Bait & Switch

The grand deception that the Board of Education (BoE) became part of during their Tuesday general meeting can be considered ‘deplorable’ at best.  Their actions demonstrate a lack of interest in building any sort of trust with the faith-based community.  What is increasingly clear is that local media outlets (like Honolulu Civil Beat, “HCB”) were part of this grand ruse in their failure to accurately report the agenda for the Tuesday meeting.

The consideration of sex education by the BoE caught critics of Pono Choices off-guard when both local media outlets and the Board itself failed to properly disclose that the “opt-out” policy was once again being considered.  The inaccuracies began when HCB reported:

The Department of Education (DoE) is now recommending a few modifications to the policy that may placate parental concerns, including changing the grades in which sex education is to be offered to grades 7 through 12, and requiring that parents have to sign their children up for the course.

Had HCB done their due diligence and actually looked at the documents they linked in their article, they would have noticed the glaring discrepancy in proposals put forth by the Board.  To date, HCB’s Jessica Terrell (jterrell@civilbeat.com) has offered no apology, retraction or correction for the glaring inaccuracies in her earlier reporting.

The discrepancy (reported in a previous post) was between a memo provided to Board chair Don Horner and exhibits provided by the Board.  While the memo addressed formalizing a policy of “opt-in”:

“A student shall be provided with sexual health instruction only if the student’s parent or legal guardian provides prior consent.  A student’s parent or legal guardian may consent to sexual health instruction at any time. …”

Exhibit A, outlining the proposed changes to the Department of Education’s sex education policy, presented to supplement the meeting agenda provided a contradictory message:

“A student shall be excused from sexual health instruction only upon the prior written request of the student’s parent or legal guardian.  A student may not be subject to disciplinary action, academic penalty or other sanction if the student’s parent or legal guardian makes such written request.”

Board members in a 5-1 vote [1], failed to address the fundamental question that is at the core of the entire debate around sex education – trust.  Parents do not trust the Department of Education or the Board of Education to vet and select a medically-accurate sexual health curriculum.  These very same entities were asleep at the wheel when they allowed Pono Choices to be taught in the schools.  Confoundingly, their solution to the sexual education curriculum is once again “trust us”.  Parents who were betrayed by Pono Choices must once again trust a Board of Education and Department of Education that got themselves into this mess to begin with.  They won’t.

Interestingly, Exhibit A was stripped almost verbatim from a proposal that the Legislature previously considered [2].  In a rare moment of wisdom, the Legislature tabled HB459 in favor of a wait-and-see approach to the “opt-in” policy announced just months prior by the Board of Education.  Perhaps the Legislature knew something the Board didn’t after holding four different hearings on the matter.  Or perhaps social engineering advocates sought to get from the Board of Education what they could not get from the Legislature.

Until the Board of Education recognizes this fundamental issue, they will only perpetuate the very problem that they are trying to look past – angry parents who do not TRUST the BoE/DoE.  On Tuesday, they doubled-down on deceit and provided yet another reason for these parents not to trust educational experts.

The victory that the BoE needed on Tuesday was for these parents to “opt-in” to any sex education program, but the deceit and duplicity that the Board demonstrated ensures that more than ever these parents will “opt-out”.

---

Blogger’s Note: In no way should this post be interpreted as criticism of sex education in public schools, but is only a critique of the ignorance demonstrated by the Board of Education.  It is this blog’s position that an age-appropriate, medically-accurate, abstinence-based sexual education curriculum must be offered to any child that does not already receive age-appropriate, medically-accurate, abstinence-based sexual education superior education from another source (parent, guardian, etc.).

[1] Board chairman Don Horner was the lone ‘no’ vote.

[2] HB459 HD2

Confusion

Soon after the Board of Education announced a meeting to revisit the issue of the sexual health curriculum, it appears that liberals and progressives are trying to pull a fast one to try to undo the Board of Education’s previous “opt-in” policy.

Blogger’s Note: For those interested, information regarding the Board of Education meeting was first derived from Honolulu Civil Beat (HCB).  Had HCB done their due diligence, they would have recognized the discrepancy in the meeting memo and exhibits that they had linked in their news stub.  For those interested in attending the meeting, it is being held on Tuesday, June 16 at 1:30 p.m. In Room 404 of the Queen Liliuokalani Building (1390 Miller Street).  The meeting notice can be found on the Board of Education website.

The two documents in questions regarding the meeting can be found here (meeting exhibits) and here (memo regarding sexual education curriculum).  The Board of Education has previously indicated their wish to keep the opt-in policy for sexual education curriculum.  This was echoed in a memo to board chair Don Horner proposing a policy where:

“…A student shall be provided with sexual health instruction only if the student’s parent or legal guardian provides prior consent. …”

While these changes, referred to as policy 103.5 are consistent with what many of the faith-based community are advocating for, it is directly contradicted by exhibits offered as a supplement.  The exhibit version of the proposed policy 103.5 states:

“A student shall be excused from sexual health instruction only upon the prior written request of the student’s parent or legal guardian. …”

The discrepancy between the two documents creates an open door to flip to the dreaded “opt-out” policy.  Whether the discrepancy was intentional, it poses a grave risk to the work of community members and like-minded legislators who sought to protect parents and families by compromising to a policy of “opt-in”.  While it would be reasonable for parents to believe that this fight is over, that does not seem to be like the reality.

With the confusion shrouding tomorrow’s Board of Education meeting, parents must once again show up to the meeting to defend against aggressively liberal sex education programs like Pono Choices.  It is not clear, based on available documentation, whether the Board of Education is considering the “opt-in” or “opt-out” for sex education curriculum.

---

Blogger’s note: This post was written with some urgency as to get the word out.  Please pardon any grammatical or other minor errors until the original post can be revisited.

With Reservations

In an institution that is steeped both in tradition [1] and strategy, it can be very confusing for a political outsider as to what votes count toward an elected officials “record”.  With duties to support or oppose legislation, elected officials are also obligated to “fix” bad legislation.  As a result, “yes” and “no” votes get further blurred [2] when elected officials vote “with reservations” – making the context of these votes all the more important.

When elected officials vote on a bill, they are only voting on the version that is before them.  For example, HB459 is very different from HB459 HD2.  The HD2 is short for “House Draft 2” and signifies that changes have been made to the original version.  The change from HB459 to HB459 HD1 removed the controversial opt-out provision for sex education programs in public schools – the very same provision that led people to call it “The Pono Choices Bill”.  This same language was omitted in the HD2.  In fact, the bill was strengthened when “monogamy” was added as an additional topic for public school sex education programs.

With the removal of the “opt-out” provision, all parents will still have to “opt-in” to any sex education program in their child’s public education (per Dept. of Education rules).  For this very reason, many representatives who opposed Pono Choices might now vote “yes” or “with reservations”.  HB459 is no longer “the Pono Choices Bill” but just HB459 HD2.

To be clear, the version in front of legislators on 2nd and 3rd reading was not “The Pono Choices Bill”, but a bill now with no reference at all to the controversial sex education program.

A vote “with reservations” counts as a “yes” vote in the final tally, but is a flag in the official legislative record that a representative has concerns or issues with the bill in front of them.  The core issue with HB459 HD2 now is whether sex education should be taught at elementary schools – should sex education be taught to 5th graders? [3]

A “no” vote could be fairly interpreted as “No, sex education should not be taught at elementary schools”.  A vote “with reservations”, however, might support the intent of the bill – to ensure children receive sex education rather than learning it from their friends or from television – but they are looking for the elementary school provision to be removed.  Courtesy Beth Fukumoto Chang:

The bill is troubling because it includes elementary school, but there is still time to change it. This early in the process, a NO vote would mean that I would lose my opportunity to continue working to fix the problems and that only proponents of the bill would have a seat at the table moving forward. That would only make it harder to protect the interests of Hawaii’s families. [4]

A reading of the bill confirms that HB459 HD2 is still a work-in-progress.  A strategy legislators use to force discussion on a bill is to fiddle with the effective date of a bill – the date the bill will take effect if passed by the Legislature.  Sometimes the effective date is July 1st (the beginning of state government’s fiscal year) of the same year, and sometimes it is “immediately”.  Going down to section 4 of HB459 HD2:

SECTION 4.  This Act shall take effect on July 1, 2050.

This date will have to be changed for the bill to take effect, ensuring that the bill is further discussed, and that it cannot become law without coming back to the House for Final Reading.  Whether it includes the controversial “elementary school provision” remains to be seen.  Since HB459 HD2 is not a final draft, voting “with reservations” is entirely appropriate to keep a seat at the table to try to remove the “elementary school” provision in Conference Committee.

A vote “with reservations” at this stage is not a validation of the controversial and misleading Pono Choices program – that judgment should be reserved for the Final Reading of the bill. What is clear though is continuing to refer to HB459 HD2 as the “Pono Choices Bill” is misleading at best – but is more accurately irresponsible.

There is no easy answer to what a vote “with reservations” means – only that every vote must be taken in context of when the vote was taken.  Only on a bill’s final [5] reading does a vote “with reservations” still count as a “yes” during election season.  Until then, the only way to know what reservations an elected official has is to ask them yourself.

---

[1] In committee hearings and often on 1st, 2nd or 3rd readings, many majority members will vote “with reservations” out of deference to the chair of the committee.  Committee chairs (sometimes) work hard on difficult bills that need to get out the door.  In recognition of this effort, they will vote “with reservations” rather than “no”.  In this sense, “with reservations” is a symbolic vote done out of tradition and respect for a colleague.

[2] Hyper-partisan groups (liberal Democrats, Tea Party Conservatives, etc.) on either side of the political spectrum rely on black and white labels to force moderates into one camp or the other.  The rationale is “you are either for us, or against us”.  While not perfect, it is this blog’s intent to avoid this tactic.

[3] HB459 requires “medically accurate” sex education at elementary, middle, intermediate, high and alternative schools.  It also permits the Dept. of Education to modify or eliminate such programs for reasons of age appropriateness.

[4] If you have the stomach to read an entire Horns of Jericho blog post, you might be interested in what Fukumoto Chang has to say about her vote, and the necessary gamesmanship that is involved to ensure that the best interests of families and people of faith are protected.  Fukumoto Chang is right in that the interests of families may be better served at this point of the game with a vote of “with reservations” to keep a seat at the discussion table and to possibly shape the final product.  While often at odds with the Minority Leader, this blog applauds Fukumoto Chang’s rationale and leadership displayed by her explanation.

[5] Without going into the complexities of the Legislative process, the vote that counts is made the last time (final) that a bill is voted on in its chamber – most often this if Final Reading, but in a fewer number of instances it is 3rd reading.