HB 363: Abstinence only proposal is dangerously disconnected - By Logan Froerer

House Bill 363 would strictly limit Utah’s sex health education by restraining discussion of contraception, sex health resources, or homosexuality in Utah schools. Only abstinence could be openly talked about. Districts could even opt out of offering sex health classes altogether if the bill passed.

That type of policy is troubling on its own. More troubling was the fact that teachers and students, those who will be directly affected by this legislation, are not being listened to.

"There's inappropriate curriculum we are teaching," said Bill Wright (R-Holden), the bill’s sponsor, during the committee hearing. “This [sex-ed] is not an important part of our curriculum.”

That belief is terrifyingly out of touch with the reality students face. Human sexuality and health are brutally pertinent and important, and ceasing to talk about them will not make them disappear. Sexuality is so often misrepresented and misunderstood, and preventing teachers from speaking openly about the issues creates a culture of misinformation and secrecy in schools.

The purpose of education should be to expose students to information and ideas, and let them act based on their own personal values. Not to limit information based on our ideologies.

"I think you're silencing and putting fear into teachers," said Representative Carol Spackman Moss (D-Salt Lake City). She was a professional teacher before running for office.

She argued and voted against the bill. So did the other teacher on the House Standing Committee on Education, Marie Poulson (D-Salt Lake City).

“Why is it ok for us to supersede the elected school board officials and dictate curriculum in their area?” she asked. “What about high school counselors? Would we limit discussion? That's the language in the bill.”

From the student perspective, one student from West High spoke alongside her mother against the bill and in favor of much more in depth sexual education even than we have right now.

She was the only person under the age of twenty whose voice was heard as part of the decision making process.

Lest you think that those students and teachers who lobbied in committee are simply partisan ideologues, other teachers felt exactly the same way.

“Kids need to know what their options are,” said Patti Hendricks, a teacher from Sunset Bridge Middle School in West Jordan, who was at the capitol last week with the Utah Education Association.

Allowing districts to opt out entirely of sex education classes would mean thousands of kids would have no idea what type of options and advice are available to them.

“It should be the school’s job to present facts,” added Kathryn Welch, a former teacher from Jordan School District, also at the capitol with the UEA. “The family can take their values and apply them,” she noted, “but it’s not the place of schools to indoctrinate kids on what’s right and what isn’t.”

Let’s summarize what we’ve learned.

This bill will affect teachers and students, and most teachers and students oppose it.

In a sane and rational world, the bill would die based on that alone.

But a Legislature where the voices of the Eagle Forum, the Sutherland Institute, and entrenched ideologies drown out the voices that will actually be affected is hardly sane and rational.

On a good day, it's hypocritical and disconnected. Right now it's threatening students’ well being.

Legislators who have so often preached about the need for less government control have no problem mandating what cannot be talked about. Our leaders clearly do not trust students or teachers enough decide what discussions should happen.

And that contradicts the painfully obvious need for complete open discussion.

49 percent of teenage mothers aged 15-17 in Utah thought that they could not get pregnant when they conceived, and a shocking 24 percent thought that they or their partner was sterile, according to a study conducted for the Center for Disease Control and reported by The Salt Lake Tribune.

22 percent of those mothers stated that they had a hard time getting birth control.

Yet Governor Gary Herbert was quoted in The Tribune before the first committee meeting on the bill as saying "I think how we have it right now works pretty well."

If that's our state's definition of education that "works pretty well," we're in serious trouble.

Two Bills Concerning Applied Technology Colleges

By Van Le

“Beginning with the 2011-12 school year, a student served under this section in a regional applied technology college shall continue to be counted in the average daily membership of the sending school district or charter school.” (House bill 258)

In the starting of the current Legislative Session, two bills contest against each other in the effort to affect Utah's funding and enrollment for applied technology colleges. If passed, Curriculum Options for Secondary School Students (HB 206) will increase student enrollment in trade and technical colleges while the Education Funding Amendments (HB 258) works to decrease funding for these vocational programs. The passing of one or both of these bills will no doubt have an impact on not only the funding for applied technology colleges, but also the students enrolling in these programs.

Sponsored by Representative John Dougall, Curriculum Options for Secondary School Students (HB 206) proposes to allow secondary school students to fulfill their high school CTE (Career and Technical Education) requirement at a regional applied technology college. As of right now, Utah law states that only school districts can decide where a student may fulfill his CTE requirements. In an interview, Representative Dougall stated that the motivation for sponsoring HB 206 comes from his belief that the parents, not the school districts, are in charge of their children's education, “I come from the perspective of where do you expand the choice for students, . . . and I don't like the concept that a school district can hold that kid hostage.” In its introduced form, HB206 gave the authority to decide to the students or their parents. Later, the bill was amended by the House Education Committee to state that the parents must always be involved in the decision-making process.

Each year, the state appropriates fundings for a school based on the number of students currently enrolled at the school. Education Funding Amendments (HB 258), sponsored by Representative Kraig Powell, modifies the provisions for education state funding.

Representative Powell's bill lets secondary schools that currently send its students to applied technology colleges retain those students in the schools' head counts, which means they will also get to keep the funding allocated based on that head count. When asked of his opinion on HB 258, Representative Dougall (the sponsor of HB 206) responded that, although he was not originally aware of the bill, “From my perspective, we should be counting the students that are actually attending the school. We should not be counting kids that are not attending the school.”

It is clear that these two bills are in conflict with each other. The proposals of both bills center around one key commonality: the Utah statute that gives school districts the sole authority to regulate where a student might go to fulfill his CTE requirements. This state law is a key component central to the future enactment of HB 258 if the bill were to pass. If HB 206 were to be successful in transferring the authority from the school districts to the parents, HB 258 will become obsolete, and its language need to be re-drafted because school districts no longer have the power to send its students to applied technology college. Currently, either bills meets little opposition in the House. If one or both bill passes, however, the state will need to think beyond the legal language and seriously consider future funding for vocational programs. Last year alone, funding for programs that let high school students enroll in applied technology colleges experienced a five million dollar decrease. With the passage of HB 206, applied technology colleges will surely encounter a surge in enrollment. Without more funding to accommodate the influx of new students, it is hard to say that these institution will be able to maintain the same quality of education. HB 206's purpose toward providing better CTE options for students is then defeated. While HB 258 will have less of a direct effect on trade school enrollment, its retaining state funding from applied technology colleges will no doubt leave the same negative impact on the quality of education that these career and technical institutions offer.

A Little Help for Utah High Schools - by Nick Ramos

With an estimated ration of one high school counselor for every 300-plus students, it is needless to state that high schools all over Utah need help. With the presentation of HB 65 by Rep. Patrice Arent (D-Salt Lake), these high school counselors might get the help they need.

The “College and Career Counseling for High School Students” bill will create a pilot program for the next 3 years which will give high school seniors much needed encouragement and help getting ready for the transition to high school education.

In the House Education Committee meeting, held on January 27, 2012, Rep. Arent admitted that she saw the necessity to create this bill when she was assigned to a task force to track women’s college completion. There, she realized that Utah students have the talent, but lack the information they need to go on to higher education. She said that many of them are overwhelmed by the admissions process and financial aid paperwork, particularly those in rural high schools.

As explained in the bill text, the pilot program will deal with this issue by hiring 18 school counselor interns (Approximately 1 intern on average per 2.25 school districts, with charter schools considered as a school district) who will have specialized training to help students fill out the necessary paperwork and encourage them to pursue the best education possible.

These professionals can be hired by the school, or be interns from universities who “are getting their masters in high school counseling,” she said.

From my experience, the road to higher education can be a very difficult one. It’s not just about having good grades, but about giving students the confidence they need to seek a brighter future. Working with them from the moment they enter high school, instead of only in their last year, is critical. Also, HB 65 does not suggest that students have the work done for them, but merely gives counselors the time to adequately explain what needs to happen.

Overall, HB 65 has met a very positive response, but concerns still remain. The main one is that it requires money. Education has suffered some major cuts in the last few years, and it’s estimated that $800,000 more will have to be set aside to implement this program.

Responding to this question, Rep. Arent suggested that new money could come from outside grants, but the funding should not be reduced.

Another issue will be accountability. Since it is only a pilot program, it will be crucial to know how well the program performed by measuring the progress of the students affected against those who did not take part in the program.

No one seems to disagree that the problems highlighted by this bill are real. School counselors are currently trying their best to help students obtain all the help they need, but they are simply overworked.

The proposed bill, HB 65, will ease the stress on high school counselors and provide kids with more opportunities. With this bill leading the way, education is getting the attention it needs.