Schools; requiring biennial administration of the Oklahoma Prevention Needs Assessment Survey; effective date.
Impact
If enacted, HB1103 would establish a systematic approach to evaluating and responding to mental health and substance use challenges among students in grades six, eight, ten, and twelve across Oklahoma. By requiring the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services to provide technical assistance, the bill aims to enhance the capacity of schools to respond effectively to the challenges highlighted by the survey. The implementation of this bill is contingent upon the availability of federal funding, ensuring that resources are allocated adequately to support the biennial survey process.
Summary
House Bill 1103, introduced by Vancuren, Davis, and Waldron, focuses on the administration of the Oklahoma Prevention Needs Assessment Survey in public schools. The bill mandates that schools administer this biennial survey, aimed at assessing and addressing various issues affecting students, including substance use, mental health, academic performance, and violence. The survey results are intended to guide schools and communities in developing mental health prevention and intervention strategies, providing a framework for improving student outcomes based on identified needs.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB1103 appears to be generally positive among educators and mental health advocates who view it as a valuable tool for understanding and addressing student needs. Supporters emphasize the importance of early intervention and systematic data collection in fostering student mental health and well-being. However, there may also be concern regarding funding and the actual execution of the survey given its dependency on federal funding, which could create uncertainties regarding its sustainability.
Contention
Notable points of contention regarding HB1103 may arise around the scope and effectiveness of the survey itself. Critics could argue that while the bill provides a framework for collecting data, it does not address how the information will be used or the accountability measures necessary for schools to act on the results. Additionally, as schools may opt for alternative assessment tools, there may be debate on the potential variations in quality and effectiveness of these tools compared to the standardized survey proposed.
School reports; modifying calculation of certain graduation rates; excluding chronic absenteeism data from school site reports; requiring administration of climate surveys; effective date.