State education officials are proposing a new definition of grooming in the rules for the board that oversees teacher licensing, but the state senator in charge of the legislation says the definition needs work.
Eric Sinclair of the Iowa Department of Education testified this morning during a senate subcommittee hearing on the bill. “We are looking to start addressing the gray area between inappropriate behavior and a sexual relationship,” he said.
Nathaniel Arnold of the Professional Educators of Iowa said the agency agreed to a compromise definition last year and the new definition would define “everyday actions” as abuse. “I just want to read the definition that’s being proposed here and just want you to let it sink in: ‘The process of building trust and emotional connections with a student,” Arnold said. “Now perhaps naively I used to this think that was a good thing.”
A spokesperson for the Iowa Department of Education says the proposed definition would define grooming behavior as the process of building trust and emotional connections with a student “with the intent to exploit such student.”
Arnold, who is an attorney, said those who groom students for sex need to be expelled from the teaching ranks, but the bill goes too far. “I’m noticing a discouraging trend where the definition of abuse is getting broader and broader and broader to the point where, if you get accused of it, it’s pretty much impossible to defend yourself because everything meets that definition,” Arnold said.
Dave Daughton is a lobbyist for Rural School Advocates of Iowa and the School Administrators of Iowa. “Teachers and coaches always develop relationships with kids to help them learn. Any team that you’re ever on, you develop relationships with each other to help your team be more successful,” Dawson said, “so while we’re not opposed to the intent of it, we just have some questions and concerns about the language.”
Lisa Davis Cook, a lobbyist the Iowa Association for Justice, which represents lawyers, said the proposed definition for the agency that oversees teacher licensing is very different from the criminal definition of grooming.
“This definition is very broad, broad to the point where we’re worried about the vagueness and have concerns that if a teacher is tagged as violating this definition of grooming behavior, is it going to be referred to the criminal justice system,” Davis Cook said, “and, if so, with those definitions being so different, what happens?”
The bill cleared a subcommittee this morning. However, the legislator guiding the bill through the senate said it won’t be considered in the Senate Education Committee until changes in the definition are developed.