Montgomery County, Maryland’s sex education curriculum invokes state regulatory code
The overhaul of Montgomery County, Maryland’s sex education curriculum, which has inspired a lawsuit, petition drives, national news coverage, and the formation of fiercely polarized community groups, was itself inspired by two words buried deep within the regulatory code of Maryland, advising school systems to teach "sexual variations." Montgomery has invoked the provision in defense of disputed new lessons that introduce students in grades eight and 10 to sexual orientation and transgenderism. The new curriculum, approved last week for field tests this spring, goes deeper into sexual and gender identity than most other Washington, D.C., area school systems have dared, judging by an informal survey. Neither Maryland nor Virginia requires school systems to teach about sexual orientation, according to state officials. Maryland's stipulation that schools teach sexual variations as one of several "areas of emphasis" in health classes is open to broad interpretation. Some Northern Virginia systems don't teach about sexual orientation, and Maryland systems generally broach the topic in less detail or only at the request of a curious student. Information from Washington, D.C. schools was not available. According to Montgomery school board member Patricia O'Neill, the old curriculum, which is still in place across the county, "was ignoring the reality of the world we live in." However, Dixie Stack, curriculum director for the Maryland State Department of Education, contends there is nothing "specific in COMAR," the acronym by which the state code is known, "that says homosexuality must be taught." The Montgomery Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development, the panel required by state law, recommended five years ago that sexual orientation be introduced to the health curriculum. Committee members noted that five of eight Washington area school systems provided instruction "that includes references to or information about sexual variations," according to the committee's 2002 report to the school board. The previous attempt to include the topics of homosexuality and gender identity resulted in a successful federal lawsuit that halted introduction of the curriculum.
Washington Post
By Daniel de Vise
[Full story]
[Editor’s Note: For background on the controversy, including a link to a summary of the 2005 federal district court ruling, see below.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Montgomery County dispute]