Sb 226: Amendments to the Quality Basic Education Act

• Jurisdiction: Georgia,United States
• Citation: Vol. 39 No. 1
• Publication year: 2022

SB 226: Amendments to the Quality Basic Education Act

Katie Drees

kdrees1@student.gsu.edu

Lauren George

lgeorge8@student.gsu.edu

[Page 31]

EDUCATION

Elementary and Secondary Education: Amend Part 15 of Article 6 of Chapter 2 of Title 20 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to Miscellaneous Provisions of the "Quality Basic Education Act," so as to Require Each Local Board of Education to Adopt a Policy Providing for a Complaint Resolution Process to be Used by its Local School System to Address Complaints Submitted by Parents or Permanent Guardians Alleging that Material that is Harmful to Minors has been Provided or is Currently Available to a Student; Provide for Policy Requirements; Require the Department of Education to Develop a Model Policy for Use by Local School Systems; Provide for Public Review; Provide for a Definition; Provide for Related Matters; Repeal Conflicting Laws; and for Other Purposes

Code Section: O.C.G.A. § 20-2-324.6 (new)

Bill Number: SB 226

Act Number: 720

Georgia Laws: 2022 Ga. Laws 146

Effective Date: July 1, 2022

Summary: The Act requires each local board of education to adopt a complaint resolution process to be used by its local school system to address parents' or permanent guardians' complaints alleging that harmful material has been provided or is currently available to a minor student.

History

Increasing External Involvement in Curriculum Development

School librarians—trained in library book selection—normally have discretion when choosing which books to shelve in school

[Page 32]

libraries.¹ But across the United States, adults are pushing to increase their involvement in selecting the materials available to the nation's children, from textbooks to novels.² For example, several jurisdictions have developed legislation banning race- or LGBTQ+-related topics from the classroom.³ Other jurisdictions have introduced legislation establishing a "Parental Bill of Rights" aiming for curriculum transparency.⁴ In the past year alone, the American Library Association tracked nearly 1,600 book challenges or removals nationwide—the most since the organization began tracking more than twenty years ago.⁵ Senate Bill (SB) 226 reflects parents' successful push to have more visibility and control over the instructional materials of local schools.⁶

Reversing the "Rights Revolution"

Legal analysts have referred to the previous sixty years in United States history as the "rights revolution."⁷ During this period, Congress and the Supreme Court generally expanded the basic civil liberties

[Page 33]

granted to all Americans and reduced states' ability to intervene with these rights.⁸ But, since the 2020 election, the twenty-three Republican-controlled states have approved various legislation restricting rights relating to education, abortion, voting, sexuality, and public protest.⁹ Though this legislation is occurring at the individual state level, the uniformity of language and overlap in many of these bills establishes this movement as a national campaign against traditionally liberal agenda points.¹⁰

Now that Democrats control the White House and Congress, many conservative activists have shifted their focus to state and local governments.¹¹ The COVID-19 pandemic encouraged local advocacy by illuminating the impact local decisions, as opposed to federal policies, have on our daily lives.¹² There has also been a shift in internal dynamics amongst the Republican party.¹³ President Trump created demand for "hardline policies on race and culture" as White voters, who are used to controlling most societal institutions, began witnessing a demographic shift where no single racial group is the majority.¹⁴ Gerrymandering of state legislative districts has magnified White voters' influence while media nationalization has created a "powerful transmission belt" exposing conservative voters to similar talking points and cultural grievances.¹⁵ Republican-controlled legislatures believe that the Supreme Court is unlikely to resist these initiatives because of the current justices' political leanings.¹⁶ Asserting control over what schools are teaching is another way for uneasy Conservatives to push back against what they believe to be an impending "cultural war."¹⁷

[Page 34]

Complaint Resolution Process Prior to SB 226

Before SB 226, "counties were required to have reconsideration policies in place" to address complaints regarding school materials.¹⁸ Without a uniform process, schools maintained "locally-determined mechanisms" for complaint-filing processes when parents found school materials objectionable.¹⁹ Typically, the process began with an informal discussion between the school's principal or designee and the individual who raised concerns about the content of the school's material.²⁰ If an individual and a school principal or designee could not reach a resolution, the complainant could file a formal complaint with the school's media committee.²¹ Depending on the school, the media committee members may include school representatives, the library media specialist, teacher representatives from each grade level, and community and student representatives.²² If the complainant was not satisfied with the committee's decision, the complainant could then file an appeal with the local school district.²³ Nevertheless, there was no guaranteed method for the complainant to force a school district to determine whether the school material was objectionable.²⁴

[Page 35]

Legislative Movement to Restrict Material that is Harmful to Minors

Republican lawmakers in numerous Republican-led states are proposing legislation that restricts classroom digital and print materials that are harmful to minors.²⁵ Specifically, the legislation considers materials that are obscene, pornographic, or sexually exploitative of minors to be harmful.²⁶ Conservative activists argue that formal controls are required to eradicate harmful material from libraries and online school databases.²⁷ Educators and librarians believe that new laws are unnecessary because decades-old federal child protection and internet privacy laws already restrict the material available to minors through online school databases.²⁸ For example, since 1998, it has been a federal crime to distribute obscene material to a minor.²⁹ Additionally, the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires schools and libraries subject to the CIPA to have an internet safety policy to protect minors from accessing material that is obscene, contains child pornography, or is considered harmful to minors.³⁰ Critics are concerned that the true purpose of the new law is to censor

[Page 36]

material that contains gay, transgender, or other sexuality-related content.³¹

Bill Tracking of SB 226

Consideration and Passage by the Senate

Senator Jason Anavitarte (R-31st) sponsored SB 226 in the Georgia State Senate with Senator Jeff Mullis (R-53rd), Senator Butch Miller (R-49th), Senator Steve Gooch (R-51st), Senator Bruce Thompson (R-14th), Senator Burt Jones (R-25th), Senator Chuck Payne (R-54th), Senator Randy Robertson (R-29th), and Senator Greg Dolezal (R-27th) cosponsoring.³² The bill was placed in the Senate hopper on February 22, 2021.³³ On February 23, 2021, the Senate read SB 226 for the first time.³⁴ The bill originally sought to "amend Part 3 of Article 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated."³⁵ The General Assembly passed this Code section to eliminate the "sale, loan, and exhibition of harmful materials to minors," which were of "increasingly grave concern to the people of this state."³⁶ Under Code section 16-12-103 and Code section 16-12-105, furnishing, disseminating, or displaying sexually explicit materials to minors is a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.³⁷ A person convicted of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature in Georgia may be punished by a fine of up to $5,000 and a prison term of up to twelve months.³⁸ But public libraries that operated as a part of a school, college, or university were exempt from these provisions.³⁹ The purpose of SB 226, as introduced, was to close a portion of this library loophole and prevent public school libraries from distributing harmful materials to minors.⁴⁰ The Senate referred

[Page 37]

this bill to the Senate Committee on Judiciary because of its initial criminal component.⁴¹

The Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported the bill by substitute on March 3, 2021.⁴² The substitute made four key changes to the bill. First, the substitute added a new Code section under Title 20 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated.⁴³ Second, the substitute included new language that defined "harmful to minors" as a depiction of "nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse" in any form.⁴⁴ Third, the substitute created a complaint resolution process to address complaints by parents or guardians alleging that harmful materials have been provided or are currently available to students.⁴⁵ Lastly, the substitute required the Georgia Department of Education to create a model policy for a complaint resolution process for all school districts to use to determine whether material is harmful to minors.⁴⁶

The Senate read SB 226 for the second time on March 5, 2021, and for the third time on March 8, 2021.⁴⁷ On March 8, 2021, the Senate called SB 226 to the floor for consideration and adopted the bill by a vote of 35 to 16, almost entirely along party lines.⁴⁸

Consideration and Passage by the House of Representatives

Representative James Burchett (R-176th) sponsored SB 226 in the House.⁴⁹ The House read the bill for the first time on March 9, 2021, and for the second time on March 10, 2021.⁵⁰ On March 22, 2021, the

[Page 38]

House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee amended the bill in several ways and favorably reported a substitute.⁵¹

First, the substitute extended the initial roll-out period and gave local boards of education until January 1, 2022, to adopt a complaint...