbyist representing the Iowa State Education Association teachers union. “And we absolutely have no interest in doing anything to protect bad apples. … That being said, again, we want to make sure we aren’t unnecessarily creating conditions where someone could fall under what this definition is just because they’re doing their job.”
House Study Bill 568 defines “grooming behavior” as “engaging in a pattern of flirtatious behavior, making any effort to gain unreasonable access to, or time alone with any student with no discernible educational purpose,” and any behavior “that can reasonably be construed as involving an inappropriate, overly personal, or intimate relationship with or conduct toward or focus on a student, and engaging in any other individualized, special treatment not in compliance with generally accepted educational practices.”
Iowa Department of Education officials said their language came from a national organization of professionals that deal with teacher licensure.
"The point of this bill is to get a foothold into this issue so the DOE can take action in light of all of the evidence brought before them to consider,“ St. Clair said.
Emily Piper, a lobbyist representing the Iowa Association of School Boards, recommended the bill be amended to include language from a 2018 Iowa Supreme Court decision that affirmed the conviction of an Eastern Iowa high school teacher who exchanged intimate Facebook messages and repeatedly hugged one of his underage students both at and away from school.
Bradley Wickes, a former social studies teacher at Camanche High School, challenged the District Court findings that his hugs with a student constituted “sexual conduct” under Iowa Code. He also argued prosecutors failed to provide sufficient evidence to show he engaged in a pattern, practice or scheme of conduct to engage in sexual conduct with a student.
"It is important to note that nothing should prohibit teachers from hugging students for reassurance, comfort, or in congratulation without putting themselves at risk of being charged with the crime of sexual exploitation," then-Justice Bruce Zager wrote in the court's opinion.
Sign up for On Iowa Politics
But Wickes' behavior "went far beyond a teacher trying to comfort and reassure a struggling student," the court wrote.
The justices agreed with prosecutors and the lower court that the more than 600 pages of Facebook messages between Wickes and the student became flirtatious and sexual in nature and showed that the hugs the two exchanged were for the purpose of Wickes' sexual gratification.
To determine whether Wickes engaged in “grooming,” justices wrote it required examining the actions of the teacher “in light of all of the circumstances to determine if the conduct at issue was sexual and done for the purposes of arousing or satisfying the sexual desires” of the teacher or the student.
Nathan Arnold, a lobbyist representing Professional Educators of Iowa, said schools have to remain “vigilant” in spotting and reporting abuse and misconduct, but raised concerns the bill “creates a presumption of guilt.”
Arnold read incidents he said have been listed by attorneys hired by school districts as grooming behavior by teachers. They included asking a student how many siblings they had and emailing students outside school hours.
While the problem identified by the Department of Education “is very real,” Arnold said the difficulty is using the word “grooming.”
“Except in very specific criminal context, (it) doesn’t really work as a legal term with any real definition or meaning,” he said. “ … It is more of an internet smear than it is a workable legal standard.”
Arnold said the bill would have a “chilling effect” on teachers forming connections with their students “if there’s some sort of a stigma about meeting with a student.”
Lawmakers on a Judiciary subcommittee advanced a separate bill Wednesday that defined grooming as a crime in Iowa law and created penalties for violating the law.
The bill, House Study Bill 575, defines grooming as using the internet, written communications or in-person interactions to “seduce, solicit, lure, or entice,” a child, child’s guardian or a person believed to be a child to commit a sex act.
Although lawmakers advanced the bill, members of the three-person subcommittee said they had a number of questions about why the bill was proposed and how it was worded.
Rep. Phil Thompson, R-Boone, said he’d like to speak with county attorneys about the necessity of the bill before moving it further along in the lawmaking process.
House Study Bill 568 passed the Education subcommittee on a 2-0 vote.
Rep. Sharon Steckman, D-Mason City, declined to sign off on, wanting to see language of the proposed amendment by the Iowa Association of School Boards.
Reps. Bill Gustoff, R-Des Moines, and Brooke Boden, R-Indianola, said they agree with aim of the bill and voted to advance it to continue discussion.
Boden said school districts have asked for more detailed guidelines, and she believes the bill will help the Board of Educational Examiners “make better decisions and maybe expedite the process as well.”
“I agree that there’s maybe some (alternative) language we can look at here to find common ground,” she said.
www.thegazette.com
Lawmakers on an Education subcommittee Wednesday advanced legislation proposed by the Iowa Department of Education to require mandatory reporting to the Board of Educational Examiners of licensed school employees who engage in “grooming behavior” toward students or abuse students.
Current law requires school boards, superintendents, Area Education Agency administrators and private school officials to report to the Board of Educational Examiners any instance of disciplinary action taken against a licensed school employee for “soliciting, encouraging or consummating a romantic or otherwise inappropriate relationship with a student.” The bill adds reporting is also required for conduct that constitutes grooming behavior toward a student or for conduct that constitutes abusing a student.
Eric St. Clair, legislative liaison for the Iowa Department of Education, said the bill allows the Board of Educational Examiners to take disciplinary action against licensed educators for “more nuanced forms of inappropriate relationships” with students.
Groups representing Iowa teachers and school administrators raised concerns about trying to define "grooming.“ They said the wording in the bill was too broad and could discourage educators from forming close connections and having one-on-one interactions with students that are not inappropriate or sexual in nature.
“I will tell you grooming is a problem,” said Melissa Peterson, a lobbyist representing the Iowa State Education Association teachers union. “And we absolutely have no interest in doing anything to protect bad apples. … That being said, again, we want to make sure we aren’t unnecessarily creating conditions where someone could fall under what this definition is just because they’re doing their job.”
House Study Bill 568 defines “grooming behavior” as “engaging in a pattern of flirtatious behavior, making any effort to gain unreasonable access to, or time alone with any student with no discernible educational purpose,” and any behavior “that can reasonably be construed as involving an inappropriate, overly personal, or intimate relationship with or conduct toward or focus on a student, and engaging in any other individualized, special treatment not in compliance with generally accepted educational practices.”
Iowa Department of Education officials said their language came from a national organization of professionals that deal with teacher licensure.
"The point of this bill is to get a foothold into this issue so the DOE can take action in light of all of the evidence brought before them to consider,“ St. Clair said.
2018 Iowa Supreme Court decision
Emily Piper, a lobbyist representing the Iowa Association of School Boards, recommended the bill be amended to include language from a 2018 Iowa Supreme Court decision that affirmed the conviction of an Eastern Iowa high school teacher who exchanged intimate Facebook messages and repeatedly hugged one of his underage students both at and away from school.
Bradley Wickes, a former social studies teacher at Camanche High School, challenged the District Court findings that his hugs with a student constituted “sexual conduct” under Iowa Code. He also argued prosecutors failed to provide sufficient evidence to show he engaged in a pattern, practice or scheme of conduct to engage in sexual conduct with a student.
"It is important to note that nothing should prohibit teachers from hugging students for reassurance, comfort, or in congratulation without putting themselves at risk of being charged with the crime of sexual exploitation," then-Justice Bruce Zager wrote in the court's opinion.
Sign up for On Iowa Politics
Subscribe now and receive a roundup of Iowa politics news sent directly to your inbox.
But Wickes' behavior "went far beyond a teacher trying to comfort and reassure a struggling student," the court wrote.
The justices agreed with prosecutors and the lower court that the more than 600 pages of Facebook messages between Wickes and the student became flirtatious and sexual in nature and showed that the hugs the two exchanged were for the purpose of Wickes' sexual gratification.
To determine whether Wickes engaged in “grooming,” justices wrote it required examining the actions of the teacher “in light of all of the circumstances to determine if the conduct at issue was sexual and done for the purposes of arousing or satisfying the sexual desires” of the teacher or the student.
Nathan Arnold, a lobbyist representing Professional Educators of Iowa, said schools have to remain “vigilant” in spotting and reporting abuse and misconduct, but raised concerns the bill “creates a presumption of guilt.”
Arnold read incidents he said have been listed by attorneys hired by school districts as grooming behavior by teachers. They included asking a student how many siblings they had and emailing students outside school hours.
While the problem identified by the Department of Education “is very real,” Arnold said the difficulty is using the word “grooming.”
“Except in very specific criminal context, (it) doesn’t really work as a legal term with any real definition or meaning,” he said. “ … It is more of an internet smear than it is a workable legal standard.”
Arnold said the bill would have a “chilling effect” on teachers forming connections with their students “if there’s some sort of a stigma about meeting with a student.”
Another grooming bill advances
Lawmakers on a Judiciary subcommittee advanced a separate bill Wednesday that defined grooming as a crime in Iowa law and created penalties for violating the law.
The bill, House Study Bill 575, defines grooming as using the internet, written communications or in-person interactions to “seduce, solicit, lure, or entice,” a child, child’s guardian or a person believed to be a child to commit a sex act.
Although lawmakers advanced the bill, members of the three-person subcommittee said they had a number of questions about why the bill was proposed and how it was worded.
Rep. Phil Thompson, R-Boone, said he’d like to speak with county attorneys about the necessity of the bill before moving it further along in the lawmaking process.
Looking for ‘common ground’
House Study Bill 568 passed the Education subcommittee on a 2-0 vote.
Rep. Sharon Steckman, D-Mason City, declined to sign off on, wanting to see language of the proposed amendment by the Iowa Association of School Boards.
Reps. Bill Gustoff, R-Des Moines, and Brooke Boden, R-Indianola, said they agree with aim of the bill and voted to advance it to continue discussion.
Boden said school districts have asked for more detailed guidelines, and she believes the bill will help the Board of Educational Examiners “make better decisions and maybe expedite the process as well.”
“I agree that there’s maybe some (alternative) language we can look at here to find common ground,” she said.
Teacher groups say grooming bill could have ‘chilling effect’
Legislation being debated in Iowa Legislature aims to stop teachers from grooming students for sexual relationships.
www.thegazette.com
