On Thursday, members of the Senate Education and Health committee voted to report SB 967: Family Life Education Standards of Learning by a vote of 11-4. This was a huge victory but the first step of many to getting this common-sense legislation signed into law.

On Monday, the entire Senate will vote on this legislation.

Family life education. Requires each school division to implement the standards of learning for the family life education program promulgated by the Board of Education, or a family life education program consistent with the guidelines developed by the Board, which shall have the goals of reducing the incidence of pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, and substance abuse among teenagers. Any curricula or materials used must be evidence-based and supported by peer reviewed medical research.

As I understand it, this legislation would do away with schools being coerced into using bogus materials that present voodoo pseudo science as medical evidence. I once sat through several classes of abstinence education.  It was foolish and the kids all laughed at it.  There were virginity pledges, rings, and other gimmicks that really didn’t address sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, and the responsibilities involved in becoming sexually active at an early age.  Those types of ‘classes’ are better for church groups and within the family.  They are not appropriate for public education.  This bill protects our children from pseudo science being presented as fact.

Please write to your state senator and encourage him or her to support SB 967.  Accurate information never hurt anyone.

Senator Colgan’s email:

district29@senate.virginia.gov

 

14 Thoughts to “Family Life Education Bill passes out of committee–heads to full Senate vote”

  1. That 65% bill is very dangerous. Robley Jones with VEA has this to say:

    Yesterday the House Education Committee narrowly passed (11-9) HB 1416, the 65% proposal.

    Proponents claim that the measure will reduce school “waste” while improving student achievement. They also claim that it will increase money for schools without requiring an increase in overall spending or taxes.

    This bill would require that 65% of school funds be spent on instruction. Expenses typically not included in instruction are teacher training; instruction and curriculum development; library and media services; guidance counselors, nurses, and social workers; school and district administrators; operations and maintenance; food services; transportation.

    The bottom line is that if this measure passes the jobs of librarians, counselors, bus drivers, nurses, school social workers, custodians and food service workers will be lost.

  2. Censored bybvbl

    M-h, but think of all the jobs this will create. 😉

    Supporters of the 65 percent rule also fail to realize that if they are successful in imposing this additional mandate, even more money would be directed toward administrators documenting compliance, meaning fewer dollars would reach classrooms.

    and:

    As a bonus, a truer accounting would emerge that would measure how much money is spent just to carry out and monitor all the mandates Richmond imposes on local schools.

  3. @Censored, so more ‘be careful what you wish for.’!!!!

  4. Diversity Gal

    As a counselor, this really scares me.

    1. Why does this bill scare you? Curious here. I firmly believe FLE materials should be medically and scientifically based rather than some of the things I have seen.

  5. Raymond Beverage

    I see two issues floating around this – one being setting a funding target without defining just what encompasses “instruction”. When I was Chief Instructor( I had 14 others working for me) & Senior Training Developer for five years in an Army Service School Department, my cost factors were “direct instructional contact hours” (meaning actual time spent relating what was in the lesson plan), “instructional preparation hours” (meaning all the time spent by the instructor preparing for the class, getting handouts & materials ready, etc.), “training development time” (there were 175 lesson plans requiring annual review, updates when needed, etc.), and “training support time” (all the other factors like the Instructor Aide who did all the skut work, coordinating equipment & vehicles, and on and on).

    I could understand if it said the 65% was to include direct instruction, prep, and development. That makes sense. But to not include the cost of support is ludicrous! The Admin, School Health, Counsleors, Library – all of those I see as both support and direct (depending on various functions).

    Be nice if they defined, but that is not how the GA operates – make the mandate and sort it out later seems to be often the SOP.

  6. Raymond Beverage

    OOPS – forgot my second point.

    My favorite soapbox is the School Boards and Systems in this fine Commonwealth ought to return to the days of being a Division/Department fully integrated into local government. For example, when it comes to maintenance, the Schools have a “public works” type thing, and so does the local government. So we end up with multiple electricians, plumbers etc. who get paid by Schools who may not have work to do – and if integrated into the rest of local government, could be doing other jobs.

    As long as there are two seperate worlds, costs will always be a target.

  7. Raymond Beverage

    Now that I did Big Dog’s articles…LOL…

    @Moon – on FLE, agree with you 100%. Evidence based makes the best material.

  8. “I once sat through several classes of abstinence education. It was foolish and the kids all laughed at it. There were virginity pledges, rings…”

    Are you SERIOUS?? Where and when was this?

  9. Yes I am serious. PWC. I think some group provided it for free to some of the schools. Schools always take what is free. Either that or someone calls them up and says you have to take this.

  10. Diversity Gal

    MH, I was talking about the 65% bill.

  11. Oh I agree with you totally DG. I thought you meant the FLE was and was wondering what I was missing. Hopefully the 65% law won’t pass.

Comments are closed.