I’ve been railing for years against the public policy inclination coming down from the state Department of Education to have schools actively lie to parents about their children’s expressed gender identity.  Social media can sometimes give the impression that the tide is turning, and it may be, but we should expect progressive strongholds in Rhode Island to be the last to abandon genuflection to radical idols, even when doing so violates parental rights and harms children.

Nicole Solas recently reminded us of this unfortunate reality by reporting that the Barrington School Committee is still marching down this path.  Here’s the committee’s relevant language:

Secondary School Students: if school staff believe that a gender identity issue is presenting itself and creating challenges for a student at school, or if the student or parent(s)/guardian(s) of a student indicates an intention, the school should make every effort to work with the student. Generally, notification to a student’s parent(*s)/guardian(s) about their gender identity, expression, or transition is unnecessary, as they are already aware and supportive. However, some transgender students do not want their parents to know about their transgender status. These situations must be addressed on a case-by-case basis and require schools to balance the goal of supporting the student with the desire that parents be informed about their students. In these circumstances, the school administration will ask the superintendent for direction on how to proceed, as soon as the secondary student makes the request for non-disclosure to a parent or guardian. If the administration in collaboration with the superintendent determines that notifying the family carries risks for the student, they should work closely with the student to assess the degree to which, if any, the family will be involved in the process and must consider the age, health, well-being, and safety of the student. The superintendent will receive a copy of any safety plans or gender support plans resulting.

The overall conceit that the school department has this right is bad enough, but two details really drive home the affront.

First, notice that the starting point to initiate this process can come from school staff, as a separate origin than a child’s stated preferences:  “if school staff believe that a gender identity issue is presenting itself and creating challenges for a student at school.”  So, if a teacher, coach, janitor, or whoever somehow diagnoses a “gender identity issue,” “the school should make every effort to work with the student” to resolve it.

Second, notice the complete lack of due process or experts.  The policy requires no psychological evaluation by an outside professional or legal review granting permission to interfere with the parent-child relationship.  Basically, the principal and superintendent decide, with no way for parents to find out, seek second opinions (say, from actual doctors), or to seek redress if they discover the imposition and object.

In other words, this is not truly a serious policy to help children while keeping carefully within the bounds of each party’s rights.  It’s an ideological subversion, and anybody with children in a school district that sees its authority in this way should remove them as quickly as possible.

Barrington has long been one of two towns to which realtors have steered wealthier out-of-state house seekers, largely because of the school system, but in the past decade or so, it has been taken over by progressives.  Residents can be sure that the schools will happily indoctrinate and even medicate their children with or without their knowledge and hire teachers and administrators eager to do the job.

Featured image by Justin Katz using Dall-E 40.