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]
The CFCC will meet once more  to conduct the work of revising the Health Education Framework. The CFCC meeting is scheduled for   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

The link below will take you to all the latests drafts so you can get your two cents in:


Briefing Report for CASHE

Health Education Curriculum Framework and Evaluation  Criteria Committee


Jaime Rubio – CASHE Observer

Thursday, November 30, 2017


     Today’s meeting concluded the two days scheduled in November for the Health Education Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Committee. The icebreaker of the day was a group stretch that included mimicking activities such as, skiing down Tahoe, kayaking down the Sacramento River and skateboarding down Lombard Street. Today was the last day of review before the panel members receive the final draft in January 2018. The topics discussed were the Introduction, Grades Seven and Eight, and Grades Nine through Twelve chapters.

     The changes to the process introduced in yesterday’s meeting were to be replicated today. However in practice, group dynamics made the process adjust to the group needs and the information at hand. The original instruction from yesterday’s meeting was for each panel member to give their top few concerns, discuss those concerns as a group and choose the best to bring to the large group discussion. In reality, each small group went through the chapters in sections highlighting their concerns, had a discussion, and brought to the large group discussion the major (controversial) issues.

     The Introduction chapter was introduced with a question to the large group discussion. The question was if the group wanted the mandated reporting be included in the chapter and the group reached consensus to have it included in the framework, the use of shall instead of should, mention the requirement to report within 36 hours and adding a reference to the penal code. Additions and suggestions from the SexEd RoundTable were taken into consideration and brought up by some panel members. As usual, movement of sentences to other areas occurred as well as adding and deleting sentences. An important addition to this chapter was adding language under the section on the purpose of the framework, that gave the framework an openness, in terms of not limiting the subjects talked about in the framework and addressing the idea that there are many other important health topics out there and that teachers should also talk about contemporary health topics in their time.

     In Grades Seven and Eight, panel members once again shared their ideas, gave important input, removed content, replaced content, referenced the RoundTable comments, and gave their final suggestions. The panel members came into agreement that in this section (as well as the rest of the framework) there were too many references to guest speakers and there was a need to limit the number of the times guest speakers were mentioned significantly. Similar to yesterday’s meeting, it was brought up that some of the negative language around sex should be reworded to be a bit more positive, accepting some of the RoundTable’s suggestions. There was discussion on adding data about the perpetuator so that the language isn’t so victim focused. Comments made by the Hepatitis group on violence and relationships were given a go so that the writers can take them into consideration. There was also the removal of a standard that for the panel members seemed out of place and just simply “horrifying.” A big topic of discussion was also the critique that some of the classroom examples were not the best ones to use, for example a health education fair wasn’t a very good activity because research shows that they are not very effective. A more skills based activity based on a standard was preferred.

    When it came to public comment, personal stories were shared by a group of parents from TransFamilies that spoke to the importance of the framework being LGBTQ+ inclusive. Also mentioned was the struggle of these students, in particular transgender students, who at school are not treated fairly because of the lack of knowledge of others on this topic. Additionally, the parents spoke on the effectiveness of LGBTQ+ inclusive education on students, teachers, and the community due to a decrease in bullying. They believe that representation in the framework of LGBTQ+ students is essential for the safety and future of these students and are grateful for the committee’s efforts to be LGBTQ+ inclusive.”

    We should note that the  parents speaking represented hundreds of families who are raising, supporting, and celebrating their gender diverse children. These outstanding parents represented: TransFamilies of Santa Cruz, TransFamilies of Montetrey TransFamilies of Silcon Valley, TransFamily Support Group of Santa Clara, the Diversity Center of Santa Cruz, PFLAG Santa Cruz, BAYMEC, East Bay Parents of Trans Kids, and enGender.

   When Ric Loya gave public comment, he began by leading an applause for those advocating for LGBTQ+ and the stories shared. He then spoke on the importance of quality environmental education and the exclusionary of diverse names in the framework, especially in pages 6-7 in the Grades 9-12 chapters, so as to reflect the diversity in California.

     Next up, discussion on the Grades 9-12 chapters. Here, panel members adhered to the instructions from yesterday’s meeting, highlighting a few topics of concern, discussing them and choosing the best to bring forth to the group. In this section, the panel members voted in favor of having the writers incorporate strategies within the lesson instead of just stand up and deliver lessons. There was also consensus to reword the portion on pornography and its role on trafficking in lines 1222-1229. Once again, comments by the Viral Hepatitis organization were taken into account and incorporated. In a figure that used the language homosexual was to be replaced by the words gay/lesbian. In reaction to Ric’s comments, the panel members agreed that there would be an additional sentence in the introduction of the Grades 9-12 (and even the Grades 7 & 8) chapters, to remind teachers to use culturally diverse names in their instruction. Additionally, a staff member said that Latino names were added to the example Ric brought up right away. There was also a problem with one of the graphics, page 40 line 1020 figure 6, where the panel members didn’t understand it very well, but the writers were able to explain it sufficiently, that the panel members recommended that a sentence explaining the graphic be added. Also brought up was concern on the water quality classroom examples. Ric had mentioned a Federal app where you can get data on water quality and the CALEPA member present spoke about the California version (versus the federal version by the EPA), where you can put your address and information about many environmental concerns are given, called CALENVIROSCREEN version 3.0. The CALEPA representative also mentioned that Jerry (environmentalist from CALEPA), who is already writing a section, write up a classroom example and the resource to the section he is working on.

     The last meeting of the year met its conclusion and the panel members are due back in January. On the 25th and 26th, the panel members will be seeing the framework in its entirety as the final draft. There were concerns, due to the length of the framework, that 2 weeks to review it (the usual delivery time) was not enough. Therefore, it was noted that they would do their best to bring the final draft to the panel members as soon as possible, even sending the framework in chunks as soon as each is finalized.  


Briefing Report for CASHE

Health Education Curriculum Framework and Evaluation  Criteria Committee


by: Jaime Rubio – CASHE Observer

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

            On the week after Thanksgiving, the California Department of Education welcomed back the Health Education Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Committee, who last worked in September. To break the ice and allow panel members to socialize, they were instructed to share a photo in their camera roll/photo gallery that they loved. The panel members split into pairs and shared their photos between themselves before volunteer members shared the story behind their picture. After their icebreaker, business began once again. In this last meeting before the end of the year, the agenda consisted of discussion with the Assessment, Access and Equity, and Sex Trafficking chapters. In attendance was Dean Reese, Instructional Quality Commission member, Health Subject Matter Committee.

In an effort to comply with the Bagley Keene act, as interpreted by the California Department of Education staff, it was mentioned once again that panel members should not enter into conversation with other panel members (and other people) at dinner, send emails, comment, or post on Facebook about the committee’s work. It was noted that they may do so after the January meetings. In every panel member’s folder, there was also a draft of the acknowledgement page for the framework and each member was asked to review it and make sure the correct information was present: name, title, and affiliation. Before the committee entered their usual discussion in small groups, they took a vote on the order of the Table of Contents, which was supposed to reflect the discussion of reorganization from the September meeting. The Table of Contents document provided by the staff was supposed to match the one on the PowerPoint slide, however that was not the case and it was not clear which one was the version from September anymore. Therefore, the panel members simply voted on which version they preferred and the following met consensus:


Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Supporting Health Education

Chapter 3: Transitional Kindergarten Through Grade Three

Chapter 4: Grades Four through Six

Chapter 5: Grades Seven and Eight

Chapter 6: Grades Nine through Twelve

Chapter 7: Access and Equity

Chapter 8: Assessment

Chapter 9: Instructional Materials for Health Education

Appendix: Sex Trafficking

A question that was made right away by a panel member was if they may use the term “human trafficking” instead of the given “sex trafficking.” In response, it was mentioned that under current law, sex trafficking is the correct language.

Today’s meeting underwent some changes to the process in which the committee uses to pass/reject suggestions. The panel members were instructed to bring about the top three big issues in small group discussion to bring into the whole group discussion. In small group discussion, the first 10 minutes were dedicated to have each group member identifying their top 1 or 2 issues, followed by a 10-minute discussion between them, and then in the last 10 minutes reaching a consensus on the top 3 issues to bring to the whole group discussion. In whole group discussion, the first 6 minutes (2 minutes per group), were to focus on the top 3 issues from each small group, followed by 24 minutes of whole group discussion, with advice on the biggest issues or any other issues and then 15 minutes to finalize advice to writers. Additionally, each panel member was given 1 green cup, 1 yellow cup, and 1 red cup. These cups, jokingly not for beer pong as stated by staff, were to be used as a tool to facilitate the voting process. Green stood for support, yellow for accept (can live with, but no major issues, counting as a for vote), and red for disagree (may have a question or concern.) The rules were that a majority 2/3 vote met consensus, and with 16 panel members present, it took 9 red votes to trigger a rejection/discussion. Some panel members were unhappy with this process because it took 9 votes to begin discussing a subject matter, without those votes, there really wasn’t any further discussion on changes/suggestions presented by each group, at least at first. At times, the voting process was unclear to the group, but cleared up after questions arose as to whether voting meant one thing or another and other technicalities that confused the panel members.

After small group discussion on the Assessment chapter, the whole group discussion included changes such as adding positive language in a less shaming way when discussing page 21lines 7-8, on HIV, AIDS, and pregnancy, removing figures, shortening lines, and deleting lines. It seemed to be that the panel members were under pressure to do a lot of deleting, with the instruction of shortening this chapter by 6 pages. As usual, panel members suggested different language than the current one for more clarification. In an effort to finalize advice to writers, it was suggested that writers emphasize demonstrating a skill versus simply writing when assessing. After this, questions from the coversheet for the chapter were addressed. In question 1, it reached consensus that the chapter is organized in an effective manner and that the information that has been added to the chapter is useful for teachers. In question 2, it was agreed that the organization of the assessment tools by the overarching standards would be more useful for teachers  instead of  by grade level (on printed document, in the electronic version there will be organization through grade level.) Question 3 covered the question of where can they cut pages in the draft chapter. Question 3 provoked more comment and debate. While there was consensus for some cutting and deleting, there were certain areas where some panel members were in disagreement, especially in the feedback section. As a result, some lines were added to the parking lot for further review.

Going into the Access and Equity chapters, the panel members were split once again into small group discussions. Before the panel members were to enter large group discussion, they were to vote on the questions on the coversheet for this chapter. (Take into consideration that the voting process here was done by groups and not individual votes.) Question 1 asked about figure 2 on pages 5 &6, which is provided as a summary of the progress of ELD as conceptualized in the CA ELD Standards and has received comments on its usefulness and whether the figure should be included in the chapter or to simply reference where to find this information in the CA ELD Standards document. Two votes to reference it and 1 vote to keep it, therefore consensus was to reference it. Question 2 was about a classroom example on pages 9-11 on interdisciplinary instruction where the example integrates health promotion with writing skills expected of middle school students and whether this example should be included in the chapter with/without revisions. The panel members requested this topic to be open for discussion and it was agreed that it should be kept but some counterarguments should be added.

Large group discussion included deleting sentences, changing the language of some lines, request for revision of certain areas, such as the portion on MTSS. Up for voting was also topics discussing whether to keep certain topics like responsive teaching, which in fact did end up being included in the framework draft. In addition, a panel member mentioned that behavior and gender identity be addressed.

Moving on to the Appendix: Sex Trafficking. Once the small group discussion decided on their big topics, the large group discussion began. One group mentioned that the way the Appendix begins should be revised, such as adding a few sentences that states the intent of the appendix, which did meet consensus. Other topics of discussion included adding the word forced to pregnancy when talking about unwanted pregnancy/birth. Also in this section, the writers mentioned that the Round Table had comments that were useful to some lines and were added.

After the large group discussion, parking lot issues were addressed. To introduce the parking lot issues, a staff facilitator from the Department of Education stressed the importance of the panel member’s decisions be primarily based on the value of the content and to shy away from meeting the page number cut. This comment brought out some confusion in panel members who thought that the direction they were supposed to take was that of shortening. The parking lot issues were resolved through consensus on panel members giving wording/reductions/deletions/modifications for a large group of lines. They also voted to keep some of the rubrics in the Assessment portion. Since the panel members were originally given the direction to cut pages and they did end up cutting a piece one of the panel members did like, one of the panel members said that they were wondering if people would change their vote on the topic of formative and summative assessments. In discussion, it was highlighted that the topic of formative and summative assessments should be included in the framework anyways because of the need to align with the Board of Education’s guidelines. Therefore, the committee overturned a previous decision. A hot topic of debate related to a chart having the word “tool,” which was previously changed to “strategies” returned to debate. There was back and forth discussion and even the thought of finding a different word. Some panel members could not wrap their minds around the idea that the word “tool” was appropriate because of the definition/implication of what a tool was and the lack of the “tools” given not being measurable. Others argued that the word tool was in fact appropriate. Under vote, the committee barely reached consensus to keep the word strategies.

Finalizing the meeting, the panel members gave their appreciations. The next meeting is scheduled for tomorrow, Thursday, November 30. The agenda for this day includes the Introduction, Grades Seven and Eight, and Grades Nine through Twelve chapters.






Briefing Report for CASHE

Health Education Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee

California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA


Jaime Rubio , CASHE Observer

Monday, September 18, 2017


Another day in downtown Sacramento for the Health Education Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Committee to gather and discuss specific sections of the much-anticipated health framework. Today’s agenda concentrated on chapters about TK through Grade 3 and Assessment. A special note is that this is the second time that the panel members review these chapters. Today’s special guest in attendance was Brian Muller, Instructional Quality Commission member, Health Subject Matter Committee.

Unlike other meetings where many goals and framework guidelines were read out loud, this meeting had one goal: “Collaborative, respectful, and focused discussions leading to clear directions to Writers.” Probably based on the previous meeting that saw some rather heated discussions and sentiment and the fact that it was the second time that the members have seen these chapters. The co-chairs firmly expressed their desire to have a meeting in which order and timely discussions were enforced, such that a slightly new structure for the day was made. The co-chairs explained that small group discussions would begin with only previously written comments and the last 15 minutes were to focus on big issues. These big issues were described as, for example, adding or deleting lines, movement of lines, and structure. Like the other meetings, it was stressed that it was very important for panel members to have proposed language for any changes. Going back to the possible sentiment left behind from the previous meeting, one of the staff members mentioned an email they received from one of the panel members expressing their desire to work together effectively towards compromise. In effect, a new addition to the meeting was that when the panel reached consensus they would move on and that issues that had already met consensus would no longer be discussed. That being said, the panel members were divided into groups for their small group discussions on TK-Third Grade chapters and due to a few absent panel members, the groups were not even.

In small group discussion, the panel members spoke up about the corrections they had formally written down beforehand. This differs from previous meetings in which they would read off their notes on their copies of the framework drafts. As a result of this, the ideas flowed a bit smoother and efficiently, but required more work prior to the meetings for the panel members. The small group discussions involved conversation on adding and deleting lines, language, the addition of examples and activities, wordsmithing and concerns with the organization. More corrections included using more relevant data that reflected California instead of national data. Like other chapters of the framework, members pointed out the need to match the verb in the activities to the standards. A member of the panel who is a nurse mentioned that it was important, under the Kindergarten chapter, that it was mandatory for schools to provide screenings in new entry to school (up to first grade since some children do not attend kinder).

In large group discussion of TK-Third Grade, the new process included voting thumbs up or down on each big topic presented by every group in a quick manner and if no consensus was met there would be a short discussion with specific information that would then be up for voting again. But if once again there was not a consensus, the topic would be tabled until all three small groups finished presenting their discussions to the larger group. Each group was given 15 minutes to present their topics. Some topics that reached consensus were:

  1. Pg 78 Line 32: Chart of activities—It would be helpful to have fewer examples that do not repeat. One or two rather than multiple.
  2. Pg 79 Use school nurse as a resource to inform when to keep students home versus go to school in the partnering with the family section.
  3. Pg 84 Global Structure: Suggestion to authors—Combine nutrition and physical activity so as to be aligned (alike all other sections/grades).
  4. Adding Diane’s examples to each introduction (examples of lesson planning…proposed a format for the learning activities)
  5. Include TK in Introduction (also mention that there are no standards in TK)
  6. Pg 45 Lines 1104-1137: Convert this into a classroom example
  7. Adding to the Introduction an explanation for the emphasis of new topics (justification for the length of new topics…i.e. gender and gender identification content)

Although almost all the proposals did meet consensus, one was tabled due to the fact that it was not available to every panel member beforehand. However, the large group discussion finished earlier than expected and the panel members were asked to review this during the extra time for lunch.

After lunch, public comment took place. There was a total of five speakers given 3 minutes each. These speakers included a member from CASHE, a member of the RoundTable (environmentalist), a Master’s student, a FoodCorps representative, a credentialed Health Science teacher (on student mental health policy).

Subsequently, the parking lot topics were discussed. The topics were on Diane’s examples for Chapter 7 & 8 and 9 through 12, the Table of Contents, Resources—Supporting the Framework and Dr. Lieberman’s edits (into TK-3). Diane’s examples were given positive feedback and appreciation from other panel members. One panel member commented, “Extremely helpful to see how it is laid out…I liked it.” Another panel member expressed, “I think this is exactly what we need…model for what each teacher is supposed to be doing…really well done…I would like to see it in other examples.” As you may have guessed by now, this reached consensus. During the topic of Table of Contents, the members reached consensus that the order would be as follows:

  • Chapter 1: Introduction
  • Chapter 2: Supporting Health Education
  • Chapter 3-6: Grade Levels
  • Chapter 7: Assessment
  • Chapter 8: Access and Equity
  • Chapter 9: Instructional Material
  • Chapter 10: Appendix

Although prior the voting, the IQC representative gave his input by saying that other frameworks follow the order of going through grade levels first and then the rest, the committee felt that it was necessary for this particular framework to have Chapter 2 be about Supporting Health Education because it was their desire to have an explanation/support for this material prior to jumping into the Grade Level chapters. This was a matter of enhancing the flow within the structure of the framework. Therefore, this framework would be unique in comparison to the other education frameworks. Next up was not a discussion but rather an explanation by a staff member of the Resources—Supporting the Framework addition as an online resource document. This would be a document that was flexible and would include resources (links) to certain information. In essence, it is a database of websites that would have the flexibility to add, update, and replace links. Additionally, the document would be open to the public, such that anyone who follows the correct procedure (fill out a special form) and that the resource met the requirements by the California Department of Education, the resource could potentially be added. However, the criteria for vetting includes, but not limited to, the resource being cost associated, going against content of the framework or any initiative of the Department of Education or Superintendent, and it being faith based. Lastly, Dr. Lieberman’s edits (into TK-3) were discussed and reached consensus. A member noted, “this gives us an opportunity to address the ‘sparse’ and address environmental health…at least there will be something in there about it.”

Following the parking lot issues was small group discussion on the Assessment Chapter. Some of the concerns here included that it was too general and not health specific enough with “too general of criteria.” A topic that was discussed heavily in every group was whether to keep or eliminate Likert Scale examples that was met with opposing viewpoints and favorable ones as well. One thing that was brought up by a panel member was the fact that the issue had already been discussed in previous meetings and met with consensus to be included in the framework, therefore they should move on. However, the IQC member stepped in by saying that it was okay to talk about something previously put into the framework that they thought was “awesome” before, but no so “awesome” anymore. Therefore, in large group discussion, this became a hot topic and an issue of greater debate that it was consequently placed on the parking lot for further discussion. In the large discussion, consensus was reached many times, which includes:

  1. Use elementary form for all with asterisk that symbols are optional—remove elementary…Keeping pg 16 and moving it to pg 12…minus the word elementary…and remove current pg 12 and 17.
  2. Pg 13 Line 342-344 Delete “Peer feedback should be…”
  3. Pg 2 Line 39-47 Delete because it is repetitive from Pg 1 Line 15
  4. Pg 1 Line 22 Delete “Summative assessment…school”
  5. Move lines 70-73 to pg 2 line 34
  6. Move lines 224-223 to line 185: Role playing should be moved to where Portfolio’s is.
  7. Pg 9 Line 219—Change example to incorporate critical skills (e.g. mental health)
  8. Pg7 Line 165 Observation: adding a small group activity (sequencing skills): steps to put on condom (jigsaw/puzzle).
  9. Include more examples for lower elementary instructional learning/activities

An area for further debate that was added to the parking lot was discussion on Authentic Assessment (Should it be in here?).

The meeting reached its end and the committee was dismissed. The next meeting for the committee takes place tomorrow Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 9 in the morning. Tomorrow’s topic of discussion includes Supporting Health Education and Grades Four through Six.



Briefing Report for CASHE

Health Education Curriculum Framework and Evaluation  Criteria Committee

California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA


Jaime Rubio ,   CASHE Observer

Tuesday, September 19, 2017


Day number two of the two-day series of meetings for the Health Education Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Committee began the exact way it did in day number one, with one goal in mind, “Collaborative, respectful, and focused discussions leading to clear directions to Writers.” Today’s agenda consisted of discussion with the Supporting Health Education chapter and Grades Four Through Six chapters. Once again, in attendance was Brian Muller, Instructional Quality Commission member, Health Subject Matter Committee.

As usual, the panel members were split into three small groups for discussion before large-group discussion. First up, the topic of interest was the Supporting Health Education chapter. A panel member mentioned that this chapter was more for admin rather than teachers. Throughout the chapter, panel members gave their suggestions, comments, and opinions. Panel members also took into consideration public comment, such as Ric Loya’s (CASHE) and the California Sex Health Education RoundTable comments.
After small-group discussion, public comment was scheduled. However, due to the staff administrators desire to get through hefty topics in large-group discussion and parking lot issues, it was postponed to a later time. In large-group discussion, consensus was met in many topics ranging from changing order of paragraphs, having a mention about pregnancy services being available at any age (National Health Youth Act), adding that “school administrators should work with school clerks, teachers, and other administrative staff…on school release policies,” removing lines, confidentiality surrounding LGBTQ+ issues, and concerns with rewriting particular areas for the writers to look at. The panel members reached consensus to add Ric Loya’s comments on administrators having disclosure of environmental areas that may impact school to be of high concern for (i.e. toxic releases.) In addition, Ric Loya’s suggestions to add to the additional resources section such as CASHE, NEA, CAHPERD, and SOPHE reached consensus. Once a panel member brought up these resources, other panel members spoke up about other resources, such as CTA and the National Center for Youth Law among others, reaching consensus.

Next up, public comment took place. A noteworthy comment that would have importance later in the meeting, came from Dianne Wilson-Graham, Executive Director of the California Physical Education-Health Project. Mrs. Wilson-Graham gave suggestions for the Assessment chapter order and offered to write up the chapter. As a result, later in the meeting it was established through consensus that the California Department of Education would work with Mrs. Wilson-Graham and the California Physical Education-Health Project to revise the Assessment chapter.

After public comment, the topic of discussion became the parking lot issues. The group commented on the mental health issues brought up by public comment. Through the panel members critique, not all recommendations were passed, for example, considering incorporating mental health issues in other grade levels was not doable because the panel members cannot change the standards. What did reach consensus was a suggestion that would be sent to the writers for direction to make sure that the words used throughout the framework match the standards, in terms of making sure the language in the standards matches the appropriate grade level term. After these recommendations, discussion centered around the assessment chapter and the Likert scale. Here is where the California Department of Education decided to work in conjunction with Dianne Wilson-Graham with the California Physical Education-Health Project. Mrs. Wilson-Graham’s version of the Assessment chapter recommended sections and order as follows:


  1. Introduction
  2. Assessment Process
  3. Evidence of Learning
  4. Selecting/Designing Assessment Tools
  5. Criteria for Competence
  6. Sample Assessment Tools
  7. Important Considerations in Assessment of Health Education Content

Next on the agenda, the chapters on Grades Four through Six were to be discussed. After the small-group discussion on these chapters, large-group discussion began presenting their proposals and voting on them. Here, panel members reached consensus on moving and deleting lines and information, removing lines that would be outdated, lines on gender and sexuality, accepting comments from Dr. Lieberman (environmental issues), SFUSD and Diane’s example. The topic of discussion that received comment from all panel members and the majority of time allocated to this discussion was whether or not they should accept comments by the RoundTable to have “My Body Book” as a resource. The argument against having this resource was that some terms are seen as insulting by the LGBTQ+ community, such as homosexual, although homosexual is widely used in the sciences. Therefore, questioning the language was of concern. Adding to this, a panel member mentioned that accepting this book as a resource would be inconsistent with the frameworks push for current information that was all-inclusive. In addition, there was a concern on adding any book as a resource that did not go through a vetting process. This did not receive consensus and was tabled for further discussion after the administrative staff would check if the books suggested were vetted by the California Department of Education.

Finalizing the meeting, the panel members gave their appreciations. Appreciations included for the writer’s, the updated process, the panel members’ expertise, the staff, the teamwork, patience, energy, co-chairs, and passion. The next meetings for the committee are scheduled for Wednesday, November 29 and Thursday, November 30. The agenda for these days includes the Introduction, Grades 7 & 8, Grades 9-12, Access and Equity, Appendix on Sex Trafficking and Assessment (replacing criteria chapter on the committee’s discretion.) The journey polishing the Health Education framework continues.



CASHE thought you should see what California’s Student Mental Health Policy Workgroup had to say in their very informative letter below!

September 18, 2017

Dear Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee Members,

In 2012, State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI) Tom Torlakson convened the Student

Mental Health Policy Workgroup (SMHPW) to assess the mental health needs of California students and gather evidence to support policy recommendations to the SSPI and the California Legislature. The SMHPW is all-volunteer, unpaid work group composed of teachers, school counselors, school social workers, school psychologists, school nurses, and school administrators, and state and county mental health professionals. We have used our combinedexpertise to develop policy recommendations related to mental health training for educators, youth suicide, student safety, and other mental health-related issues.

On October 2, 2013, Governor Brown approved Senate Bill 330, at the recommendation of the

SMHPW. Senate Bill 330 stated:

During the next revision of the publication “Health Framework for California Public Schools,” the

Instructional Quality Commission shall consider developing, and recommending for adoption by the

state board, a distinct category on mental health instruction to educate pupils about all aspects of

mental health. (b) As used in this section, “mental health instruction” shall include, but not be limited

to, all of the following:


(1) Reasonably designed and age-appropriate instruction on the overarching themes and core

principles of mental health.

(2) Defining common mental health challenges such as depression, suicidal thoughts and behaviors,

schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, eating disorders, and anxiety, including post-traumatic stress disorder.

(3) Elucidating the services and supports that effectively help individuals manage mental health


(4) Promoting mental health wellness, which includes positive development, social connectedness and supportive relationships, resiliency, problem solving skills, coping skills, self-esteem, and a positive school and home environment in which pupils feel comfortable.

(5) Ability to identify warning signs of common mental health problems in order to promote awareness

and early intervention so pupils know to take action before a situation turns into a crisis. This should

include instruction on both of the following:

(A) How to appropriately seek and find assistance from mental health professionals and services within the school district and in the community for themselves or others.

(B) Appropriate evidence-based research and practices that are proven to help overcome mental health challenges.

(6) The connection and importance of mental health to overall health and academic success as well as to co-occurring conditions, such as chronic physical conditions and chemical dependence and substance abuse.

(7) Awareness and appreciation about the prevalence of mental health challenges across all populations, races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic statuses, including the impact of culture on the

experience and treatment of mental health challenges.

(8) Stigma surrounding mental health challenges and what can be done to overcome stigma, increase

awareness, and promote acceptance. This shall include, to the extent possible, classroom presentations of narratives by peers and other individuals who have experienced mental health challenges, and how they coped with their situations, including how they sought help and acceptance.

In July 2017, a subcommittee of 9 members from the SMHPW was created to explore avenues

for the Workgroup to provide input on issues of mental health in the 2019 revision of the health

education framework. The Subcommittee met electronically twice, July 20 and August 1, 2017,

and presented its work to the full Workgroup at an August 17, 2017 meeting. The Workgroup

approved the recommendation that a formal letter from the SMHPW be submitted to the CFCC.

This letter is the result of the Subcommittee and the Workgroup discussions.

As such, we offer the following points as you continue your work in revising and updating the

Health Framework for California Public Schools:

#1. Mental health is an important part of a young person’s life. In most areas of health(identified in the 2008 standards), such as nutrition/physical activity, injury prevention/safety, growth/development/sexuality, alcohol/tobacco/other drugs, and personal/community health,mental issues are interrelated and interwoven. As such, mental health education should be interwoven throughout the health framework. Currently, mental/emotional/social health is covered in the framework (based off of the 2008 standards) in kindergarten, second grade, third grade, sixth grade, seventh/eighth grade, and ninth through twelfth grade. The CFCC should consider incorporating mental health related issues in first, fourth, and fifth grades, along with the current grade levels that are listed.

#2. It is important for mental health to be viewed as any other health (i.e. physical, intellectual, social, etc.) and in and of itself not negative. The following statement, found in the 9-12 introduction draft chapter, ought to be revised so as to not have any negative judgements associated with it: “Most teens are generally healthy. However, substance misuse, risky sexual behaviors, mental health, and obesity are very real issues for many youth.” Mental health is best thought of as the way a young person’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors affect his or her life. Mental health is a spectrum, ranging from “well” to “ill.” The workgroup encourages theCFCC to include language that is strength-based rather than deficit-based.

#3. Common, accurate language around what mental health is and when specific mental health conditions could occur should be incorporated throughout the framework, with definitions given as applicable. Terms that are currently used in the framework, without much distinction between them include:

Mental health conditions (grades 2, 3, 6, 7/8, 9-12)

Mental health issue (grades 2, 3, 6, 7/8, 9-12)

Mental health challenges (grades 2,3, 6, 7/8)

Mental health disorders (grades 9-12)

Mental health problem (grades 9-12)

Mental distress (grades 9-12)

Mental Illness (grades 9-12)

Approximately 13% of children ages 8-15 have a diagnosable mental health disorder. Only about 36% of youth with any lifetime mental health disorder receive services; only about half of these youth who were severely impaired received professional mental health treatment. We would prefer to have deficit-based language replaced with strength-based language, such as “emotional wellness/emotional well-being,” and “along the continuum of mental health.”

  1. Skills and training for youth on labeling/understanding emotions, recognizing emotional distress, and identifying what to do when a peer or self is at risk of self-harm and/or suicide to be included in the framework. The SMPHW recommendation #3, comprehensive school board policies and administration regulations for youth suicide prevention, states, “Students should be encouraged to notify a teacher, principal, school counselor, school social worker, or other adult when they are experiencing thoughts of suicide or when they suspect or have knowledge that another student is considering suicide.” The framework ought to address how educators can best inform young people about how to get help when a peer or oneself is at risk.
  1. Young people should be informed about the important role that stigma plays in mental health, and how we as a society can begin to destigmatize mental health. Effects of stigma, as identified by NAMI, include:
  • People experiencing mental health conditions often face rejection, bullying and discrimination. This can make their journey to recovery longer and more difficult.
  • Mental health conditions are the leading cause of disability across the United States.
  • Even though most people can be successfully treated, less than half of the adults in the U.S. who need services and treatment get the help they need.
  • The average delay between the onset of symptoms and intervention is 8-10 years.
  • Suicide is the second leading cause of death of youth ages 15-24 and the tenth leading cause of death for all Americans.
  1. The CFCC should consider adding a statement encouraging mental health related issues be addressed in other subject frameworks and standards. As pointed out above, mental health is an important part of a young person’s life. Mental health education should be incorporated throughout all areas of the curriculum and in the school. If a young person is not mentally stable, he/she is unlikely to learn and operate at a level conducive to learning. Educators in all subject fields need to expand their approach to looking at poor academic and social performance. Educators should be aware that a student who is struggling academically in any class is, at a minimum, experiencing anxiety. This might reflect when teaching methods don’t match a student’s learning style strengths. The poor performance can also represent trauma or other challenges faced by the youth or key people in the student’s life.

Thank you for your attention into this important matter, and we hope these points are helpful to you as you forward with your work.


Members of the CDE Student Mental Health Policy Workgroup






Photos and Video from the Health Education Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee Meeting in Sacramento, August 11-12, 2017



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.