Iowa House Bill HF2060

Iowa 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/17/24
• Refer: 1/17/24

Caption

A bill for an act modifying provisions related to world language instruction in grades nine through twelve by prohibiting the incorporation of gender-neutral language when the world language being taught utilizes a grammatical gender system.(See HF 2548.)

Impact

The expected impact of HF2060 is to reinforce the traditional approaches to teaching world languages that utilize grammatical gender systems. By enforcing this prohibition on gender-neutral language, the bill could significantly affect curriculum development and instructional methodologies within Iowa's school districts, nonpublic schools, charter schools, and innovation zone schools. The measure's proponents argue that it upholds linguistic standards that are vital for the accurate teaching of these languages.

Summary

House File 2060 seeks to amend the provisions related to world language instruction in Iowa's educational system, specifically for grades 9 through 12. The bill mandates that when a world language that incorporates a grammatical gender system is being taught, educators are prohibited from using gender-neutral language in their instruction. This legislation aims to preserve the grammatical integrity of such languages and ensure that students learn using the traditional structures inherent in these languages.

Contention

HF2060 has sparked debate among educators, advocates for gender inclusivity, and linguists. Proponents claim the bill is essential for maintaining language integrity, while opponents argue that it disregards modern educational practices that aim to embrace inclusivity and gender neutrality. Critics express concern that the legislation could alienate students who identify with non-binary genders or are sensitive to gender-related issues, further complicating their educational experience in a traditionally structured language environment.

Current_status

As of now, HF2060 has been introduced to the General Assembly but lacks a clear path forward as discussions continue over its implications on teaching practices and its alignment with evolving societal norms around gender. The voting history and timestamped discussions further indicate a split among legislators, reflecting broader societal tensions regarding language use and gender identity.