Fiscal Note - SB 0126 - Public School Sexual Education Shall Emphasize Abstinence
L.R. NO. 0229-06
BILL NO. SCS For SB 126
SUBJECT: Education, Elementary and Secondary: Health
TYPE: Original
DATE: April 23, 1997
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
None $0 $0 $0
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
State Funds $0 $0 $0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
None $0 $0 $0
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
Federal Funds $0 $0 $0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
Local Government($0 to $1,300,000) ($0 to $650,000) ($0 to $650,000)
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials from the Department of Corrections, Department of Health and
Attorney General's Office assume the proposal would result in no fiscal
impact on them.
Officials from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)
assume the legislation would not require school districts to teach sex
education. It would specify the content if such classes would be taught.
DESE assumes it is unknown how many classes on sex education are being taught
and how many already comply with the legislation.
DESE's assumptions include the following:
(1) Sex education is taught at two grade levels. All students in grades 7
and 10 (approximately 130,000) would receive this course.
(2) Supplementary materials and workshops would be required. It is assumed
that none of the 130,000 students are currently receiving instruction in
compliance with this legislation.
(3) Material cost would be $10 per student in the first year ($10 x 130,000 =
$1,300,000). The cost would be $5 per student in subsequent years ($5 x
130,000 = $650,000).
(4) 830 teachers of sex education would need additional training at a cost of
$30 per teacher
(830 x $30 = $24,900) in year one
one-third would need training in subsequent years:
(277 x $30 x 1.03 = $8,559)
Costs are estimated to rise by 3%.
(5) No costs are assumed for parent notification.
(6) No costs are assumed for the required Advisory Committee.
The Oversight Division has ranged the estimated costs at the local level
because all school districts would not necessarily continue teaching sex
education, and the costs per district would vary.
Oversight also assumes the proposal would not mandate any additional
coursework but would direct the subject matter of existing courses and could
result in a cost of updating existing textbooks and course materials.
Oversight has excluded the costs of training and retraining because it is
assumed the districts could incorporate the training related to this proposal
in their regular training sessions.
The Oversight Division assumes the proposal would only apply to schools that
continue to teach sex education. Therefore, they do not believe Article X,
Section 21 of the Missouri Constitution would apply for the state to
reimburse school districts.
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
(10 Mo.)
$0 $0 $0
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
(10 Mo.)
Cost-Local School Districts
Course Material ($0 to ($0 to ($0 to
$1,300,000) $650,000) $650,000)
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of
this proposal.
DESCRIPTION
The proposal would require that any course materials and instruction relating
to human sexuality and sexually transmitted diseases incorporate certain
subjects, including abstinence and contraception.
The board would determine the specific content of the district's instruction
in human sexuality and ensure that all instruction is age appropriate.
The school district would notify parents or guardians of the basic content of
the instruction and the right to remove the student from any part of the
instruction. The district would make all materials available for inspection.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other
program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental
space.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Department of Health
Department of Corrections
Attorney General's Office
This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.