Menu
State Title:
An Act relating to sex education; amending 25 O.S. 2021, Section 2003, which relates to the Parents’ Bill of Rights; providing for parental opt in for child to participate in sex education; providing for parental notification of school choice options; providing for parental opt in for certain instruction; permitting parental appeal of certain information request denial; directing State Board of Education to establish standard appeals process; requiring accreditation deficiency if school is not in compliance; defining terms; establishing school policy prohibiting certain pronouns; providing exceptions for certain disorders; banning requirement of using certain preferred personal title or pronouns; requiring student school records to comply with certain policy; prescribing punishment for changing certain student records; directing boards of education to adopt certain parental notification procedures; prohibiting adoption of certain procedures to discourage parental notification; banning instruction on sexual orientation or sexual identity; providing exception; requiring instruction to be age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate; prescribing student support services training to adhere to certain guidelines; mandating annual notification of health care services; providing for parental option to consent or withhold consent; requiring parental permission before administering certain student questionnaire or form; establishing process to address parental concerns; authorizing parent to file civil action; providing for award of damages and other costs and fees; directing school district to publish certain policies on its website; amending 70 O.S. 2021, Section 11-103.3, which relates to AIDS prevention education; prohibiting student from participating in AIDS education without parental permission; amending 70 O.S. 2021, Section 11-105.1, which relates to sex education; striking information to be included in curriculum; deleting definition for consent; barring student from participating in sex education without parental permission; directing certain curriculum and materials to be approved annually by the board of education; requiring certain concepts and ideas to be taught in sex education; prohibiting inclusion of certain concepts and ideas in sex education instruction; directing certain concepts in sex education to be emphasized; prescribing who can teach sex education programs; disallowing other organizations from providing sex education; directing certain coordination between the Department of Education and State Textbook Committee; requiring State Textbook Committee to provide instructional material guidelines; directing board of education to review and revise certain policies and procedures; mandating State Board of Education to consider certain compliance when reviewing school accreditation; providing for codification; providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency.
Status:
Failed to Progress
Location:
Failed to Progress
Session:
2024 Regular Session
Four points were particularly highlighted by the members of the House General Government Committee and the author during the hearing, which lasted 45 minutes and offered new insight:
The removal of consent: Members questioned the purpose of the strike when consent was later described without using the phrase, a concept already defined in law. They also questioned the impact of not teaching consent to students, alluding to the opt-in/opt-out question. After much back and forth, the author pledged to look into the questions before moving forward.
Opt-in versus opt-out sex ed: The author highlighted that he was simply trying to engage guardians to pay attention to what their children were exposed to. Opting in only would ensure students would not be exposed to material a parent would not want them to see if a permission slip was lost or a parent forgot to fill it out. Questions arose as to whether or not students would still need to be taught consent, taking the lesson outside of sex ed. The author affirmed his belief that consent is a principle that should be addressed by a parent, family member, or church.
Local control: It was repeatedly brought up that the author, from House District 28 (Seminole), was effectively mandating what students across Oklahoma would be exposed to in the classroom. Representative Deck from District 44 (Norman) noted that his community does not adhere to the principles laid out in the required curriculum in the bill, pointing to the anti-LGBTQ+ language as an example. Although plainly stated in the bill, the author insisted HB 3120 is to promote a parent's right over their child's education and the bill did not reflect his personal morals.
Omission of bill language and intent: The author insisted the bill was to heighten parent involvement in a child's education and repeatedly insisted that it was "common sense" and did not reflect his morals. However, the bill spells out anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment, attacks contraception, and shames sex. During the presentation, the author openly stated that those who contract STIs were degenerates, drug users, and implied they deserved infection because of their choices and they knew better.
Overhauls two sections of law that relate to sex ed.
Mandates that parents or guardians must opt-in for their students to receive sex ed. Only employed school teachers can teach sex ed, removing community sex ed educators. This includes health departments.
Rewrites sex ed curriculum by removing and adding requirements of the class. This includes:
Authors
Danny Williams – HD 28
