State board reviews Utah State University study on the "success sequence" and discusses how to integrate it into curricula

The Utah State Board of Education’s Standards and Assessment Committee on Feb. 6 heard findings from a study, commissioned by the board and carried out in partnership with Utah State University, examining whether and how the so-called “success sequence” is taught in secondary education.

Alan Hawkins, manager of the Utah Marriage Commission, summarized the study’s central concept: when parents finish their education, obtain employment, marry, and then have children, their children’s risk of poverty is much lower. “This success sequence is a very straightforward concept,” Hawkins said. His team’s review of curricula found that some elements of the sequence appear across classes, but the full, explicit sequence is not generally taught as a single, formal curriculum component.

Committee members discussed how to respond to a 2024 legislative joint resolution asking the board to explore success-sequence instruction and noted related bills in the 2025 session. Board staff said House Bill 281, if enacted, would require the board to create related material as part of the health curriculum; the bill’s final status was pending at the time of the meeting.

Board member Bridal asked whether research supports emphasizing family planning or sexual-health instruction alongside the success sequence. The study’s presenter and staff cited research indicating that comprehensive sex education that integrates biological information with relationship- and decision-focused material tends to be effective at reducing premarital pregnancies. Hawkins and other speakers cited the Love Notes curriculum as an existing program with relationship-focused material; staff noted the developers were willing to adapt content but that some parts of Love Notes did not align with Utah code as written and therefore had not been recommended for wholesale adoption.

Staff described several nonexclusive pathways for implementation: (1) rely on existing standards and add resources or core-guide language that aligns to the success-sequence concepts; (2) incorporate elements into financial literacy, health and career/technical-education (CTE) courses through professional learning and supplemental materials; or (3) pursue a formal standards revision process for affected standards if the board decides that is necessary. Jody Parker, health education specialist at USBE, said a systematic approach could provide students with reinforcement across middle- and high-school courses without requiring a full, statewide curriculum readoption.

Staff also cautioned about district-level cost and adoption implications. During fiscal-note conversations, some LEAs indicated a substantial financial impact if they were forced to re-adopt full curricula under statutory adoption rules; staff cited one district’s internal estimate that a total readoption could cost on the order of $10,000,000. Staff suggested that smaller, targeted additions (core-guide updates, supplemental materials, UEN/eMediaHub resources and professional learning) would limit cost and avoid triggering a full readoption cycle.

Several board members urged clarity about terminology and scope. Staff recommended that if the board uses the term “success sequence” it should define how the board intends to use it in board materials to avoid divergent usages. Alan Hawkins offered the Utah Marriage Commission as a resource for teacher training on the topic; Hawkins said the commission would be “very happy to do that.”

Committee members, staff and presenters did not adopt formal policy changes at the meeting. Instead the conversation focused on options for integrating the study’s recommendations — through resources, core guides, professional development and through existing task forces (for example, the financial-literacy task force already has the topic under review). Staff said recruitment for a director of teaching and learning was imminent and that the new director could be assigned this implementation work as a priority.

Ending: The committee asked staff to return with implementation options and to consider a process that would allow targeted additions or minor revisions without triggering a full statewide re-adoption, while preserving required public-review steps for significant code-mandated curriculum changes.