Maryland school district’s sex ed curriculum back in court
The six-year battle over the content of a new sex education curriculum in Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) has come down to two questions posed in a state court: Can the school board legally teach students that homosexuality is innate? And can the lessons discuss sex acts other than copulation? MCPS officials are defending the new curriculum, approved by the school board last summer, which addresses sexual orientation as a classroom topic for the first time. Until now, opposition has focused on the constitutional rights of Montgomery families whose religious beliefs do not abide homosexuality. But with the hearing, an attorney for the plaintiffs narrowed his focus to a few words in the disputed lessons. Brandon Bolling, a lawyer from the Thomas More Law Center challenged a passage in the 90-minute lessons that describes homosexuality as innate. That assertion, he said, violates a provision of a state law that says school curricula must be factual. He argued that the theory that sexual orientation is innate has been rejected by courts in several states. School officials say the legal challenge intrudes on their right to do their job: writing curricula and teaching children. “The purpose of the law in Maryland is to leave educational decisions to educators,” said Judith Bresler, MCPS’ attorney. She said critics were effectively asking the court to edit the curriculum “word by word.”
The sessions were taught in middle schools in the fall and are being covered in high schools this week. Students participate in the disputed lessons only if their parents sign permission slips. Ninety-five percent of students opted for the lessons in middle schools and about 97% in high schools, said Brian Edwards, Superintendent Jerry D. Weast's chief of staff. Opponents also object to language in the condom lesson about oral and anal sex. Bolling said those passages violate a state prohibition against material that “portrays erotic techniques of sexual intercourse.” State code offers no further guidance. Critics of the curriculum said yesterday that the code covers any talk of sex acts other than those used for procreation. Bolling said the state school board had allowed Montgomery too much discretion in defining the term. Bresler countered that Maryland affords school boards special deference in interpreting education laws. The judge concurred.
Source: Washington Post, 1/16/08, By Daniel de Vise
[Editor’s Note: If you have a lot of time, background on the litigation is available starting at the link below.]
NSBA School Law pages on MCPS sex education controversy