[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6084123,"mediaKeyId","2922480-46980020b2fe88fb62b9b4d455171b2e","parentId",2922480,"title","Committee narrows consent-form language, clarifies when educators may correct misinformation in sexual‑health instruction","audioSeconds",3128,"startMs",61000,"endMs",3189000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2922480-46980020b2fe88fb62b9b4d455171b2e&start=61&end=3189","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2922480-46980020b2fe88fb62b9b4d455171b2e/thumbnail_61000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6084123/Utah/Committee-narrows-consent-form-language-clarifies-when-educators-may-correct-misinformation-in-sexualhealth-instruction","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6084123-a0a58b5f6cfb41c4465074931026b9ea/orig.mp4?Expires=1770581656&Signature=nkDfWdQXBlN5BJ9hoAC0UlJ1dXQZJRTeKQwZliIPjWcC7LQCIyqqHV1-548oHh3nbcadFQVSH7bRYWYXc8X2LrN-qQoZ9p2axwjGk59vSdQSk3uUv6cqxtgJTcvg4GO0My37YKtU7Y0~~XKCVOF~1EG4MOLIycBTVFmjS3WHDGyUcWrtPjpIjH2nQY7XZGRa7y5y0VS6O7J9VJBqXpc8AxNEj6FaD1BrveHHh8z8YtfmuTABeYAkSj2ldO6Kt~TpZFRLkv0mcEkRRh0rK0r3gR-UzcoxT9FuM3Wgh0MXMeg8SEPfBKq0ijCG2Tlc0gv6vgOo6sXV-CnHHPOEEJ2NYg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Financial Operations","date","2025-04-09T15:32:23.173Z","article","The Standards and Assessment Committee on April 2025 voted to revise a board rule and the parental consent form that govern instruction in school-based sexual‑health education, clarifying what teachers may say when students raise spontaneous questions and how students should be directed for follow-up.

Jody Parker, health education specialist, told the committee the changes respond to HB 281 and the statutory requirement (code 53G-10-403) that the board create a parental consent form. She said staff updated grammar, moved a prohibition item into the explicit “not approved” list and — at the request of districts — made the list of topics requiring parental consent more descriptive so parents would understand what is taught. “One of the biggest challenges we had was ‘human [sexuality]’ was a requirement area, but nobody knew what it meant,” Parker said. “We all got together and came up with a list that actually makes sense.”

Why it mattered: Committee members focused on two related items — the board rule language about how educators may respond to spontaneous student questions and the consent form that references that rule — because the two must align. Vice Chair Emily Green and several board members pressed for wording that protects teachers from giving instruction to students who are not opted into sexual‑health lessons while still allowing teachers to correct dangerous or misleading claims they encounter in class or elsewhere.

The board-level rule language ultimately approved by the committee says, in part, that “a Utah educator may correct inaccurate or misleading information in accordance with the approved instructional materials adopted by the LEA, or they may direct students to parents.” That wording was added after members debated, and rejected, a broader amendment that would have allowed educators to “direct students to parents or health professionals.” Board members who opposed the broader language said it was too vague because the statutory definition of “health professional” appears in multiple code sections and varies; others supported including health professionals as an option depending on the situation.

Jennifer (law staff) and Michelle Buse (staff member referenced during the discussion) explained committee intent: an educator may respond briefly to correct a factual misstatement (for example, to say “that’s not true”) but may not provide instruction beyond what is approved by the local education agency unless parents have consented. Michelle Buse summarized the committee’s interpretation: the correction itself should be consistent with LEA‑approved instructional materials, meaning the factual correction should align with materials the district has adopted.

Actions and votes: The committee first voted unanimously to temporarily table the consent-form item until it had resolved the rule language that governs spontaneous questions. After extended discussion and a failed amendment to add “parents or health professionals,” the committee approved a narrower change — directing students to parents — by a 4–1 vote. The committee then voted to approve R27747474 (school instruction and sexual‑health education) draft 2 as amended on second and final reading, and subsequently took the consent form off the table and approved the consent form document as amended; those motions passed on committee votes noted during the meeting.

What remains: Staff said they are already revising teacher-facing law and policy guidance to align with HB 281 and HB 233 and will circulate updated definitions and citations for the statutory “health professional” language. Jody Parker said her office will provide teachers with a question‑and‑answer guide and other resources intended to help staff correct misinformation safely and within legal limits.

Context and limits: The committee repeatedly emphasized two limits. First, an educator may not provide instruction on sexual‑health topics to students who have not been opted in by parents; a brief factual correction is permitted, not a lesson. Second, committee members were split about whether the consent form should explicitly refer students to outside health professionals because of variability among statutory definitions and concerns about directing minors to third parties without clearer guardrails. The committee voted for the more narrowly worded solution — directing students to parents — while staff will continue to update law-and-policy materials and provide the board with concrete citations for statutory definitions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","20250404 Standards and Assessments Committee","oneSentenceSummary","The Standards and Assessment Committee on April 2025 voted to revise a board rule and the parental consent form that govern school sexual‑health instruction, clarifying that educators may correct inaccurate or misleading information only using LEA‑approved materials and may direct students to parents for follow-up.","taxTitle","Financial Operations , Utah Board of Education, Offices, Departments, and Divisions, Organizations, Utah Executive Branch, Utah","taxId",67095,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6084113,"State board staff outline $500,000 teacher AI training program, policy guidance work",126,3573000,3699000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2922480-46980020b2fe88fb62b9b4d455171b2e&start=3573&end=3699","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2922480-46980020b2fe88fb62b9b4d455171b2e/thumbnail_3573000.jpg","/articles/6084113/Utah/State-board-staff-outline-500000-teacher-AI-training-program-policy-guidance-work","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6084113-b70593337ff147ee9be63427b5369cc3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770581656&Signature=LdXruvJXT1oLQnhECei-Dp9FjPSHMrfxYk9tCasUBTblgK6i0hjWm7-3aUU3X1qnrOW0Db6mAu9kSaUdnfoV4ECrTrVzL1Db9Zi5oPR~pa33~gV6fgB3lTXXaP80UA3iW-0TvZpsszZEOB9Rgwk6~q9woc40QjSwb4lD6dTWhoCXo0j9VSraLqBb8YQl0ANfzDvBCTrEd5pfR-Ns3syhMKhRagDzWp6qMfNWzFpg2UdQ~JyfoGaT5GHREPi9WPlWJS0p6U~7ivmLDWn1v-VmZozOaHIutwGhXEemY2iJADf9wCYWZ0rfH5aeuGemkgeMhPsjGnY01uWGc6NF6rccuw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Matt Winters, the board’s AI education specialist, updated the Standards and Assessment Committee on three items: regulatory‑mitigation work with the Office of AI Policy, a $500,000 teacher‑training grant, and internal staff professional development.

Winters said the Department of Commerce Office of AI Policy and board staff collaborated on regulatory mitigation plans to identify places in state law that could interfere with responsible AI rollouts; those plans are being reviewed for incorporation into an updated AI framework and a glossary of terms for local education agencies.

Winters described a $500,000 grant-funded training program that will deliver a three‑layer professional development pathway for teachers: a one‑hour in‑school PD session, an approximately two‑hour Canvas course for community and follow‑up, and a requirement that participating teachers create and submit a lesson plan that either uses student‑facing AI or teaches about AI in the teacher’s content area. Winters said more than 200 sites have been identified and that more than half the grant funds will go directly to teacher stipends. Submitted lesson plans will be collected in a public database and shared broadly when the program completes in the fall.

Winters also said USB is running internal, biweekly AI trainings for staff and is considering a second AI summit. Board members asked to be invited to site visits and to see materials; Winters and staff offered calendars and the option of a board work session on the effort. Winters said the training roster and interest list is growing rapidly and that recordings of internal sessions are available to agency staff.

No committee action was taken; the update was informational.","An AI specialist reported a $500,000 grant program to train teachers statewide, a glossary and regulatory mitigation plans developed with the Office of AI Policy, and internal staff training; the program will publish teacher lesson plans and offer stipends.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6084118,"Committee trims federal requirements from state school‑improvement rule to reduce duplication for federally designated schools",324,3207000,3531000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2922480-46980020b2fe88fb62b9b4d455171b2e&start=3207&end=3531","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2922480-46980020b2fe88fb62b9b4d455171b2e/thumbnail_3207000.jpg","/articles/6084118/Utah/Committee-trims-federal-requirements-from-state-schoolimprovement-rule-to-reduce-duplication-for-federally-designated-schools","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6084118-82fe3bd5f4debb1cccdf509e9c6f5956/orig.mp4?Expires=1770581656&Signature=GfkwIIQBJg94ZKHPFMZ3mbDPaZriLHSEsICfsHtaBEhh2DHIrejMuOP2W2r5IDmrk26ebJDIBoAVbo263nCIgdWj7RwX~JwLoYuNANpvM-qy6Q4mpGT5SJKELlQv70mYiSacfNlYuZAaP2EnXoshSs4obcQZyJnA-w4JGbZKsH-jLOyDMpe-6NeI29zIYOvn8Mt~YuWM0qv~wv81PiZhIEWBgjQ9K3wFyt0wxp-QjRVbRsrPmEsYXdUcsWyoEbQ0nkuI2-zH6bZVUx6acQ4xc-f-NnmMdebiJTmeqZu98nHJKwJ36Dyg77nTnST3FQjUX-4a5fszfiNdk1fgqjxI8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Standards and Assessment Committee voted unanimously to approve, on first reading, a rewrite of Rule R277920 (school improvement and leadership development) that removes federal school‑improvement requirements from the state rule so federally designated schools do not face duplicative burdens.

Sarah Whipkey, director of school improvement, told members the finance committee requested the change to reduce the administrative load on federally designated schools (CSI, TSI, ATSI). “Federal school improvement language was brought into the board rule,” Whipkey said. “That placed additional burdens, I think very unintentionally, on our schools that are federally designated. The team went through, removed the language that placed burdens, and made sure there is still alignment with code and budget feasibility.”

Nut graf: The rewrite focuses the board rule on state programs — specifically Elevate and Springboard — while leaving federal accountability requirements in federal program structures. Whipkey said the goal is to remove duplicative state‑level requirements that were layered on top of federal obligations, not to reduce accountability generally.

The committee’s motion directed staff to forward R277920 draft 1 to the full board for approval on second and final reading. Committee members asked for confirmation that the rewrite preserves necessary accountability and noted that federal and state designations may not fully overlap; Whipkey explained some CSI schools are Title I while others are not, and the revisions preserve accountability without duplication.

The motion passed unanimously; staff will prepare the draft for full‑board consideration.","The committee approved a first‑reading change to R277920 to focus the board rule on state school improvement programs (Elevate and Springboard) and remove duplicated federal school‑improvement burdens on CSI/TSI/ATSI schools.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee narrows consent-form language, clarifies when educators may correct misinformation in sexual‑health instruction

State board staff outline $500,000 teacher AI training program, policy guidance work

Committee trims federal requirements from state school‑improvement rule to reduce duplication for federally designated schools