A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 15.1-06 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to parental involvement in a child's education; and to amend and reenact section 14-09-32.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to a parent's interest in a child's upbringing.
SB 2244 would expand and codify parental rights in North Dakota law, both generally and specifically in public education. It amends the state’s “parent’s interest in child’s upbringing” statute to declare that parents retain primary control over a child’s care, supervision, upbringing, and education, and it lists a broad set of rights involving education records, health records, medical decision-making, religious training, notice of suspected abuse, and limits on government recording of children. The bill also creates a new section in the education code requiring school districts to adopt parent-participation plans and to provide parents access to curriculum information, teacher training materials, school activities, and school governance information.
In the school setting, the bill would require advance written parental consent before instruction or presentations on gender stereotypes, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or sexual relationships. It would also allow parents to withdraw children from activities that conflict with religious or moral beliefs, require parental permission for club or extracurricular participation, and restrict the use of names or pronouns that do not align with a child’s sex unless a parent consents in writing. The bill further requires schools to provide information about parental rights and responsibilities and sets procedures for parents to request information and escalate denials to the school board.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant. It would create enforceable parental-rights standards that apply to state and local government entities and public institutions, including schools, and it would authorize parents to bring claims or defenses in court after exhausting administrative channels. Prevailing parents could recover costs and attorney’s fees, and school boards would be required to indemnify school personnel for violations. The measure also preserves existing child-abuse and neglect laws and certain court and medical-care exceptions, but otherwise places new limits on government interference with parental authority.
The general sentiment around the bill appears to have been supportive in the Senate, where it passed second reading 36-9, but it ultimately failed in the House on second reading 41-49. That voting pattern suggests the bill had meaningful support but also substantial opposition, especially in the House. No committee transcripts were provided, so the available record shows the bill was politically divisive rather than broadly consensus-driven.
The main points of contention likely centered on the bill’s reach into school curriculum, student privacy, and gender-related instruction, as well as its strong parental-consent requirements and litigation provisions. Supporters likely viewed it as a parental-rights and transparency measure, while opponents likely saw it as restricting local school discretion, complicating instruction on sensitive topics, and potentially affecting LGBTQ+ students and school staff obligations. The inclusion of mandatory consent for certain instruction and pronoun use, along with the indemnification and attorney-fee provisions, likely contributed to the bill’s controversy.
SB 2244 would amend North Dakota Century Code section 14-09-32.1 and create a new section in chapter 15.1-06, expanding parental-rights language and imposing specific duties on school districts and public institutions. It would give parents enforceable rights to access records, direct education and upbringing, control certain health decisions, and receive notice of suspected abuse, while also requiring school districts to provide curriculum access, parent-participation plans, and consent-based procedures for certain instruction and activities. The bill would also create a private right of action and fee-shifting remedy, and require school boards to indemnify school personnel for violations.
The bill appears to have been viewed favorably by a majority in the Senate, but it encountered stronger resistance in the House and failed there on second reading. The vote history suggests support for parental-rights legislation among some lawmakers, but enough concern about the bill’s scope and effects to prevent final passage. With no committee transcripts available, the record indicates a polarized response rather than a broadly unified one.
The most notable contention likely involved the bill’s restrictions on school instruction and student identity-related issues, especially the requirement for written parental consent before instruction on gender identity, sexual orientation, and related topics, and before use of names or pronouns that do not align with a child’s sex. Additional concerns likely included the bill’s broad access-to-information mandates, its limits on school discretion over clubs and extracurriculars, and the potential for litigation against schools and public employees. Supporters would frame these provisions as necessary parental oversight and transparency, while opponents would likely argue they interfere with educational autonomy, student privacy, and the ability of schools to address sensitive topics appropriately.