Washington State Sexual Health Workgroup Recommendations – Part 2/2

In 2019, the Legislature directed OSPI to convene a workgroup to review sexual health education provisions in state law and state learning standards, and to consider the merits and challenges of requiring all K–12 schools to offer comprehensive sexual health education (CSHE). The workgroup recommends providing all students in grades K–12 with access to CSHE, and clarifying the expected content of instruction for the younger grades.

First question is: what is “comprehensive” sex health education? Who gets to define what that means? This is important to ask because, based on the OSPI survey data we reported in our blog article of December 21, 2019, the rates of STD’s have gone up 23-120% since the “mandated” sex ed that started in 2007. If they can’t get basic sex ed instruction to reduce rates then why in heavens name would they want to expand sex ed and create even more problems? “Comprehensive” is, in reality, their way of saying that expanded focus on “gender identify” and “lgbtq” is necessary. But we digress…let’s see what the “Workgroup” has to say…

The report from the working group can be read in its entirety by clicking this link: 2019-12-Sexual-Health-Education-Workgroup   Pages 23-29 show the charts and graphs that make it easier to digest the data. Please take the time to review them and share them with others.

Executive Summary

• At the direction of the Legislature, the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction convened the Sexual Health Education Workgroup to review sexual health education provisions in current K–12 student learning standards and in state law, and to consider the merits and challenges of requiring all K–12 schools to offer comprehensive sexual health education in all grades by September 1, 2022.
• The Workgroup members agree all students would benefit from K–12 comprehensive sexual health education. Given concerns from the public about instruction being age-appropriate in the early grades, the Workgroup recommends that any requirement clarifies the expected content of instruction, especially in grades K–3.

That’s the summary from their 30 page report. Perhaps we should dig into the data itself?

What were the mandates from the legislature to OSPI?

1. Review provisions related to sexual health education in the 2016 Health Education K–12 Learning Standards.
2. Review existing sexual health education curricula in use in the state for the purpose of identifying gaps or potential inconsistencies with the Learning Standards.
3. Consider revisions to sexual health provisions in state law.
4. Consider the merits and challenges associated with requiring all schools to offer comprehensive sexual health education (CSHE) to students in all grades by September 1, 2022.
5. Submit findings and recommendations to the State Board of Education, Department of Health, and the education committees of the House of Representatives and Senate by December 1, 2019.

What was the make-up of the working group?

1.  Page 15 lists the names and snapshot of the background of each member
2.  It appears there were 16 members. Of those 3 were parents: 1 east side; 1 west side and 1 special ed. All others were educators. We know parents applied and never got a response so the process is suspect
3. The Sexual Health Education (SHE) Workgroup met four times in August through September with two in-person meetings and two virtual meetings. Agendas and meeting notes are available on OSPI’s Sexual Health Education Workgroup webpage.

What data sources did the group use to evaluate historical information for to create their recommendations?

1.  The health assessment data we reported on in Part 1: https://swweducation.org?p=6232
2.  Public health data on rates of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, suicide, depression, and adverse childhood experiences for each of the five previous years for which data was available. Data were provided by DOH and from the Healthy Youth Survey (HYS)
3. OSPI surveyed the public to gather feedback from a broad array of stakeholders across the state. The online survey was available in two languages, English and Spanish, and was open for seven weeks to provide ample opportunity for stakeholders to inform the Workgroup’s work. OSPI received more than 10,000 responses to the survey.
   1. Overall, 58% of survey respondents said comprehensive sexual health education (CSHE) should not be required in grades K–12, and 42% said that it should be required. Of those who said it should not be required, concerns centered around the following themes:
      • The definitions of “age appropriate” and “comprehensive,” especially regarding students in grades K–3.
      • Potential content, particularly on topics considered controversial.
      • Logistics, e.g., funding and finding time for instruction.
      • Personal objections, e.g., religious beliefs and belief that sexual health education should not be taught in schools.

So, to be clear, 58% of the survey respondents said CSHE should NOT be required in grade K-12. A distinct majority said NO….but did the working group listen?

Findings and Recommendations

• The Sexual Health Education Workgroup agreed that all students in Washington’s public schools should have access to comprehensive sexual health education (CSHE) in grades K–12. Mandating CSHE is an issue of equity and would help to ensure all students across the state receive quality, evidence-informed instruction, regardless of who they are or where they live. The Workgroup found that several groups are often excluded from relevant, inclusive instruction, including students in out of home care, students with disabilities, students who identify as LGBTQ+, and English learners, among others.
• Due to some of the public’s concerns regarding the nature of CSHE for younger students, members of the Workgroup proposed that any effort to require CSHE include language clarifying specific topics for K–3.
• Health Outcomes: Research overwhelmingly and consistently shows that students who receive CSHE have better health outcomes than students who receive abstinence-only instruction or no instruction, or whose primary source of information is the internet.

Comment:

1.  58% of 10,000 respondents said NO to CSHE but the working group ignored them…why do the survey if they won’t follow the desires of voters and parents?
2.  Notice that they see this as an issue of “equity” and not sex ed. They are using equity as an attempt to impose their social views buy using sex ed as the vehicle.
3.  They found that “several groups” were excluded which, although a tiny number, must override the wishes of the majority
4.  They think it’s important and necessary to start in kindergarten
5.  They claim health outcomes are better when CSHE is employed? What about the 23-120% increase in STD’s when their sex ed programs have been used since 2007? Are they ignorant or simply in denial?

So the working group came up with their own minority views and agenda and want to force it on the majority.

Recommended Revisions to State Law

The Workgroup reviewed the Healthy Youth Act (RCW 28A.300.475), the AIDS Omnibus Act (RCW 28A.230.070), Common School Curriculum Provisions related to sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention (RCW 28A.230.020), and a requirement regarding information on sex offenses when victims are minors (RCW 28A.300.145).

The Workgroup recommends:

•  Maintaining the option for parents and guardians to opt their children out of CSHE and maintaining an optional parental review of instructional materials. [Note: OSPI claims this can’t be an opt-in program…only opt-out]
•  Revising the AIDS Omnibus Act language to align with recommendations provided by the Department of Health (House Bill 1551 [2019]), which would specify STD prevention rather than HIV/AIDS prevention and make parental preview and notification consistent with Healthy Youth Act requirements.

•  Considering striking or clarifying the provision in the Common School Curriculum language that requires “all teachers” to provide STD prevention education.
•  Considering insuring that language regarding consent education in proposed legislation is consistent with language in the sexual offense education law.

Comment: They want what they want and are saying they are ignoring the people…the parents…the majority so their social agenda can be implemented. If this isn’t a perfect example of telling the public they know nothing then I don’t know what is. This is an advisory group slapping the public in the face and suggesting the legislature proceed with a social agenda.

Summary:

1. OSPI and the “Working Group” have a social agenda that they want instituted and followed
2. Parents and survey responders thoughts mean nothing because they don’t agree with their agenda
3. To hell with the data!
4. Unless parents rise up…unless the people tell their legislators to stop this sexualization of children CSHE is going to be implemented. Are you ok  with that?