I have found some things "problematic" with the language to begin with. I will discuss here what I find 'problematic' about SB5395, the Comprehensive Sex Education Bill signed by the Governor into law.
1. This Act has stripped local school districts, and parents from deciding what is "appropriate" for their local community and children. Whenever a one size fits all strategy is forced on local communities it tends to unintentionally marginalize members of the community it is directed at. Section 1 paragraph 2(b) states; "Beginning in the 2022-23 school year, comprehensive sexual health education must be provided to all public school students". To me, this violates the parent's right to decide what is appropriate, and when it is appropriate to teach sexual behavior, and other reproductive education to children. I also find it problematic that a woman's right to reproductive health is considered absolute, but she must ask permission for her daughter to not be taught about gender and reproductive health in kindergarten?
2. I find the non-specific use of the term "inclusive" to be very problematic in our current political climate. To me, being "inclusive" is to include all groups equally. I have no problem with the term used in that manner. However, it has been my experience that the Democrat Party tends to use the term in a much more progressive and intersectional way. Thus creating an unbalanced and preferential system for some groups over others. This inclusiveness has been shown, within even just the past year, to create more division among people instead of bringing them together and uniting them. Even in the LGBTQ community, inclusion is being used by some to attempt to coerce one faction to sexually accept another faction they have no personal desire to be intimate with. Since every co-sponsor of this bill is a Democrat,I can only presume that the frequent use of the term "inclusive" would tend to be the more problematic definition. For me, this term is too vague in its meaning and leaves too much to interpretation.
3. Also, the scheduling of how often each year this sexual education is to be repeated each year again removes any semblance of local control. While it may be appropriate for kindergartners in the metro Seattle area to be given comprehensive sex education, does that mean a school district in Adna or Vader should be forced to teach that same curriculum comprehensively and effectively in the same manner? Would the more rural teachers even feel comfortable enough teaching the more progressive of the comprehensive sex-ed curriculum to teach it properly and effectively to a Kindergartener, or even a 3rd Grader?
4. What I find extremely problematic is paragraph (5). It instructs the OSPI to revise the education material on "as necessary". This means that the curriculum is being forced on all the districts from the top down with no regard for the local culture in the community. That is the opposite of being inclusive. That is an authoritarian edict. If these guidelines were even a strongly suggested curriculum I would have much less of an issue with it. Because then at least local school boards would have a choice according to their community beliefs and culture. Paragraph (6) would appear to give this choice, but only if the curriculum chosen complies with the requirements of this Act.
5. While this Act does allow a parent to opt-out, it flips on its head the normal process this is usually done. Instead of the school informing parents and sending home permission slips, the parents must fill out a form to request that their child not participate. This is a weakening by the state of a parent's rights to control how their child is raised since they now have to ask permission for their child to not participate.
6. Finally, the definition of what "Medically and scientifically accurate" constitutes could be problematic as well. Since there are some questionable studies published in peer-reviewed journals filled with a bad methodology or flawed data that would easily pass muster under the definition contained in this Act as signed by Governor Inslee. Since being published in a peer-reviewed journal is the definition of "Medically and scientifically accurate" according to this act, that leaves a broad range of sexually related studies open to being used in this Comprehensive Sex Ed curriculum. This could be very problematic for parents.
Read the language for yourself, don't take my word on it. Be informed, and think about what you are reading. Some of you may be horrified at what you realize can be taught to the children in our state. Others of you perhaps may only find some parts of the Act to be "problematic". Still, others may find they "almost 100 percent disagree with everything" I have said, as did a young man in Castle Rock. I am not here to change your minds but to hopefully find common ground with enough of the constituents of the 20th District to earn your trust and your vote. You can find the text of the Comprehensive Sex Education Act here: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/…/Sessi…/Senate/5395-S.SL.pdf…
Comments