California became the first state to prohibit schools from requiring educators to tell parents if a student requests to go by a different name or pronouns after legislation was signed into law this week—a marked move in opposition to legislation in red states that has largely targeted transgender youth in schools.
The measure Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Monday, is the first to rebuke laws in a handful of other states that say educators must alert parents if a student requests to go by a different name or pronouns. At least 10 states say educators and classmates don’t have to use a student’s name or pronouns if it doesn’t align with a student’s sex assigned at birth.
Parents in at least six states have sued school districts over policies the districts say support transgender, gender nonconforming, and nonbinary students, according to previous EdWeek reporting. Those parents argue that by aiding in students’ social transitions, districts are violating parental rights.
Advocates for the new California law, who worry pronoun parental notification laws in other states could ultimately harm LGBTQ+ students, hope it can serve as a bellwether in response to the surge of bills across the country that have targeted LGBTQ+ youth in the past few years.
In California, more than a dozen school districts had adopted policies requiring staff to notify parents if their child identified as transgender, or asked to go by a different name or pronouns, according to the bill’s sponsor state Assemblyman Chris Ward, a Democrat.
One district’s pronoun policy prompted a lawsuit from the state’s attorney general last year, with the attorney general arguing that it violated the state’s constitutional guarantee of equal protection, privacy, and the fundamental right to education.
The California law will prohibit school districts from requiring educators to inform parents about a pronouns or name change without a student’s consent, provide resources for families to discuss gender and identity privately, and protect educators from retaliation if they do not disclose a student’s gender identity.
California’s new law seeks LGBTQ+ student protections, while Elon Musk threatens SpaceX move to Texas
The measure, which passed on party lines in both chambers in the heavily Democratic state, drew pushback from some Republicans as taking away rights from parents. The signage of the law prompted Elon Musk, the billionaire who owns X, formerly Twitter, to say in a post he would move aeronautics company SpaceX’s headquarters to Texas.
Assemblymember Bill Essayli, a Republican, said in a statement that he didn’t blame Musk, arguing that policies like the new legislation was costing the state “thousands of jobs and millions in tax revenue.”
Essayli had previously proposed legislation to require parental notification and criticized the attorney general’s lawsuit against the district that developed a policy.
In a statement, he said that the newly signed legislation “defied parents’ constitutional and God-given right to raise their children.”
Ward, the bill’s author, dismissed those assertions, saying nothing prevents parents from discussing the topic with their children. The new law is trying to make school a safe and supportive environment, he said.
“Those random school board leaders that, I believe, are acting throughout their personal dogma tied to this enhanced nationalization of the issue—that is something that deserved the state to step in and reestablish that baseline of what school districts should or shouldn’t do,” he said in a phone interview.
Proponents of LGBTQ+ rights applauded the signing of the legislation. Gabby Doyle, a senior manager of state advocacy for Trevor Project, an LGBTQ+ advocacy organization, said their research shows less than half of LGBTQ+ teens and children across the country feel their home is affirming of their identity.
“This legislation helps to ensure that LGBTQ+ students across California are not ‘forced out’ to potentially unsupportive families at home—which we know can lead to dangerous consequences,” Doyle said in a prepared statement. “Ultimately, this legislation represents an important step forward for making LGBTQ+ young people feel safe, accepted, and supported at school.”
C. Scott Miller, a 5th grade teacher in the Santa Ana Unified school district who serves as the co-chair of LGBTQ+ Caucus for the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers’ union, said the new law was a major step toward protecting students.
“It will ultimately save lives and that’s what’s important,” he said.
California enacts LGBTQ+ student protection law amid surge in anti-transgender legislation nationwide
Legislation targeting transgender students has skyrocketed in the last two years—with lawmakers introducing hundreds of bills nationwide to restrict classroom conversations on gender identity and sexual orientation, bathroom use, and what sports teams transgender athletes can play on. The laws have created confusion in some states about what can be taught, putting some teachers in a bind.
The matter of a student’s identity and privacy has also played out in court, with some judges ruling that parents must be notified of any changes in a student’s name or pronouns in school.
The California measure seems like a direct response to the national landscape, said Caitlin Carlson, professor and chair of communication and media at Seattle University, who has researched hate speech.
“This is an answer to those efforts to take away student rights, and to condemn that approach, and show states that are interested a new path forward to protecting trans and nonbinary student rights,” she said.
California has been the first in a number of progressive LGBTQ+ policies, serving as a testing ground for legislation, but it doesn’t necessarily mean others will follow suit, said Elizabeth Meyer, professor of education at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Still, the state is drawing a line for how it understands student privacy, which could rise to a national conversation, Carlson said, if the California law and the laws seeking to do the opposite end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
