Not a member yet? Register now and get started.

lock and key

Sign in to your account.

Account Login

Forgot your password?

Observations and Comments from Teacher Committee Members

[Information contained on is for general information purposes only. CASHE assumes no responsibility for errors or omission in content]


Framework FUNDING UPDATE:… June 27, 2017

Governor Brown signed the 2017-18 State Budget today leaving the allocation for OUR new Health Education Framework included. Thank you one and all who helped  the cause by e-mailing legislators and the Governor. CASHE won’t be pestering you for a few days at least! AND special thanks to some great leadership provided by the ALCU Northern California and Planned Parenthood of California.

Photos and Video from the Health Education Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee Meeting in Sacramento.



Briefing Report for CASHE

Health Education Curriculum Framework and Evaluation  Criteria Committee

California Department of Education – Sacramento, CA

 Jaime Rubio  –  CASHE Observer

Friday, August 11, 2017

            Day two of meeting number three for the Health Education Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee began in an unorthodox manner compared to the previous meetings. The meeting began with a brief introduction on the day that would cover the Appendix: Sex Trafficking, Criteria chapter, and Grades 7 & 8, followed by an appreciation on the work done so far and the ability to work under “crunch time” circumstances. Issues that were previously placed in the parking lot were addressed (conscious about time). A committee co-chair noted that the UDL (Universal Design for Learning) does not need to go into the framework and that in the MTSS (Multi-Tiered Support System), PBIS would be added, as well as a shift in focus from RID to mental health. As a result, the panel came into early voting consensus to keep and remove some UDL information, as well as other formatting issues being addressed.

Right after the voting on “parking lot” issues, there was a transition into small-group discussion on the first topic of the day, being the Appendix: Sex Trafficking. The co-chairs explained the importance of this due to recent law making it necessary to include sex trafficking within the framework in an age appropriate manner and to also consider school and district members in terms of what they will need to know as well. In the small groups, the mediating staff from the CDE recognized the short length but emphasized its importance. Small group discussion focused on main ideas, such as whether the appendix should be more specific with examples versus the current language that was somewhat general, whether it would be a good idea to move information from Grades 9-12 into the Appendix due to the density of those chapters, and the importance of a much stronger message for the role of staff being the mandated reporter in a clear way as to not suggest an investigating role that can lead to severe and problematic situations and instead follow code as a mandated reporter (issue in an example on sex trafficking). There were also minor issues addressed, such as correct terms, better language, clarity, technicalities, modifications in terms of adding/removing/altering, and adding a glossary.

The whole group discussion on the Appendix: Sex Trafficking was a very opinionated subject matter. Overall, there was a consensus on the need for more specifics in examples versus the current general language. The panel members agreed to delete a box on mandating reporting and keep in Introduction chapter with a note sending the reader back to the Introduction for reference. The group also reached consensus in not changing charts, such as the indicator charts, Grades 7-8 charts and Grades 9-12 charts. The group also agreed to remove an example on page 11 and 12 and expand the school protocol. The idea of a glossary for certain terms did not reach consensus in the whole group, due to other frameworks not having a glossary as well as a discrepancy in what to add and what to not add in said glossary that may result in a rather lengthy glossary. However, the panel members did agree on defining terms in the section and use them consistently (at times they were not consistent throughout the framework), such as sex work needing clarification. In terms of replacing victim (sexual assault) to survivor, one writer  explained to the panel the difficulty of the terms because the terminology used was situation based and also up to the discretion of the individual.

Up next, the topic of the Criteria chapter was addressed. The framework guidelines were not read (were provided) due to their length. Straight off the bat, the co-chairs explained that this chapter used standard language throughout and that there was more of an emphasis on finding out what was missing. The group was supposed to be split into small-group discussion, however, the panel members voted to skip the small-group discussion and jump into whole-group discussion. Once this was agreed upon, the writers left the room and large group discussion began. The mediator read out loud certain segments of the topic and each member either said pass or gave their opinion or correction. Many of the members seemed content with this area and did not have much input. One member did stand out in this area by suggesting a few changes, but this topic went by rather quickly. A panel member questioned whether this topic was necessary for the framework and it was mentioned that it was law for a Criteria chapter be made available for publishers. Another attendee, was outspoken in this topic, giving suggestions in terms of language used.

Public comment was up next and only one person spoke up, suggesting a more balanced model be used throughout the framework with an emphasis to support the shift in teacher instruction being standard based.

After the brief public comment, Grades 7 & 8 (revised chapter) were addressed in small-group discussion as well as whole group. There was strong sentiment for a need to restructure learning activities in terms of format, with a proposed format of the “overarching standard followed by the standard and then the learning activity.” This restructure was passed by the group thanks to a panel members contribution and the benefit of less wasted space. There was a problem with the use of the word statutory rape and it not being the correct legal term. The panel members agreed upon using STI consistently throughout the document versus STD (outdated term) because it is more medically accurate. There was also a change in moving suicide after discussing stress, with an expansion of suicide (waiting on content expert to expand this section). Also, there was controversy in activities and the language used relating to the standard in terms of it being better to use direct language from the standard (in essence verb matching). The group also met consensus in the need to add a definition of harm reduction at the beginning of Grades 7 & 8, as well as 9-12 and Introduction. Statutory rape was removed and unlawful sex with a minor was kept. Also, there was agreement on citing ED CODE throughout.


After the whole group discussion on Grades 7 & 8, came the parking lot issues once again, this time focusing primarily on the sex trafficking example in Grade 9-12. This was a rather heated debate that caused frustration in the panel members to the point of explicitly stating their feelings. While the writers defended the narrative in the example and explained the reason for the narrative (partially being that the CDE and other groups involved asked for this to be made in that way), some of the panel members advocated for a chart that would simplify the rather long (in the view of many panel members) narrative. The writers stated their confusion in the format for this because of the many ideas thrown around (sometimes being contradictive due to many opinions). Overall, it seemed that the panel members believed there was a “better way” to approach this example versus the narrative, but not yet a clear proposal. At this time, there was sentiment in the air and many panel members spoke out that they felt pushback from the writers and a sense of not being comfortable expressing their ideas, due to the seemingly “defensive” view of the writers. Some panel members felt that they were a bit insulted. The writers responded by saying that it was not their intention to come across as defensive or that they did not value the suggestions given because they were given many instructions for this area and there was a need to meet sort of standard. The writers and the co-chairs, as well as the panel members agreed then on having the panel members interested to send their full-blown examples and modifications for the sex trafficking example, which would be placed on (public MUST ask for the link as noted by mediator in order to view these documents) and voted on in September. After this sensitive topic, there was a proposal to take out duplication in middle school and high school examples so that they appear in one or the other. However, this was met with debate because there was a need to repeat information because teachers would only look at the chapters that would benefit them and it was not very realistic that there be a note referencing them back or ahead and that they would actively seek that information. The panel members did agree upon adding other health topics of interest (if space allows), such as the environment (being worked on), hearing loss (loud music), anger management, gender, suicide, and opioid use. Another topic that was reiterated was that if there was a standard cited, the verb must be matched in the example.

The meeting then moved onto announcing the next meeting taking place September 18th and 19th with the focus on returning chapters: TK-3, Grades 4-6, Supporting Health Education, and Assessment. Before the meeting was concluded, a state board member came over to thank the panel members and writers for their time and commitment. To conclude the meeting, appreciations were given by each panel member. These appreciations ranged from thanking one another for their contributions, insight, professionalism, cooperation, dedication, mannerisms, knowledge and passion, as well as content with the progression and focus of their group compared to the first meeting.


Briefing Report for CASHE – August 10, 2017

Health Education Curriculum Framework and Evaluation

Criteria Committee –California Department of Education

Sacramento, CA

Jaime Rubio  –CASHE Observer 

Today the third meeting in the series of meetings for the Health Education Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee took place once again in sunny Sacramento. Attendance by panel members increased today from 16 to 18, as well as an in increase in staff by the California Department of Education for note-taking and mediating purposes. Each panel member was given a pink folder with an agenda, PowerPoint handouts, copies of public comments (50 pages worth). Adding comment to this packet, many panel members seemed displeased by the amount of public comment they had to go through in such little and therefore suggested there be an approach made that they could receive them prior to the meeting. A solution that they came up with would be that public comment would be available to them as it came in via

The topic of discussion for today’s meeting entailed discussion on the chapters of Access and Equity, Grades 9-12, and Introduction. The structure for this meeting was almost identical to the previous meeting back in June, except that due to lack of time, they had to cut out small-group discussion over the second and third topic, which was grades 9-12 and the introduction.

First up was the topic of the Access and Equity chapter. When the panel members were divided into three groups for small group discussion, as always, many ideas were thrown around on how best to improve it, whether it be adding, removing, or any type of correction be, to be brought up for whole group discussion. Panel members engaged deeply on wording whether it be appropriateness, technicality, or to further enhance the current writing. Many members in various groups felt that there was a need to provide more examples for English Learners/Students with Disabilities, appropriate instructional material and resources, chapter examples (ie. Learning about hygiene, life skills for self-care). Many issues that came up involved syntax, language, format issues, and appropriateness.

In large group discussion, consensus must be reached for big ideas, but since there was sort of a rush, the mediators did note that they would not necessarily stop for validation just yet. Issues that came up in this discussion involved LGBTQ, Migrant Education, Foster Youth, Students with Disabilities. Within this discussion were many technicalities, such as in the LGBTQ mentioning gender identity, change transgendered into transgender, mention that foster youth are at risk for STDs and early pregnancy, mention that a teacher should notify school nurse/counselors/others about their attempt to cover sensitive topics because of trigger words that might affect trauma students, address the problem of asking for citizenship status, and others. A big issue that came up was the need to reference foster youth and homeless youth strengths because current language suggests it as only a weakness. Panel members also agreed that “Health Educators” should be changed to “Credentialed Health Teacher.” A common issue that came up was the need to provide citations and primary sources, as well as examples or snapshots in classroom activities in the framework. Also, there was consensus that much of the language portrayed a negative tone that needed have more of a positive light.

After the large group discussion, there was a brief discussion on parking lot issues. 3 issues were addressed: decision-making model, health literacy, and classroom examples. On the decision-making model, the group wanted there to be a clear statement on the overarching standards and a brief description for each area and having criteria for each standard and continue to use examples with clarifications. On health literacy, they talked about the role of health literacy and the need to refer to the definition in some way so that it did not have to be restated and there was a proposal to refer to the introduction for the definition. On the classroom examples, the mediators mentioned that they must follow guidelines provided by the CDE. Every panel member gave an opinion on the example and received positive reviews because of its teacher friendliness. These were called “unpacking the standard.” The consensus for the group came to be that they would have one in each grade level span and have snapshots and vignettes.

After the parking lot issues, came the much-anticipated lunch time. After lunch, the panel members present were given the news that a panel member had resigned. Next topic of business was Grades 9-12. This chapter as described by the mediator was a GIANT chapter and therefore small group discussion was skipped and only whole group discussion was done. Again, many format issues, language, syntax, technicalities, adding and removing stuff were brought up. In consensus, the panel members agreed that the sexual health section needed more positive content due to the overwhelmingly negative tone and heavy negative language. The panel members also discussed whether the length of activities was possibly too long and questioned some of the structure. Adding to the negative tone discussions of the framework was also the section talking about pornography. The wording suggested that porn was the ultimate cause of trafficking. Another suggestion to the writers by the panel members was the need for a more delicate way to approach legal sex work. Panel members also questioned whether this section was appropriate in size since it was 4-5 times larger than the rest. Problem with this section is the need to address many laws by various entities. The panel members also noticed that much of the content here appears to be the same as in the middle school grades. Another issue that was brought up was the need for explicit language on genetics and its relation to body type. An area that was criticized was the learning activities being too similar. Language relating to tobacco use was changed from tobacco smoking to the use of tobacco products, due to things like chewing tobacco where no smoking is needed. Language in terms of “giving up a child to adoption” versus the preferred simple “choosing adoption” was also in consensus. In order for the framework to not be dated, many considerations were considered, such as citing the top 6 STI’s alphabetically instead of numbered. A universal change made to incorporate and to attempt to be a document that does not feel outdated is for LGBTQ to be LGBTQ+, due to the other many different identities there are.

After the large group discussion on grades 9-12, public comment was made. Public comment was made by 4 people (*One was CASHE/CACHE Vice President Ric Loya, another was Dianne Wilson-Graham of the California Physical Education-Health Project. versus 1 from the previous meeting in June and after public comment came large group discussion on the introduction chapter, again skipping small-group discussion. Here, the usual corrections that come up are suggested. Comments were given by each panel member either by giving praise or bringing up a topic of discussion. Overall, panel members were content that the writers had added many of the suggestions previously made.

The issue of comment by the round table came up today as well, where panel members pointed out that many of the comments were worthy, but did not have time to view and comment. The solution brought up was for the writers to review the round table comments (which they already do) and incorporate what they think would be best and the things that they did not incorporate would be flagged and made available to the panel members so that they could bring up an argument for any of the round table comments left out.

The next meeting is for tomorrow August 11, 2017 at 9 in the morning to 4 in the afternoon. The topics for discussion include the Appendix: Sex Trafficking, Criteria, Grades 7 & 8, and Appreciations.


California Health Education Framework UPDATES…June 19-20, 2017

Briefing Report for CASHE

Health Education Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee

California Department of Education

Sacramento, CA

Jaime Rubio

CASHE Observer

Tuesday, June 20, 2017


The third Tuesday morning of the month of June saw commence the second meeting of the week for the panel members of the Health Education Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee. With similar fashion, the meeting began with expressing the goals for the day. The goals of the day basically outlined the meeting agenda, which included topics in supporting health education and chapters on grades four to six. Once again, the panel members were asked to read out loud the framework guidelines, which in this case were about supporting health education. Finalizing this group effort, the panel members were asked to split into groups that were already prearranged for small group discussion.

In these small group discussions, the panel members were actively engaged in commentary and suggestions. The panel members discussed what they liked and did not like. Suggestions were given for eliminating certain verbiage and replacing it with better language, that had to meet consensus with the group, to later be proposed to the larger group if it was a big idea. However, if it was not a big idea and just a change to a particular line in the text, the group members who have pointed out the errors, modification, or expressed additions, would email Deborah, the facilitator. Many of the small groups talked about adding the cost-benefit of health education in the framework to support the teaching of this subject, mainly highlighting its uniqueness and fact that it cannot be taught anywhere else. A reoccurring theme that causes debate among the groups or still not very clear about is how to define high quality health education. Something that goes hand in hand with this theme is the problem with health teachers not being experts in the area. Therefore, panel members highlighted a desire to have highly qualified and appropriately credentialed teachers be a necessity, even though the State Board member provided some input that it should not be a mandate, but rather a recommendation due to another agency having power in that respect. In addition, many additions dealt with thoughts about inclusiveness, such as LGBQT students, which the groups did not feel there was a lot of data for. Also, many members felt that some of the language used was a bit soft and needed to be reworded to have a bigger impact. These same thoughts were noted by each group in the large group discussion.

In the larger discussion, consensus was reached on every idea through a thumb up or down. There were some language and verbiage modifications and additions, such as in grade 5 page 19 having to change the wording from sanitary napkins, to menstrual products. Also in consensus, were ideas that were suggestions to the format of certain pieces. For example, moving the assessment items at the start instead of the roundtable items. A significant change was a preference of the panel members to explicitly state health education instead of the acronym HE. Panel members also thought it would be more effective to have, where appropriate, the word health in front of teacher (health teacher vs teacher). Other issues that were addressed were the important role of health literacy and school nurses, reorganization for emphasis on support, the possibility of having LCAP fund health education courses.

In discussion about grade level chapters, the panel members felt that there needed to be more variety in lesson examples and less repetitive information. Since this is a sensitive topic as to when to teach about sexual education in a health class and what language to use, members focused on age appropriateness of the wording, such as changing in the fourth-grade chapter line 379 the word suicide to self-harm. In fact, the members wanted a whole lesson in self-harm. Special care had to be used when coming up with activities to teach students these standards. Resources were given at times for supplemental learning. Members critiqued consistency and at times pointed out how one word was used earlier but has changed at a later time, as well as other inconsistencies. A structural change that did take place was placing biological learning (puberty reproduction; biological functions) before social/emotional concepts. This argument was strengthened by a panel member, who is a health teacher, that it would be more suitable to have the biological before the social/emotional teaching because this is similar to how students learn the digestive system before learning about eating disorders. Panel members could not decide whether alternative decision guides should consist of  one or have alternatives and therefore was tabled into what they called the “parking lot.”

After the large group discussion on the chapters, the panel also reviewed a panel members handouts that highlighted samples instead of what the framework used which was a chart. These handouts were composed of examples of standard based instruction and an approach to change the format in the framework. A panel member noted that the framework was to guide curriculum and not teaching (questioning its usefulness). Further look into this change was needed and some handouts, were tabled for another occasion as well as requested to have an example of how it would look like in one of the actual lessons. This talk made the meeting go beyond the scheduled time and panel members were in need of leaving, due to flights and transportation back to their respective districts, which did not allow time for appreciations and comment from the panel members.

The next meetings for the committee are Thursday, August 10 and Friday, August 11, 2017. The topic of discussion would be returning chapters (introduction and grades 7-8 and 9-12) and new chapters (access and equity, appendix on sex trafficking, and criteria for instructional materials adoption).


A Briefing Report for CASHE

Health Education Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee

California Department of Education

Sacramento, CA


Jaime Rubio

CASHE Observer

Monday, June 19, 2017


As panel members gathered around for the beginning of the meeting on this hot Sacramento day (not so hot for members coming from areas down in Southern California), co-chairs head of the panel welcomed the members to the city. The panel today was joined by 16 members ranging from teachers, school nurses, an ACLU of Northern California representative to the Chief of the Health Education Unit for the California Department of Public Health, and others. Overseeing these individuals were Patricia Rucker, State Board of Education Member (Instructional Quality Commission Liaison), Jennifer Woo, Chair of Health Subject Matter Committee, Bill Honig, Member, Health Subject Matter Committee Vice Chair, Instructional Quality Commission, and Jose Flores, Health Subject Matter Committee.

After the welcoming, the members had an opening activity with the purpose of being an ice breaker and people to get to know each other (lacked this aspect last meeting). The panel members were split up into 6 groups and were instructed to talk about what they will be doing when they are not at CFCC meetings this summer. After the groups met, only one person spoke up, a principal of a school, Darren, who shared that he would be attending the 20th anniversary of the Backstreet Boys
Now moving onto serious business matters, the first topic of discussion was concerning TK-3 Chapters. The goal of the group was to make the framework a user-friendly document. It is noteworthy that the co-chairs emphasized the importance of clearly stating to the writers (in consensus) in a directive manner to either add, remove, or modify in any way the chapters so that it can be taken into consideration. Proper protocol involved specifying the page, line number, and specific language to be used was repeated multiple times. The specific language includes information such as, the exact wording preferred versus draft chapters, standards involved, state guidelines, how health education should look in the classroom, and keeping in mind what experiences the members want for all students throughout the state. Ultimately, the goal is to create a document to help teachers with the subject matter in terms of how to teach certain things to students and how to handle sensitive topics. The State Board of Education member mentioned that it was significant for the panel members to create the best guides as possible for instruction to incorporate content that makes sense and provides foundational elements, including how to best express those things. The writers expressed their content with feedback and the panel members’ experience. Also, the writers noted that they have also received valuable input from focus groups and were excited to see how the members were to integrate teaching boundaries.

Before the members were split into three prearranged groups for discussion, the members were asked to volunteer to read the framework guidelines for grade-level chapters. The members were reminded that TK does not have standards and instead use pre-school foundations. Before the small group discussion, the members were also reminded of the requirements that needed to be addressed through standards, laws (such as the California Health Youth Act), and ICQ requirements. As the groups split into three different areas, I went from group to group to observe. In every group, each member had their own remarks written prior to attending this meeting and were very vocal in expressing their opinions and criticism. However, not all remarks were critical due to members also expressing their delight with the language used in many areas throughout the draft chapters. This was increasingly important because each small group was also composed of a writer who not only was hearing the critique of the draft chapters, but also the positive feedback. In these discussion groups, ideas flowed and even between them they looked for consensus before writing such ideas on a poster sized notepad that would later be presented in large group discussion for approval of all the members. If there was an idea that needed to be worked on a much deeper level, the members were asked to email Deborah as “homework.” Many of the issues concerning the small groups started with overarching themes and moved into specific lines of text that they would like to see different.

In large group discussion, many members expressed their concern of the draft chapters being too much of a narrative and not exactly having substance, or evidence or how to “teach” this age group. A reoccurring concern was also the format of the draft chapters. Many of the highlights of the panel members dealt with verbiage and syntax to say things in a better way, such as instead of emphasizing specifically dairy products as a source of calcium, stating the phrase “calcium rich” foods. The panel members gave their overarching themes and their main concerns to each group. A member mentioned that they would like to see each standard be stated, however, one of the writers mentioned that they cannot quote the standards because they are not meant to be integrated as full quotations. Also, the panel members were concerned with consistency throughout the chapters, such as word choice, statistics, and verb identifiers matching the verb in activities. Members of the panel also attempted to find innovative ways to present certain subjects, such as dealing with loss and grief in a commemorative manner (ie. planting a tree, writing something creative.) Adding to loss and grief and many other subjects, a matter of providing more resources to teachers was also constantly mentioned throughout the meeting.

A hot topic of debate through both the draft chapters of TK to third grade and assessment was constructing rubrics that are not as simple as rating “1-4.” In the assessment portion of the meeting, the same format was given where the panel members were split into small groups for discussion to later report to the group at large. For assessment, the groups mentioned overarching topics such as, mentioning culture that reflects California, strategies to assess sensitive topics, assessment relative to a district, the detail of the proper use of stating Alcohol Tobacco and Other Drugs (ATOD), how to assess learning in online education, no information about “at risk” students, can we teach teachers to make a good assessment, the need to see more examples of types of assessment (especially in kindergarten). A problem that the panel members kept bringing up was that some material seemed outdated and they would like the use of more current information. However, the writers noted that new information is inexistent at the moment. Overall, the main topic of debate here was again, the idea of a rubric to assess students and that the ones given are too simple and should only be used as a building block.

The meeting also welcomed public comment and Dianne Wilson-Graham, executive director of the California Physical Education-Health Project, spoke stating that her concerns included the need to expand the purpose of assessment. Adding to her comments, she mentioned that there needs to be a sense of a framework that would benefit teachers through clear descriptions, methodology, and evidence, addressing issues such as how teachers should respond to students, create assessment tools and samples. Also, she mentioned that there needs to be a clear distinction between asking what a student feels they’ve learned versus a collection of evidence of learning clear of opinion.

In the end, the panel members were asked to give one word reflective on today’s meeting. The responses were short, process, efficient, better, progressing (many people had this; crowd laughing), improving, positive, hopeful, progressing, incremental, productive, tired, learning. supposed to meet), tired, learning, productive. Overall, the attitudes that prevailed in the meeting room were positive and viewed as progressive.


CASHE Framework Input Advice:

     If you would like to provide comments on the draft chapters, please provide the page and line numbers you are commenting on and provide specific language that you would like to see included.

     In our experience/opinion, is critical…if you want something changed, you must have the above AND what you want it changed to…for example, don’t say, I want to have an example lesson on the environment but give advice on the lesson format and content.     The writers hired take your comments and suggestions and re-write. IF nothing is submitted then nothing will be included. It is not the writers task to come up with lesson ideas but to make sure all is in the right format, placement, etc. IF you don’t do this vital step chances are you won’t see what you hoping for.


The CFCC will meet five more times to conduct the work of revising the Health Education Framework. The CFCC meetings are tentatively scheduled for August 10–11, 2017; September 18–19, 2017; November 29–30, 2017; and January 25–26, 2018. All CFCC meetings will be public and take place in Sacramento. The CFCC will work with the framework writers and CDE staff to develop a draft Health Education Framework that will be submitted to the IQC for field review in March 2018. The SBE will take final action on the Health Education Framework in May 2019.

If you have any questions regarding the CFCC or the framework revision process, please contact Deborah Franklin, Education Programs Consultant, Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division, by phone at 916-319-0442 or by e-mail at