Educators raised concerns that a proposed bill targeting classroom “grooming” could interfere with beneficial student-teacher relationships. (Stock photo by Klaus Vedfelt/Getty Images)
Republicans on an Iowa House panel advanced a bill addressing disciplinary action against teachers who “groom” students with the intent to “exploit” them, despite concerns from some educators that the proposed language could chill innocent and helpful classroom relationships.
House Study Bill 46 requires mandatory reporting of licensed school employees to the Board of Educational Examiners if they engage in “grooming behavior” toward students. “Grooming behavior” is defined as “the process of building trust or emotional connections with a student with the intent to exploit such student.”
Last year, Iowa lawmakers created a new felony criminal offense of grooming, defined as “the use of digital or written communication to entice, encourage, or lure a child into committing a sex act.”
Officials with the Board of Educational Examiners told lawmakers the new bill changes the definition of grooming because the Iowa Attorney General’s Office told them current law would not allow enforcement of grooming if the adult has not engaged in a sex act with the student.
However, some representatives of educators argued that while they support the intention of the bill, the definitions are too broad.
Dave Daughton, representing the School Administrators of Iowa and Rural School Advocates of Iowa, said it’s a “bad thing” if a teacher intends to exploit a child. “But teachers and school staff build trust with students all the time and build connections with students to help them to learn. And so while we aren’t condoning any of this, we just have some concerns about the language and how that fits in,” he said.
Nathan Arnold, representing Public Educators of Iowa, also raised concerns about the definition of grooming.
“Imagine if you were accused of something and you said, ‘Oh my god, I’m innocent. I didn’t do anything wrong,’ and asked, ‘What am I accused of?’ And their answer was ‘the process of building trust and emotional connection with a student,’” he said.
Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, a Democrat from Ames, voted against the bill, saying she’s concerned about the language creating “a chilling effect on the building of trust and emotional connection” with students.
But subcommittee chair Rep. Brooke Boden, R-Indianola, said people shouldn’t assume the Board of Educational Examiners can’t “rationalize” the difference between a normal student-teacher relationship and grooming behavior.
Boden and Rep. Heather Hora, R-Washington, supported advancing the bill to the House Education Committee.