Karen Burnett-Kurie

First off this is yet again another unfunded mandate. The premise that only a nurse can teach health and sexuality is absurd. First the nurse isn't even a trained educator and while they may be comfortable communicating information on a one on one basis they do not typically have any training or skillsl in classroom management. Plus, there are educators who go to school just for health and biology education and they are not qualitified to teach human sexuality? Second, the bills ends by saying it will not conflict with RSA 354-A:27 ( this act prohibits discrimination against age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, color, marital status, familial status, disability, religion, or national origin) and yet the law would punish a nurse/educator for evening answering a question related to gender identity along with a whole list of other forbidden states of being. It absolutely conflicts with existing. law. Third, it is equally absurd to exclude all sorts of other mediums useful in teaching any subject. Not all learners are verbal learners. You don't want al children to learn about sex? The bill states "Sexual education shall not include any instruction or provision of materials via computer, books, e-books, book apps, magazines, performances, role-playing, and any other materials used in providing instruction in the classrooms..." And if you say this is not your intent, then you are kidding yourself on the ability of everyone to parse your intent. Plus, even if your intent is only relative to specific topics within sexual education the statement "no where in any K-12 school environment," denies age appropriateness of some information. It isolates some children as never being able to acknowledge or learn about their family "life-style" or a friend who may be struggling with feeling different then what you want everyone to be. Fourth, it is unreasonably punitive to punish a teacher for answering a student's question. A teacher may be the only person that child can go to with their question - and you would take away a teachers professions based on even answering the question one on one. "Any infraction of this section shall incur disciplinary action from the state licensing board for a first offense, termination of employment in the school system for a second offense." Parents have already been given the option of opting out on the instruction. After this has happened why is it necessary to then also punish teachers for applying professional judement. Fifth, human sexual education comes up in other educational subjects and venues. It's even in great works of literature and art. Yet you are suggesting that "shall be reserved solely for specific human sexual education classes. It shall not be taught or included in any way in any other academic subject instruction/curriculum." How absurd. A child does not categorize their thinking and questions into singular class or setting. And children go into puberty starting at vastly different ages. It's perfectly normal for puberty to begin at any point between the ages of 8 and 13 in girls and 9 and 14 in boys. That is prior to even when this bill allows any education to being. Sixth, this is yet another example of Concord precluding local control. This is a question which should be addressed by the local school boards, parents, teachers and community members. There are already state standards for sex education and beyond them this is a matter of local control. Vote NO on HB1185.