To amend sections 3313.473, 3314.03, 3326.11, and 3328.24 and to enact section 3313.475 of the Revised Code to enact the Given Name Act regarding the use of gender pronouns in public schools.
HB190, titled the Given Name Act, would significantly expand parental-notification and consent requirements in Ohio public schools and would restrict how school personnel may address students and themselves in relation to names and pronouns. The bill requires school districts to adopt policies promoting parental involvement, including advance review of sexuality-content instruction, notice and consent procedures for health-care services offered at school, prompt notice of substantial changes in a student’s services or well-being, and a formal complaint-and-appeal process for parents. It also prohibits sexuality content in grades K-3 and defines “sexuality content” broadly to include instruction or presentations involving sexual concepts or gender ideology.
The bill’s central new provision, section 3313.475, applies to public school employees and contractors in school districts, community schools, STEM schools, and college-preparatory boarding schools. It would bar staff from knowingly and intentionally using a name other than a student’s birth-certificate name, or pronouns/titles inconsistent with a student’s biological sex, without written parental permission. It would also prohibit staff from requesting students’ preferred pronouns or titles inconsistent with biological sex, require reporting of student requests for gender-identity accommodations to administrators and parents, and forbid schools from retaliating against employees or students over pronoun-related choices. The Department of Education and Workforce would be required to investigate complaints, and confirmed violations could trigger withholding of 10% of a school’s state foundation aid until compliance is restored; parents or guardians could also seek injunctive relief and attorney’s fees.
The bill would amend existing school-law provisions in sections 3313.473, 3314.03, 3326.11, and 3328.24 to incorporate these requirements into district, community school, STEM school, and boarding school compliance obligations. It would also add a long list of statutes that schools must follow as if they were school districts, making the pronoun and parental-notification rules part of broader school governance and contract requirements. In practical terms, the measure would affect school policies, employee conduct, parent-school communications, student privacy practices, and state funding compliance across multiple public-school types.
Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no formal legislative record here showing support or opposition. The bill text itself reflects a strong parental-rights and biological-sex framing, suggesting the sponsors’ intent to limit school discretion in matters involving gender identity and student health or counseling. The overall sentiment in the available record is therefore best characterized as sponsor-driven and policy-prescriptive, with no documented committee debate in the supplied context.
The main points of contention likely center on student privacy, parental rights, and the treatment of transgender or gender-nonconforming students. Supporters would likely view the bill as ensuring parents are informed and involved in sensitive school matters and as protecting staff from compelled speech. Opponents would likely argue that the bill intrudes on student privacy, may expose vulnerable students to harm if schools must disclose gender-identity requests to parents, and could conflict with existing anti-discrimination, confidentiality, counseling, and child-safety practices. The bill also expressly carves out exceptions for HIPAA, FERPA, court orders, and mandatory reporting, indicating an attempt to avoid conflicts with existing privacy and safety laws.
HB190 would create new statewide requirements for public schools and school personnel regarding parental notification, consent, and pronoun/name usage, while also tying compliance to administrative complaints, potential civil actions, and state funding penalties. It would amend school-district, community-school, STEM-school, and boarding-school statutes to incorporate the new parental-rights and pronoun rules, and it would add a new section of the Revised Code that schools must follow as part of their legal and contractual obligations. The bill would also restrict sexuality-content instruction in grades K-3 and require policies on health-care services, counseling-related notifications, and parent complaint procedures, thereby affecting school operations, staff conduct, and student services across Ohio public education.
The available record shows the bill as introduced with no committee transcript, no recorded votes, and no documented amendments or floor debate. As drafted, it reflects a clear ideological and policy position favoring parental control, biological-sex definitions, and limits on school handling of gender identity issues. Because there is no voting history or hearing testimony in the supplied materials, the broader legislative sentiment cannot be measured directly, but the bill’s framing suggests it was introduced as a priority measure for supporters of parental-rights and anti-transgender school policy.
The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s restrictions on pronoun use, its requirement that staff report student gender-identity accommodation requests to parents, and its broad definition of sexuality content and mental-health-related notice obligations. Supporters are likely to argue these provisions protect parental authority and transparency, while critics are likely to say they force disclosure of sensitive information, chill supportive school interactions, and risk harm to LGBTQ students. Another likely point of dispute is the enforcement mechanism: withholding 10% of state foundation aid for noncompliance and allowing private lawsuits could be viewed by opponents as punitive and coercive, while supporters may see them as necessary to ensure compliance.