34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - Directions - (508) 222-7000
Home News Sports Features classifieds milestones services photos tvlistings cars jobs realestate subscribe
News

Poirier wants parent OK for sex ed



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.

 


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
View Comments » 36 comment(s) « Hide Comments

InstantKarma wrote on Nov 14, 2009 4:55 PM:

" Whats the fuss, Please allow the schools to educate our children on this extremely important subject. An ounce of prevention is far better than a pound of cure........I have a 6th grader and I have no issue at all with the school system providing sex education. "

townie3 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 6:09 PM:

" ok another go now where legislative proposal to whip up support for re-election..............will go no where "

J15 wrote on Oct 22, 2009 2:01 PM:

" Sexual Education is part of Health Education. It is in the Health Curriculum Frameworls for the State of Massachusetts and WAS NOT slipped in under a differetn title. This information is so important for youth to learn because the consequences of unprotected sex and poor decision making can impact their lives forever. if they are not informed, they cannot make healthy decisions. There are STDs out there that are not curable and can cause more damage than just simple symptoms. These unplanned pregnancies occur because the teens do not know how to properly protect themselves. I am 100% for sexual education in both the middle and high schools!! "

Luiesmom wrote on Oct 22, 2009 11:34 AM:

" I could see this if they were talking about the elementary level, but they aren't: they are talking high school. These are young adults, and if they don't know a lot of this stuff by now anyway, they are in a world of trouble. These kids need to be taught how their bodies work, and leave the morality for the parents. That is their job. "

sunshinesonfire wrote on Oct 21, 2009 12:44 PM:

" How is this for education? We have a daycare center for teen parents at Attleboro High. Can we make it any EASIER for teens to become parents?

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:

" Those are horns deahhhhhh! "

snarky wrote on Oct 20, 2009 6:21 PM:

" Is that a horn I see hiding in her up do? "

VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 20, 2009 4:44 PM:

" That's right, Gay should be forced to hand deliver the curriculum to all the fat-assed bubba parents who refuse to take any responsibilty for their off-spring. That'll learn'em! "

kevin h. wrote on Oct 20, 2009 4:39 PM:

" "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.

What arrogance! "

VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 20, 2009 4:15 PM:

" "Betty's proposal is simply to take that simple responsibility and move it from the parents onto the school system - that's the proposal..."
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:

" good one Kevin, that's what in part this is about, parents not being parents and instead kids becoming parents at which point we the taxpayer now have to provide child care so they can finish HS and health care for the baby since they don't work. Parents have the choice to either opt out or send their future couch slug to a private school. Betty's proposal is simply to take that simple responsibility and move it from the parents onto the school system - that's the proposal, its not a debate about sex ed and if it's right or wrong. "

sparky wrote on Oct 20, 2009 3:29 PM:

" Weeee the wing nuts are all spun up about this issue. Who cares? Don't spend one of my tax dollars teaching this stuff to kids. Maybe then we will have a lot more unwed mothers and their b*st*rd children feeding off the public teets.

We've lost all control of reality. Enough is enough. "

VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 20, 2009 3:25 PM:

" Since sex is learned there, it ought to be, and currently is, taught there. "

kevin h. wrote on Oct 20, 2009 2:56 PM:

" Sex should not be taught in public schools. It was slipped in under the guise of "health" because of pressure from certain activist groups.
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:

" "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."

Where does it say parents cannot teach their kids about sex? "

Paul Couturier wrote on Oct 20, 2009 2:16 PM:

" hardhearted, I agree with you regarding the Betty haters here. If she's so bad, then WHY did her enemies allow her to run for reelection last year...UNOPPOSED???????????????

And just WHAT religion is she pushing with this legislation??????? "

common_sense wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:24 PM:

" Per school district, not much -state wide that's another story. And the parents can't take the initiative themselves because of why? No ones right is being taken away. I could see this if a large percent of parents were opting their children out. "

kevin h. wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:11 PM:

" Thank you 1333. "

1333 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:44 PM:

" How much can it cost to send a note home to parents? It just seems like another right being taken away from parents. "

common_sense wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:35 PM:

" I don't think its Betty in particular, it's an unfunded mandate she is proposing at a time when there are no funds at the local level. Thats a fact and expect MORE local aid cuts to follow. "

hardhearted wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:22 PM:

" I am no Betty Poirier fan, but she could submit a resolution saying "puppies are cute" and most of the people here would criticize her, object to her pushing her views on others and call her names that they would never have the nerve to use to her face.
You don't like what she's doing then run for her job. "

common_sense wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:20 PM:

" Liberals are hateful because it's gods way of punishing you for your sins! Stupid question, stupid response - did you expect anything less? "

VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 20, 2009 11:38 AM:

" That's the idea; bore you into a coma. "

1333 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 11:20 AM:

" I would prefer I was told about Sex Education being taught in school since the former principle is a Pedohpile awaiting trial and not to mention swim coaches. Why are Liberals always so angry and hateful? Can you state facts instead of insults? You're starting to bore me. "

common_sense wrote on Oct 20, 2009 11:13 AM:

" U can opt out, this dimwit wants to essential add another financial burden on what are already very tight state and local budgets. I thought these republicans are suppose to be less government - oh unless its' about teaching the kids sex ed - god forbid. Yeah Betty they are better off not knowing, hearing half truths from piers, learning off the Internet or worst yet - learning themselves the hard way. Parents have an out if they choose, works for me. Next up a bill on removing evolution from the classroom. "

kevin h. wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:18 AM:

" anteakguy wrote"...but have no problem sticking their noses into everyone else's business" about conservatives.

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:

" Come on people. Poor Betty Boop couldn't do anything to prevent the registry from closing, which might actually have benefited her consituents. She can't do anything to help the state or local economies. Instead, she will jump back on the "family values" bandwagon. That always plays well when you don't have anything real to contribute. If she REALLY wanted to help, I wish she would gerrymander my part of Attleboro back OUT of her district so I don't have to be embarasses by her any more. "

harry hindsight wrote on Oct 20, 2009 7:44 AM:

" So if this passes, could a history teacher refuse to include the Holocaust in the sylibus because they don't believe it happen because of religious grounds?

Stop the planet, I want to get off. "

seerystal wrote on Oct 20, 2009 7:30 AM:

" I think that if parents don't know about the sex education in their kids school then they aren't paying enough attention to them. If that's the case, maybe it's a good thing the kids are getting a lesson about safety and control from their teachers... "

attaboy wrote on Oct 20, 2009 7:21 AM:

" Once again, nutcake Poirier is on a religious and moral crusade. If anything, sex education for children is critical. As a practicing Roman Catholic, I don't hold the same fears as some in the church do regarding educating children to the realities of sex. A child that understands prevention is a child that is less likely to have sex at an early age or to become a child who has a child. Poirier's ridiculous legislation is rooted in some hysterical religious zealotry. Because of the moral and religious zealots like Poirier in state houses and in the Congress, we have these ridiculous laws that end up implying that kids who are denied responsible sex education are somehow less likely to conceive. The opposite is true. Just look at Africa and South America, where the church's heavy hand is seen. The birth rates among young women in those countries is through the roof. And it's due solely to our church's ridiculous policy of opposing sex education and birth control. Why is it all right to let a child to beget a child, but once that child is born, deny it any post-natal care? That's what these Republicans do at the federal level. They inveigh against birth control and sex education, and then vote against post-natal care provisions. They're hypocrites! "

VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 20, 2009 7:18 AM:

" ktree16:
...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:

" Parents are the ones in charge of properly educating their children in these kinds of areas. The parents values are the ones that are important, not some standardized curriculum that promotes the 'anything goes and it's all okay" type of nonsense. I'm grateful to homeschool my children and be able to teach them God's plans for life, including purity, love, respect, and intimacy after marriage, with one man and one woman, for life. "

GetItRight wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:41 AM:

" Porkier would sooner have teens learn about sex in the back seat of a 67' Mustang. "

stp wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:37 AM:

" Another really dumb idea and a waste of tax dollars from Rep Poirier. "

anteakguy wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:33 AM:

" Oh, c'mon Betty, admit it...sex is a dirty word. How archaic! Just another example of conservatives pushing their agenda on the rest of us. They want less government but have no problem sticking their noses into everyone else's business. "

GetItRight wrote on Oct 20, 2009 4:43 AM:

" Porkier, why don't you resign and become a nun? Stop pushing your religious CRAP in schools! "