Montgomery board to vote on sex ed lessons

Friday, Jan. 5, 2007

The Montgomery County school board will meet Tuesday to vote on a revised sex education curriculum that overhauls a controversial video on condom usage and lessons on sexual orientation.

Some advocates applauded the changes, while others say the revised video and lesson plans are still a little too raunchy for middle and high school students.

‘‘I think they did a nice job, but it still introduces anal and oral sex to the kids,” said Michelle Turner, president of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum.

Turner was referring to a revised video for 10th graders that describes when to use a condom. Her organization, CRC, is one of two groups that sued the school system in 2005 over revisions to the health curriculum for eighth and 10th graders.

Turner said she hadn’t read all the revisions, but was pleased that the school system adopted 69 of the 83 recommendations made by an advisory panel made up of students, parents, medical professionals and other community members.

In addition to the video, the revisions constitute two 45-minute lessons on sexual orientation for eighth- and 10th graders.

The school system will allow parents to preview the materials. Parents must sign a permission form allowing their children to participate in the lessons.

If passed by the board, it will be piloted in the spring in three yet-to-be-chosen middle schools and high schools.

School board members were briefed and watched the video before Christmas.

‘‘I think staff did a fabulous job,” said board member Patricia B. O’Neill (Dist. 3) of Bethesda. ‘‘... I think it is viewpoint-neutral. It’s 21st century health curriculum for 21st century students. ... I think there is consensus and a feeling that we should move forward with this pilot.”

Board President Nancy Navarro (Dist. 5) of Silver Spring said she had spoken to four board colleagues.

‘‘Everyone seems pretty much on board,” Navarro said.

‘‘I think it is a balanced proposal,” she said. ‘‘I believe it’s a step in the right direction.”

Revisions to the sex education curriculum passed in 2004 by the county school board included a discussion of homosexuality and a video on condom use. CRC and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays filed suit in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt to stop the curriculum. TeachTheFacts.org formed as a rival parents group to show support for the revisions.

‘‘The revisions are really good,” said James Kennedy, president of TeachtheFacts.org and a member of the advisory panel. ‘‘I think they did a good job of pulling it together, but the superintendent’s office was overly cautious.”

Members of the 15-member Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Development were briefed Wednesday night on the curriculum revisions.

At the committee’s suggestion, the video now has narrators of both sexes and includes information on how to properly store, open and discard condoms.

The curriculum, however, still does not reference ex-homosexuals.

‘‘As a physician, I’m terribly disappointed in [the lesson] not mentioning ex-gays,” said Ruth Jacobs, an infectious disease physician in Rockville who represents CRC on the advisory panel. ‘‘I think it’s discrimination. I think it reflects bias. I’ve been concerned about bias on the committee.”

O’Neill said she did not think the curriculum needed to mention ex-gays.

‘‘I don’t believe it would be appropriate to be in there,” she said. ‘‘Personally I don’t believe that it is a fact-based position. I think this is a thorough, medically based comprehensive curriculum.”

Peter Sprigg, who represents PFOX on the advisory panel, disagreed with the curriculum’s use of the term ‘‘homophobia” because it ‘‘creates the illusion that it is a scientific term.”

PFOX contends homosexuality is a choice people make and can abandon.

The word appears in an excerpt of a textbook that critics say is biased in presenting sexual orientation.

Sprigg had recommended the term be scrapped from the curriculum, but the advisory committee voted against his proposal. If the word is included, it needs clarification.

‘‘I would urge the board of education to reject the staff proposal as it is at this time,” Sprigg said.

In June 2005, the board settled the case with CRC and PFOX. As part of the settlement, the board agreed to scrap the revised curriculum.

As for the condom video, Jacobs says that it still doesn’t go far enough to describe their risks.

‘‘I’m still really disappointed with the condom lesson,” Jacobs said. ‘‘I think it’s trying to make condoms look better than they really are.”

The lesson includes a nod to the federal ruling that resulted in the school system doing away with its first attempt at lessons on sexual orientation and condom use.

In May 2005, a federal judge ruled that teacher resource materials, which were not to be presented to students, were objectionable because they unfairly singled out specific religious denominations for their condemnation of homosexuality.

A line in an assignment for eighth-graders echoes that finding.

‘‘Just as stereotyping others based on sexuality is not an acceptable behavior, stereotyping others based on personal beliefs also is not acceptable,” reads part of an assignment that asks students to reflect on stereotyping based on sexual orientation, appearance and mannerisms.