Sex Ed Curriculum Transparency Bill Blocked In Senate Appropriations Committee

A bill that would have increased sexual education curriculum transparency in schools was held by the Senate Appropriations Committee, blocking it from proceeding on to a full Senate vote in the near future.

Senate Bill 996, authored by Senator Scott Wilk (R-Santa Clarita) would have required the governing board of a school district to adopt a policy at a publicly noticed meeting specifying how parents and guardians of pupils may inspect the written and audiovisual educational materials used in comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education, including that the materials are made available at each school site and  publicly posted on the school district’s internet website.

Essentially, SB 996 would have required school districts to publish sexual education and HIV prevention materials on their website before being presented to students. Additionally, the bill would have required local educational authorities to hold a publicly noticed hearing informing parents and guardians of how they can examine those materials.

Senator Wilk authored the bill because of the many parental complaints that they cannot see what their children are learning about sexual education because of of the subject’s sensitivity. In addition, the bill would have brought more of a dialogue between parents, students and teachers regarding the subject matter.

“Schools are required to teach sexual education, but it is a sensitive subject and parents are often in the dark about what their child is learning,” said Senator Wilk in January. “This bill fosters collaboration and open dialogue between parents, their children, and schools to ensure the education they receive is appropriate and aligns with their values. Many parents feel like they don’t have a seat at the table. By having this information readily available online, they can easily stay informed and feel empowered to become more involved in their child’s education.”

SB 996 held back

Despite concerns that some Senators, especially Democrats, would oppose the bill, SB 996 proceeded to move past the Senate Education Committee last month in a bipartisan 5-1 vote with one abstention. However, despite some early hope for the bill, SB 996 went before the Senate Appropriations Committee last Thursday where it was blocked from proceeding further. As it was a suspense file bill, no reasons were given beyond a simple vote on the matter.

While Wilk didn’t initially respond to the bill being blocked, he finally issued a press release Monday lamenting that the bill did not pass.

“This was a straightforward bill that could have helped ease any possible tension between parents and school districts, creating a one-stop-shop for sex ed materials to be reviewed,” said Senator Wilk on Monday. “While sex ed is a necessary subject, it is also a personal one. The materials should be public and readily available so that parents can be easily kept in the loop. If we quash opportunities for dialogue, there will never be understanding.”

“In addition to giving parents their deserved seat at the table, this bill would have made it easier for teachers and administrators to do their jobs. If a parent saw their child’s curriculum online and had issues with it, they could opt them out. Simple. Parents should have absolute trust in their child’s educational experience, and this bill sought to bolster that trust. Sadly, parental rights don’t seem to matter under this progressive legislature.”

Sexual education transparency advocates noted that while sex ed is growing in transparency in other states, California gave an unusual decision to simply suspend the bill instead.

“You would think that California would be more willing to do this, as they are still needing to catch up to other states in this regard,” sexual education researcher Jennifer Chavez told the Globe on Monday. “Some were probably skittish around parental interference. Whenever some politicians hear “parental rights” they tend to go against whatever policy is being proposed as, to them, there are some negative connotations there.”

“But the bill wasn’t killed outright. What has worked in the past has been slight adjustments and a rebranding. Some school districts, instead of saying parental rights, have said something like ‘opening the doors to more parental input’ or ‘creating a way so that children can have their education supplemented at home.’ And hey, sex ed is an awkward talk for everyone involved. But even a simple ‘So I’ve seen what you learned about this at school. Do you have any questions for me?’ or offering to answer any questions they have in the future with no pressure is something. This bill would have helped that along and reduce that awkwardness at the very least.”