Poirier wants parent OK for sex ed
BY BRITTANY ABERY and JUSTIN MEISINGER FOR THE SUN CHRONICLE
Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:20 AM EDT
State Rep. Betty Poirier (Staff file photo by Mark Stockwell)
Area educators wary over bill to change law to an opt in rule
An attempt to require parental approval before students receive sex education isn't garnering much support from area educators.
North Attleboro High School Principal Robert Gay says legislation that would require parents to approve sex education for their children is unnecessary and could create more problems.
"I've been here nine years, and a principal for 15, and no one's ever brought that issue up to me," Gay said. "It'll just make it more difficult."
State Rep. Betty Poirier, R-North Attleboro, is sponsoring a bill that would require parents to give their approval before their children could take sex education courses.
Under current law, students take the courses unless their parents formally request they be excused.
"The more parents can see what's going on and then decide, the better," Poirier said in an interview.
She testified in favor of the legislation last week before the Joint Committee on Education.
Poirier said requiring parents to give formal approval gets them more involved in the process.
"When it comes to permission slips, they can sometimes get lost in the bottom of backpacks, or not come back to school or never make it home in the first place," she said.
But Gay said the opt-out system hasn't been an issue in his school.
"Actually, I think the opt-out system has worked very well here," he said.
Gay said the portion of the bill that requires schools to make their sex education curriculum available to parents before the class is also unnecessary.
"We have that information on file in the office if parents want to come and see it," he said.
Dianne Luby, president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, agreed.
"This bill creates an unnecessary obstacle to keeping Massachusetts kids healthy and safe," she said.
Andrea Miller, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts said the current law works.
"The current opt-out law already strikes a careful, appropriate balance that respects parents' role in helping to direct their child's education," Miller said.
Miller said changing the law would create an "added administrative burden on our already overburdened and underfunded school systems."
Poirier's is one of four similar bills filed last January to be addressed by the Legislature in the 2009-2010 session.
The bills also allow educators to opt out of teaching sex education classes if the curriculum goes against their religious beliefs or makes them uncomfortable.
"The government is assuming to teach all things sexual, and it shouldn't be that way," Poirier said. "I think that families are a better judge of a child's maturity than schools."
Marie Sturgis, executive director and legislative director of Mass Citizens for Life, testified on behalf of the bill.
"Parents need to be notified and choose whether they want their child to get involved in this or not," Sturgis, a mother of five, said in an interview. "Schools just teach it now, and get the consequences later."
"It's common sense to ask parents first. It's common sense of neighbors and relatives to ask first and find out if they have permission to teach children things that can be private and not taught in a warehouse kind of setting."
"There's tremendous logic in having parents opt in if they choose instead of do the reverse and opt out," Sturgis said. "Parents are unaware most of the time that this is even going on. They aren't mind readers to know their kids are being taught sex education."
"One of the problems with current sex education is they are explaining the law to students instead of the parents, and they're teaching students how to get abortions under the parents' radar, and this is totally wrong," she said.
View Comments » 36 comment(s)
« Hide Comments
InstantKarma wrote on Nov 14, 2009 4:55 PM:
townie3 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 6:09 PM:
J15 wrote on Oct 22, 2009 2:01 PM:
Luiesmom wrote on Oct 22, 2009 11:34 AM:
sunshinesonfire wrote on Oct 21, 2009 12:44 PM:
Oh well if I get pregnant, I will just take the baby to school with me. Then all of the other girls will see my cute little toy, and they will want one too! It happens.
I was a teen parent, and I had to take my son to school exactly once, on a day I was absent, to pick up some books so I could do homework. The prinicpal stopped me at the door and said "Your son is not allowed on school grounds." I went to TriCounty, which had a day care center that the school made crystal clear my son was not welcome in.
Sex ed: seclude the teen parents from the rest of the high school population. It works. "
GetItRight wrote on Oct 20, 2009 7:54 PM:
snarky wrote on Oct 20, 2009 6:21 PM:
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 20, 2009 4:44 PM:
kevin h. wrote on Oct 20, 2009 4:39 PM:
"We have that information on file in the office if parents want to come and see it," he said.
What arrogance! "
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 20, 2009 4:15 PM:
So, common_sense, I assume you mean the responsibility of notifying the parents about what the schools are teaching would be moved to the schools, leaving parents with...no responsibilities at all! Terrific.
How about the parents get off the couch and find out if they don't already know. Besides, this isn't all its about or the exec from Mass Citizens for Life wouldn't be weighing in here. "
common_sense wrote on Oct 20, 2009 3:32 PM:
sparky wrote on Oct 20, 2009 3:29 PM:
We've lost all control of reality. Enough is enough. "
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 20, 2009 3:25 PM:
kevin h. wrote on Oct 20, 2009 2:56 PM:
Just because you put "education" after something does not mean it is the responsibility of the public schools.
How about "religious" education, "driving" education, or "firearms" education? (I'm against them all in the PS's.) The teachers union does not excel at teaching the basics. (reading, writing, math, history) Perhaps they are too busy pushing their politics? Stick to education basics and let parents be parents. "
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 20, 2009 2:29 PM:
Where does it say parents cannot teach their kids about sex? "
Paul Couturier wrote on Oct 20, 2009 2:16 PM:
And just WHAT religion is she pushing with this legislation??????? "
common_sense wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:24 PM:
kevin h. wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:11 PM:
1333 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:44 PM:
common_sense wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:35 PM:
hardhearted wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:22 PM:
You don't like what she's doing then run for her job. "
common_sense wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:20 PM:
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 20, 2009 11:38 AM:
1333 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 11:20 AM:
common_sense wrote on Oct 20, 2009 11:13 AM:
kevin h. wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:18 AM:
What the heck do you think the schools are doing? You liberals would just have the parents completely removed from the equation except to pay, pay, pay the taxes.
The left used to be about freedom, now they are the party of mandates and restriction of freedom. "
khmass wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:11 AM:
harry hindsight wrote on Oct 20, 2009 7:44 AM:
Stop the planet, I want to get off. "
seerystal wrote on Oct 20, 2009 7:30 AM:
attaboy wrote on Oct 20, 2009 7:21 AM:
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 20, 2009 7:18 AM:
...and a '67 Mustang.
Parents are also responsible for the religious ed of their kids, not the schools.
As long as Poirier wants to put religion in the public schools and keep education and the president out of them, she is a waste of taxpayer money.
Ridiculous! "
ktyree16 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 6:56 AM:
GetItRight wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:41 AM:
stp wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:37 AM:
anteakguy wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:33 AM:
GetItRight wrote on Oct 20, 2009 4:43 AM: