Some
observers
fear
the
recent
hullabaloo
over
inclusion
of
gay
topics
in
Montgomery
County’s
sex
education
classes
may
cross
county
and
even
state
lines
and
prompt
changes
in
other
schools.
Each
state
has
a
sexuality
education
mandate
and
some
departments
of
education
provide
additional
guidelines.
The
context
of
these
mandates
and
guidelines
vary
from
state
to
state
and
even
from
school
to
school.
“There
is
no
uniform
policy
on
any
of
this,”
said
Martha
Kempner
of
the
Sexuality
Information
&
Education
Council
of
the
United
States.
Because
some
school
districts
fear
controversy,
they
preemptively
self
censor
their
curriculum,
Kempner
said.
Adopting
a
program
that
could
be
deemed
controversial
can
mean
schools
fight
the
battle
alone.
“It’s
leaving
schools
and
teachers
flailing
without
guidelines,”
she
said.
“Controversy
often
has
chilling
effects.”
The
Montgomery
County
Board
of
Education
voted
to
create
a
new
sex
education
program
last
month,
after
two
anti-gay
groups
sued
the
school
district
over
complaints
that
the
revised
curriculum
“normalized”
homosexuality.
The
debate
in
Montgomery
County
has
already
inspired
some
parents
in
Fairfax
County,
Va.,
to
form
their
own
version
of
Citizens
for
a
Responsible
Curriculum
—
a
Maryland
group
that
opposed
the
revised
sex
education
program
—
to
protest
their
board’s
approval
of
pamphlets
on
emergency
contraception,
as
reported
in
the
Washington
Times.
Prince
George’s
County
is
also
updating
its
curriculum,
a
process
that
began
months
ago.
Its
sex
education
program
includes
discussions
of
homosexuality.
Richard
Cohen
of
Parents
&
Friends
of
Ex-Gays
&
Gays
said
he
is
watching
the
situations
in
Prince
George’s
County
and
Fairfax
closely.
“We
will
definitely
request
they
include
resources
and
information
on
coming
out
of
homosexuality,”
Cohen
said.
“Let
it
be
known
PFOX
is
on
the
move.”
Prince
George’s
County
School
District
spokesperson
John
White
said
that
the
county
would
stay
on
track,
despite
the
situation
in
Montgomery
County.
But
Abby
Crowley,
a
board
of
education
member
in
Prince
George’s
County,
wasn’t
as
confident.
She
fears
her
county’s
sex
education
revisions
might
be
“slowed
down.”
Earlier
this
year
she
received
20
letters
from
high
school
students
complaining
about
the
current
program.
“They
pleaded
with
me
to
look
at
the
sex
education
curriculum,”
she
said.
“[They
wanted
me]
to
make
it
more
relevant
and
make
it
more
up
to
date.”
The
revised
class
will
present
facts
as
it
has
for
years;
morality
is
the
purview
of
the
family,
she
said.
“The
scientific
community
comes
down
clearly
that
sexual
orientation
is
not
a
preference,”
Crowley
said.
“That
is
where
the
school
has
to
align.”
If
the
curriculum
includes
information
on
“ex-gays”
or
that
some
believe
homosexuality
is
an
immoral
lifestyle
choice,
she
said
it
would
be
clear
this
is
a
“minority
viewpoint.”
“I
want
to
make
sure
we
haven’t
gone
against
what
we
know
to
be
factual
just
in
case
of
avoiding
a
lawsuit,”
she
said.
“Small
groups
that
represent
very
few
people
are
wielding
considerable
power.”
Mat
Staver,
general
counsel
for
Liberty
Counsel,
which
brought
suit
against
the
Montgomery
County
curriculum,
said
that
since
the
Maryland
dispute,
more
parents
are
calling
to
complain
about
their
children’s
sex
education
classes.
“Under
the
guise
of
tolerance,”
educators
are
teaching
that
homosexuality
is
“normal
and
natural”
—
“a
very
chic
alternative,”
he
said.
“This
[Montgomery
County]
case
sends
a
message
that
schools
must
honor
and
respect
the
rights
of
parents
and
their
children,”
Staver
said.
“It
jeopardizes
significant
resources
to
defend
and
lose
a
case
like
this.”
Some
education
activists
are
concerned
that
groups
like
Liberty
Counsel,
a
conservative
Florida-based
organization,
will
try
to
inject
their
religious
views
into
public
schools.
Crowley
said
that
school
districts
need
help
from
the
Maryland
Department
of
Education,
but
the
department
did
not
return
calls
seeking
comment.
“[The
education
department]
should
support
the
counties
as
lawsuits
come
about
from
groups
that
don’t
represent
the
consensus
of
the
community,”
Crowley
said.
“They’re
less
likely
to
take
on
the
department
of
education.”
Content
for
sex
education
classes
differs
greatly.
Some
states,
like
Virginia,
leave
sex
education
curriculum
creation
to
the
school
board
and
a
“community
involvement
team,”
which
should
include
local
school
principals,
teachers,
parents,
board
of
education
members,
a
member
of
the
clergy
and
a
medical
professional.
Maryland
requires
school
boards
to
work
with
the
county
health
department.
In
Maryland
the
law
instructs
that
“sexual
variations,”
“contraception”
and
“a
variety
of
family
structures”
be
taught.
Virginia’s
code
is
more
conservative,
not
even
mentioning
sexual
orientation.
It
advises
schools
to
stress
abstinence
from
sexual
relations
until
marriage,
as
well
as
“the
benefits
of
adoptions
as
a
positive
choice
in
the
event
of
an
unwanted
pregnancy.”
The
D.C.
sex
education
law
is
among
the
most
comprehensive,
including
discussions
of
abstinence,
contraception,
sexual
orientation
and
abortion.
However,
its
content
has
largely
failed
to
make
it
into
the
classroom
because
of
poor
oversight
and
lack
of
school
funding,
said
Rebecca
Fox,
the
state
policy
coordinator
in
SIECUS’s
D.C.
office.
According
to
Barbara
Rockwood,
director
of
health
for
D.C.
Public
Schools,
a
committee
has
been
revising
the
health
education
curriculum
since
December
2004.
A
new
program
will
be
adopted
in
the
2006-2007
school
year,
she
said.
Sex
education
often
comes
down
to
local
control,
which
allows
boards
of
education
to
respond
to
community
needs
and
concerns,
Fox
said.
However,
she
noted,
each
state’s
department
of
education
should
monitor
sex
education
programs
and
provide
resources.
“Schools
have
to
have
a
place
to
turn
for
that
information,”
Fox
said.
It’s
a
delicate
balance
between
local
control
and
...
