***Special Report***

PENDULUM BEGINS TO SWING BACK:
Communities and Schools Moving Towards More Practical Approaches to Sexuality Education Controversy Report 2006-07 School Year

by Maxwell Ciardullo, Information Coordinator

SIECUS has been monitoring controversies surrounding sexuality education for well over a decade in order to gain a better understanding of the challenges and issues that school districts face as well as to help educators and advocates build support for comprehensive programs in their communities. Beginning in the late 1990s, we saw a shift in sexuality education on the local level as more and more communities made conservative choices—whether it was to institute strict abstinence-only-until-marriage programs or to scale-back existing comprehensive sexuality education programs in an attempt to avoid controversy.  This year, we believe the pendulum is starting to swing back.

During the 2006-07 school year, parents, teachers, school administrators, health officials, and young people in communities across the country continued the national debate over what to teach our youth about sexuality.  In fact, we tracked more controversies this year than in the previous year; 244 up from 204.   

While the debates continued, however, the outcomes, taken as a whole, have been gradually changing.  Where five years ago a controversy would more often than not lead to a restriction of what could be taught in sexuality education classes, this year, more and more communities are chose to discard strict abstinence-only approaches for more practical solutions.  Communities have raised red flags over crisis pregnancy centers and motivational speakers teaching abstinence-only lessons in schools.  And, districts have taken routine curriculum updates as an opportunity to expand their programming to better cover topics like birth control and condoms, HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and even abortion.  Sometimes they have to compromise, but they nonetheless come out with improved curricula and more freedom for teachers to answer student questions.

Unfortunately, as we reported last year, there is one exception to this shift towards more comprehensive programming.  Controversies concerning sexual orientation still have the potential to draw daunting opposition from parents, administrators, and community members.  This year, we saw heated debates and long, protracted battles on these topics.  While it is encouraging that young lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) people and their allies continue to push the issue through Gay-Straight Alliances, it is clear that this is an issue communities will continue to struggle with in the coming years.

This special report provides examples of the types of controversies communities faced during the 2006–07 school year as well as ongoing analysis that attempts to put each controversy in a broader perspective both historically and moving forward.

OBJECTIONS TO ABSTINENCE-ONLY-UNTIL MARRIAGE
 IN THE NEWS AND THE SCHOOLS

During the 2006–07 school year the Bush administration’s abstinence-only-until-marriage agenda hit a number of speed bumps; a Government Accountability Office report revealed that the programs receive little oversight and have few mechanisms to measure effectiveness, a federally funded evaluation of the programs found that they have no impact on the sexual behavior of their students, and nine governors decided to stop applying for federal funding for the programs.  Most national and regional news outlets covering these events also questioned the responsibility of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.  Many used their editorial pages to call on the administration to support more comprehensive programs. 

The rising profile of this issue has coincided with an increase in local advocates criticizing abstinence-only programs in their schools and demanding better education.  Parents and administrators in communities across the country have taken issue with crisis pregnancy centers in their schools and objected to abstinence-only motivational speakers who are affiliated with a specific religion.  At the same time, state and local advocacy groups have been putting the pressure on schools to teach accurate and up-to-date sexuality information.
 
Crisis Pregnancy Centers Barred from Schools
In Brevard County, FL, parents raised objections to First Defense, an organization affiliated with a crisis pregnancy center (CPC) that was teaching abstinence-only-until-marriage lessons to high school students. CPCs typically advertise as providing medical services and then use anti-choice propaganda, misinformation, and fear and shame tactics to dissuade women facing unintended pregnancy from exercising their right to choose. First Defense was the only outside organization approved to teach sexuality education in the district schools, but parents complained that its program exaggerated contraceptive failure rates and relied on damaging gender stereotypes.1

“There’s more to it than just boys are animals and girls have to learn to say no,” said one parent who asked the district to provide her 14-year-old daughter with more information on contraception.2   Parents in Brevard County pointed to the evaluation of federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs released in April 2007 to support their call for better sexuality education. The evaluation, completed by Mathematica Policy Research for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), found that the programs had no effect on student’s sexual behavior.3  First Defense received a three-year grant from HHS to provide abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in the area.  

The editorial board of the local paper, Florida Today, also advocated for a more comprehensive sexuality program.  Its editorial criticized First Defense’s “spurious data about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing pregnancy and students’ risk of dying from AIDS” and called for the school board to broaden its approach to include medically accurate information about STDs and contraceptives.4

District officials originally responded to the objections by saying that they had no intention of taking anything other than an abstinence-only-until-marriage approach, but they did agree to accept proposals from other outside groups and review First Defense’s program.  The superintendent also convened a 15-member advisory committee of parents, teachers, principals, and school administrators to review the programs and provide recommendations.

In addition to First Defense, two other groups submitted proposals to the advisory board.  The Apostolic Ministries of America, Inc., a church from a neighboring community, also wanted to teach an abstinence-only-until-marriage program while Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando, Inc. proposed teaching an abstinence-based sex education program that also incorporated information on the effectiveness of contraceptives in preventing disease and pregnancy.

Over the summer, the groups gave 45-minute presentations of their programs to the advisory committee. The  committee was instructed to evaluate each group based on the district’s abstinence-only policy, which states that instruction should emphasize “the benefits of abstinence,” present “abstinence as the only certain way of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases,” and present contraceptive information “in the context of a failed approach to sexual activity.”  The policy also states that instruction should not “include discussion about contraceptive options except through student-initiated questions.”5

Working with those guidelines, the advisory committee recommended the two abstinence-only groups and rejected Planned Parenthood’s proposal.  One dissenting member of the committee recommended that the district reject all proposals and require health teachers to teach the whole program.  “As a teacher and a school system, our job is to teach the truth, and if we’re not giving (students) all the information on condoms, then we’re not telling the whole truth,” she said.6 

The superintendent agreed.   He rejected the proposals of all three groups and suggested that the district add a new guide on condoms and birth control and require that all materials be taught by the schools’ health teachers.  “I think it’s important that high school children have information. I’ve never been afraid of information,” he said.7

In August of 2007, three months after the debate started, the school board voted to accept the superintendent’s recommendations and add more information about contraception.  The new policy will apply to middle schools and high schools. All schools, however, will continue to have an “opt-out” policy which allows parents to take their children out of the class if they object to the content.   

Parents in Montgomery County, MD also objected to their district’s outsourcing of sex education instruction to a local CPC.  The Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) are in the midst of a separate and protracted battle over additions to their middle and high school curriculum (see the Communities Become Embroiled in Battles section for more details on this controversy), but the district was quick and decisive in its response to complaints about the Rockville Crisis Pregnancy Center. 

In one abstinence-only-until-marriage lesson, the CPC, which had been invited into some MCPS high schools for the past nine years, uses a shared piece of chewing gum to represent the dangers of STDs.  Its program is also based on the belief that “pregnancy is not the root problem, but a symptom of a lifestyle that is outside of God’s will.”8 

This year, parents of students at two different high schools filed complaints about the “gum-game,” a lesson where speakers ask teens to take turns chewing the same piece of gum to illustrate the power of peer pressure and the risks of contracting STDs.9  The district responded quickly by banning the CPC from speaking in schools.  “It was banned because of this unsanitary and completely inappropriate activity.  They will not be invited back into our schools because of the tremendous lack of judgment this activity demonstrated,” said a spokesperson for MCPS.

Though the district acted quickly, many questions remain about how the CPC was allowed in to begin with.  The district spokesperson had few answers, commenting “It’s a mystery why this group was approved by the central office.”10 

Cases like Brevard County and Montgomery County suggest that districts may be realizing that despite the federal funding they receive, CPCs can be a liability.  

In Charlottesville and Albemarle County, VA parents and students, supported by Planned Parenthood of the Blue Ridge, are proactively organizing to keep a local CPC from gaining access to their schools. 

Five neighboring districts currently allow the Pregnancy Centers of Central Virginia’s “Worth Your Wait” program into their schools, and the program is looking to expand into Charlottesville and Albemarle County schools as well.11  Worth Your Wait, uses Why kNOw, an abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum created by a Tennessee-based CPC. SIECUS reviewed Why kNOw and found that it relies on negative messages, distorts information, and presents biased views of gender, marriage, family structure, sexual orientation, and pregnancy options.  For example, the curriculum tells students that the tradition of lifting the bride’s veil during a wedding shows that “the groom [is] the only man allowed to uncover the bride,” and demonstrates “her respect for him by illustrating that she [has] not allowed any other man to lay claim to her.”12

In April 2007, representatives from Pregnancy Centers of Central Virginia held a forum at a Charlottesville hotel in an attempt to build support for their program with parents and educators.  Instead, however, they were met by an organized group of parents and students opposed to their approach who had gathered outside the hotel with signs saying “Honk and Wave for Real Sex Ed.”  One demonstrator, the mother of a high school sophomore, explained why she was there: “I want to promote safe sex among all our teenagers—and that means teaching them about abstinence, diseases, condoms, the whole story.”  She continued, “Abstinence-only doesn’t tell that whole story.”13

Representatives of Worth Your Wait responded that they want only to offer the option of abstinence to young people. “We believe students in all these counties deserve to hear about healthy choices that help prevent negative consequences in their lives,” said the director of the organization.14

Because “Worth Your Wait” is supported by a $645,642 federal grant from HHS, Pregnancy Center of Central Virginia is able to offer its programs to the districts for free.  When the story broke in April 2007, district administrators in Albemarle County said they had no immediate plans to offer the program.  Charlottesville administrators did not comment.15  SIECUS will continue to monitor the controversy.

Abstinence-Only Speakers Not Welcome
As the stories about CPCs show, there are no universal procedures that all districts follow when inviting outside groups to speak in schools.  In some districts, an organization has to be approved by the school board or sign a contract with a school.  In others, however, the only approval needed is from the principal or one classroom teacher.  The same is often true for motivational speakers.  Instead of being approved by the school board, speakers usually work directly with principals.  And, as such, parents and other educators are often unaware of the content of the presentation until after it has occurred. This year, however, progressive parents and school districts were paying more attention to abstinence-only-until-marriage speakers.    

In October 2006, citizens’ groups, along with the ACLU, questioned Loudoun County High School in Loudoun County, VA over its invitation to abstinence-only-until-marriage speaker Keith Deltano.16  Deltano, who describes himself as an “educational comedian,” was invited to speak by the principal, though his performance was scheduled and paid for by Life Line Inc., a local evangelical crisis pregnancy center.

The ACLU was alerted by a parent who was alarmed that the school would invite a speaker with what he called “a clear religious agenda.”  The parent was also concerned that Deltano has no experience as a health professional.17  On his website, Deltano cites his previous jobs as a military police officer, public school teacher, and private counselor but makes no mention of any experience or training in sexuality or other health issues.   18

Members of the ACLU and Mainstream Loudoun, a citizens’ group interested in the separation of church and state, were on hand to monitor the performance for any religious references.  They reported that while he did steer clear of direct religious references, Deltano’s presentation was full of fear, shame, and medical inaccuracies.  They shared this review with both school administrators and members of the media. In fact, as a result of their review the Washington Post ran a story under the headline “The Abstinence Shtick, Minus Jesus.”19

Despite this negative press, Deltano was invited back to speak at two other high schools in the district in February 2007.  When parents and members of Mainstream Loudoun learned of this, they invited SIECUS and local press outlets to come and review the performance. 

In the presentation SIECUS attended, Deltano asserted that condoms are ineffective 10–30 percent of the time they’re used, derided birth control for being too easy to forget, and relied heavily on stereotypes of young men as “dumb” and sex-crazed and young women as only interested in love and marriage.20  Accounts from other performances suggest that these are regular pieces of his act.21

At times, Deltano also singles out specific audience members: when one female student at Douglass High School in Loudoun County suggested that you can make up a missed dose of birth control, Deltano disagreed, screaming at the student, “You get pregnant!”22

In the same presentation, Deltano asked a male in the audience if he was ready to be a father.  The student told him no, and Deltano replied, “Well then you aren’t ready to have sex, right?”  When the student looked embarrassed and remained silent, Deltano repeated the back-to-back questions a number of times until the student finally said “no” out loud.23 Citizens’ group Mainstream Loudoun, the Loudoun Unitarian Universalist Church, and the St. James United Church of Christ spoke out against Deltano’s tactics.  The groups explained that they did not object to his abstinence-based message, but rather to his fear-based method.24

A spokesperson for Mainstream Loudoun said, “Rather than providing students with factual information and trusting them to make responsible choices, Deltano gave a sensationalist lecture designed to control behavior with fear and shame.”  She continued, “We are all for encouraging abstinence but we just think his approach is not the most effective way… I’m not quite sure why the school system is allowing a comedian to deliver a sex ed program.”25

After Deltano’s second visit to Loudoun County, Mainstream Loudoun teamed with local churches to sponsor a different version of sexuality education.  The groups invited educator Shelby Knox to screen her award-winning film about sexuality education, The Education of Shelby Knox.  Speakers at the event questioned how Deltano’s performance fit with Loudoun County’s family life education program. 

Both the superintendent of the district and a school board member attended the forum.  The superintendent reassured the audience that Loudoun schools teach a full family life education curriculum that complies with state law.  The board member, was a bit more skeptical, saying he was concerned that “an assembly speaker…would be invited to speak who is not qualified to meet the regulations” of the broader curriculum.26

In April 2007, Deltano got himself in trouble again when he veered off topic during a presentation in Mason, OH.  He had agreed to speak to seventh and eighth grade students about drugs and alcohol, but instead his first presentation, to the seventh graders, focused mostly on abstinence-until-marriage.27  As a result, the principal of the middle school cancelled Deltano’s speech to eighth grade students scheduled for the following day and sent a note home to parents apologizing. 
“I don’t think it’s bad to have a conversation about sex, and that’s not why we stopped the conversation,” she explained.  “My only concern was that’s not what he was asked to do.”28  In her note to parents she explained that she was uncomfortable having a speaker address sexuality related topics without giving parents an opportunity to broach the topic first.  She also explained that she was concerned that seventh grade students had seen this presentation before they had access to the school’s own health curriculum which is covered in eighth grade.  
Deltano said he regretted the decision, but that he was trying to fulfill the requirements of the federal abstinence-only-until-marriage grant with which he was being paid.29  Deltano receives no federal grant money directly, but often works with local crisis pregnancy centers and other abstinence-only groups being funded by the federal government.  In this case, the federally funded group he was working with used their grant money to pay his speakers fee and travel, thus Deltano was beholden to the grant guidelines.
But Deltano was not the only abstinence-only-until-marriage speaker to face local opposition this year.  Parents in Calaveras County, CA mobilized quickly to raise concerns about Jason Evert, and their work paid off when his presentation was canceled the day before it was scheduled.  Evert works for Catholic Answers, a national group dedicated to defending and spreading the Catholic faith. He founded the group’s“chastity outreach” program, the Pure Love Club.30

When parents heard that the evangelist would be speaking at their children’s public high school, they called the district and the local paper. “Parents started talking,” said one mother.  “He’s an evangelical Catholic minister.  I found this alarming for a lot of reasons.”31  Parents also pointed out that they had not been notified 14 days prior to the assembly as is required by California state code.  California code also states that schools that provide sexuality education must ensure that it is comprehensive, medically accurate, includes information on the effectiveness of contraception, and is appropriate for all “races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities.”32

As a result of the calls from parents, the superintendent scheduled an emergency meeting and decided to cancel the assembly.  He also apologized for not appropriately notifying parents. After reviewing Evert’s materials, the principal agreed with the decision saying he was not comfortable because of separation of church and state issues.33

Months later, in March 2007, the local crisis pregnancy center that organized Evert’s first trip to Calaveras County, paid to have him back.34  This time the superintendent consented only to allowing the speaker access to the school facilities after normal school hours.  This presentation was optional to students and open to the public. 

The superintendent also explained that the whole episode helped him realize that the district needs to update its current sexuality education curriculum, which is only taught for one semester in ninth grade. “I still think we need to look at the current curriculum and look at age appropriate things at the junior, senior, and sophomore levels.  I want to have additional education through community members and programs that are more age appropriate,” he said.35

Groups in Pennsylvania began by sending a joint letter to all 501 superintendents in the state recommending comprehensive sexuality education programs that discuss abstinence as well as contraception.  The state has been through a rollercoaster of sexuality education politics in the past few years, and the eight health organizations that sent the letter were concerned that young people are not getting the information they need to keep themselves healthy. 

Teens and program coordinators at Pittsburgh-based Adagio Health Inc., one of the signers of the letter, described a backslide in Pittsburgh schools.  “When I started here in 2001, we were doing condom demonstrations with penis models in Pittsburgh Public Schools,” recalled one coordinator.  “By 2002, we weren’t even allowed to show condom packages.”36 

Advocates for comprehensive sexuality education convinced Governor Rendell to turn down federal funding through the Title V funding stream during Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 (roughly the 2003–04 and 2004–05 school years), but the governor reversed course and once again applied for and received nearly $1.7 million in Title V funding during Fiscal Year 2006 (2005–06 school year).  The state received a total of $3.8 million for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for that year.37 

With their letter, groups like the Pennsylvania Coalition to Prevent Teen Pregnancy and Adagio Health bypassed the state and appealed directly to local districts.  “When it comes to sex education, we want schools to give kids the information they need—not to censor or deprive kids in order to protect themselves,” said a representative for the groups.38

Some state affiliates of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the ACLU have also launched campaigns to remove abstinence-only-until-marriage programs or curricula from local schools.  In January 2006, when advocates found egregious errors in the abstinence-only curricula being used in New Hanover County, NC middle schools, NARAL NC and the ACLU of North Carolina proceeded to pressure the district into offering better options to its students. 

Middle schools in the district offer two elective courses; an abstinence-only-until-marriage program and an abstinence-plus course that includes information on birth control.  The abstinence-only-until-marriage track was using two curricula, Sex Respect and Me, My World, My Future, both of which are outdated and contain medical misinformation.39 

NARAL NC found that Sex Respect discourages condom use, stating “There is not a lot of proof that condoms really work.  Would you trust your life to one?”  Similarly, Me, My World, My Future compares using condoms to playing Russian roulette.40  SIECUS has also reviewed both curricula and found that they rely on fear, shame, and medical misinformation to motivate students to remain abstinent.41

The health educator who teaches the class defended the curricula, saying that they are never given to the students in whole.42  Instead, students receive photocopied pages, which don’t include some of the more flagrant errors. 

Still, the school district officials agreed that the curricula needed to be replaced and said they were already planning to find new resources.  In December 2007, a panel of New Hanover County school and community representatives selected a new curriculum, Sex Can Wait.43  Sex Can Wait is also an abstinence-only curriculum, but does not contain medical inaccuracies.  The University of Arkansas program was one of the few curricula reviewed in the 2004 report on the content of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs prepared for Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) that did not receive failing marks.44 

Despite the district’s reliance on these two fear-based resources, New Hanover schools offer students much more sexuality education information than most North Carolina schools.  Most districts offer abstinence-only-until-marriage instruction as the only option.  It is interesting to note that in New Hanover, where students and their parents can choose, 80 percent of eighth grade students are enrolled in the class that covers birth control as well as abstinence.45

It’s not often that students in North Carolina receive more sexuality education than students in Southern California, but until the ACLU of Southern California (ACLU-SC) stepped in, some students in Santa Clarita, CA were hearing only abstinence-only-until-marriage speakers.  The ACLU-SC sent the district a letter when it found out through parents that the district was allowing abstinence-only speakers in to the schools.46  The district does teach HIV/AIDS lessons required by California law but does not have any form of comprehensive sexuality education. 

The ACLU-SC informed the district that while it is allowed to choose whether or not to teach any sexuality education in addition to the mandatory HIV/AIDS lessons, if it chooses to teach more, the information provided must be age appropriate, medically accurate, free of bias, and appropriate for use with students of all races, genders, and sexual orientations, as well as pupils with disabilities.  The ACLU-SC holds that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs do not meet this standard due to medical inaccuracies and bias against gay students, who cannot get married in California.  California law also requires that all instruction, from grade seven on, must include information about abstinence while “providing medically accurate information on other methods of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.”47

In its letter, the ACLU-SC cited the admission of abstinence-only speakers into a middle school and quoted those speakers as telling students that “condoms were not the answer” and that “instead, we encourage an abstinent lifestyle until marriage.”  Some students were also encouraged to sign virginity pledges.48

The leader of one of the abstinence-only programs, Positively Waiting, admitted that she does not teach about the legally required issues of STDs, contraception, or HIV but instead talks “about how being sexually active as a teenager lead to prominent consequences in my life.”49  She also attempted to defend her approach against the charge by the ACLU-SC that it discriminates against gay and lesbian students who cannot marry, arguing that people who have “decided their attraction is to someone of the same sex” should not be denied the benefits of learning how to resist temptation and delay gratification.50

The assistant superintendent said she was surprised to get the letter from the ACLU-SC and affirmed that the district did not have a comprehensive sexuality education curriculum.  Currently, the district allows schools to invite whatever speaker they wish as long as the principal approves it.

 At the same time, she said that the district took the ACLU-SC’s letter seriously.  “We certainly intend to be in compliance with the law, and if we are doing anything out of compliance with the law, we will do whatever we need to correct it,” the assistant superintendent said.51 

In fact, the district did comply with the ACLU’s letter—All of Positively Waiting’s presentations in public schools in the Santa Clarita and Los Angeles districts have been cancelled.

The controversy in Santa Clarita, CA sets up a good model for community advocates throughout California and in other states with supportive laws who are looking to rid their districts of abstinence-only programs.   And, the 2006-07 school year shows that all across the country, even in states like North Carolina and Virginia where laws are not nearly as supportive, critics of these programs exist, they are getting louder, and they are finding success. 

COMMUNITIES IMPROVE THEIR SEXAULITY EDUCATION

SIECUS has reported that over the past few years the overall trend has been for districts across the country, even in some conservative strongholds, to lean toward including more sexuality information in their curricula when faced with controversies.  Stories from the 2006–07 school year corroborate this finding, revealing that when districts entertain recommendations to update or revise their curricula they are much more likely, as are parents, to side with providing more comprehensive sexuality education.

Working to Expand Curricula
One of the best examples of this trend was the Crawfordsville, IN school board’s vote to expand its eighth grade sexuality education to include a two-day lesson on contraception. The recommendation came from the district’s AIDS/Safe and Drug-Free Schools Advisory Committee, which is composed of local doctors and nurses, public health personnel, school staff, parents, community members, and students, and was approved by the board in a 3–2 vote in May 2007.

Supporters of the new lesson argue that teen pregnancy is a serious problem.  In fact, the school nurse told the board that at least 15 girls in the small town’s high school currently were or had been pregnant at some point during the year.52

The school was using “Creating Positive Relationships (CPR),” an abstinence-only program produced by an organization of the same name that receives a $25,000 grant from the Indiana Department of Health through the federal Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage funding stream.53 A pastor of a local Baptist church asked the board to stick with the abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum, saying that he’s worried more comprehensive lessons will follow.54  The school nurse, however, said that although teachers are happy with the CPR program, “it was kind of weak on teaching about HIV, disease prevention and pregnancy prevention.”55  She believes the new lesson will better inform the nearly half of the student body that is already sexually active. 

Board members agreed that the new lesson was necessary to reach the young people whose parents weren’t involved in their lives or comfortable having conversations about sexuality education at home.56

In St. Lucie County, FL, the superintendent also took advantage of a curriculum update to move his district past an abstinence-only approach and towards more comprehensive HIV-prevention programs.

As SIECUS first reported in October of 2006, officials in the St. Lucie schools, health professionals, and community members came together as the Executive Roundtable to explore the possibility of revising the county’s sexuality education and HIV/AIDS- prevention programs in public schools after learning that, among other things, St. Lucie County has the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS among African Americans in any Florida county.57

In May, the Executive Roundtable announced its recommendation of Get Real About AIDS, an HIV-prevention curriculum endorsed by the state Department of Education which had at one point designated a “program that works” by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).58

Some community members, however, were not pleased with this choice.  A local pastor worried that the program promotes condoms too readily and that “an agenda such as this one could not encourage abstinence.”  He began a petition to prevent the program from being implemented, explaining, “When they talk with the parents, they really sugarcoat the messages, but when they get alone with the kids, it’s condom field trips.”59

The “condom field trips” he mentioned have long been a rallying point for opponents of the curriculum.  Get Real About AIDS encourages students to go to stores with their parents to identify contraceptives.  The purpose of the trip is not for young people to purchase contraceptives but to help them gain knowledge of where to find protection if they do become sexually active.  As the district began working through how it would present the curriculum to the school board, the superintendent assured detractors that there would be no “trips to the drugstore.”60

In response to the small, but vocal opposition by some community members, the superintendent preemptively took some other, potentially controversial, issues off the agenda.  In school board hearings in August 2007, the superintendent added “alternative lifestyles” to the list of topics that would not be discussed in the new curriculum.  He reiterated that the focus should be on health education, not “variations of sexual behavior.”61  It’s no surprise that the superintendent refused to support discussion of sexual orientation in the curriculum seeing as many of his neighboring county school systems have been embroiled in controversies over access to LBGTQ resources.62  The most notable being Okeechobee County, which has been involved in a year-long legal battle over the formation of a Gay-Straight Alliance in its high schools.  (See “Despite Precedents, Communities Still Fight GSAs” for more details on this controversy.)

The audience at the meeting took the omission of LGBTQ information in stride and the focus of the ongoing debate continues to be over the lessons on condom use and contraception.  The superintendent, however, seems to be winning over most of the community. “The Bible says, ‘My people perish for a lack of knowledge,’” said the director of a local service organization. “So, let’s give them that knowledge so they won’t perish.”63

With the changes made, the superintendent brought the program to the school board, which voted 4–1 in December 2007 to approve it.

Giving Teachers Permission to Answer Questions
As abstinence-only-until-marriage programs took hold in recent years and schools feared controversy, some districts put in place specific policies designed to prevent teachers from addressing potentially controversial topics while teachers in other districts essentially censored themselves. This year, a number of communities made an effort to put an end to the practice of stifling teachers. 

In Farmington Hills, MI, the Farmington School District recently overturned one of its long-held policies by passing a proposal that allows teachers to answer students’ questions about homosexuality and “gay” issues.64  Many administrators endorsed the change, which was recommended by the district’s Sex Education Advisory Board, even though some parents remain hesitant.

Administrators believe that expanded education is the way to eliminate harassment based on sexual orientation and point out that they frequently hear comments such as, “That’s so gay.”  “We know that homosexual youth suffer from bullying and harassment when others are not understanding of the facts,” said the superintendent.  She continued, “It is appropriate and helpful for our staff to be able to answer questions regarding all aspects of sexuality.”65

School districts in Michigan vary widely on how (or even if) they address homosexuality.  Prior to this decision, teachers in Farmington Hills were told not to provide any input on questions related to homosexuality and instead to tell young people to ask their parents.66

The new proposal allows for written questions from students in fourth grade and either written or verbal questions from those in or above fifth grade.  Teachers will be given a manual with standardized answers to typical questions students might ask and must provide those answers.  Parents who do not want their children to hear these answers may opt-out of the program if they chose to do so.67

In response to the change, some parents have accused the district of promoting a “gay lifestyle.”  One parent stated, “I’m very pro-education and I’m a physician, but I just feel there’s a pro-gay and lesbian agenda here.  I accept all people, but I think that goes against a lot of family morals.”68

Most community members, however, have been supportive of the proposal.  A principal in the district noted, “By the time students get to the sixth grade, they know a lot, but a lot of it is not factual.  What we want to do is answer the questions in a factual manner.” The superintendent explained that the new policy is “in the best interest of all students because it includes the efforts of parents, students, and educators.”69  And the school board president echoed support for the change, saying, “Our number one goal in curriculum, instruction, and student achievement is to make sure our students feel physically, emotionally, and academically safe, secure, and accepted.  This new procedure supports that.”70

Many parents and students were also pleased with this new policy.  One mother explained that teachers are an important resource, “It’s a sticky situation because perhaps the teacher is the only outlet the student feels they may have.”71  And, a 14-year-old student in the district was idealistic in her assessment of the proposal: “The goal I set for my future generation is universal respect for everyone,” she said.  “If we teach only heterosexuality, we’re not including everyone, and everyone should be treated as equal.”72

The new policy went into effect in September at the start of the 2007–08 school year.

In the Portland suburb of North Clackamas, OR, the school board decided on a similar provision during a curriculum update.  In addition to approving abstinence-plus HIV and teen pregnancy prevention curricula for middle schools and high schools, the board also gave teachers the go-ahead to answer questions from students on a list of sensitive topics including homosexuality, abortion, pornography, and some sexual acts.73

While two thirds of the board voted in favor of the updates, some members were extremely vocal in their opposition.  “The curriculum normalized behavior that I believe is inappropriate, immoral, and abnormal, particularly for students in middle school,” argued one member, though he refused to specify the behaviors to which he was referring.74  He also wanted to require students to receive parental permission before the class instead of the current opt-out policy.  The board decided not to consider that suggestion.

Despite the dissenting board members, the Oregon Department of Education applauded the district.  The Department of Education has been encouraging districts to institute similar programs for years and expects more of them will follow in the footsteps of North Clackamas as their sexuality education curricula come up for review.75

A Common Compromise 
In the hopes of ensuring a smooth process and avoiding controversy when expanding their sexuality education programs, educators and administrators in some communities make compromises such as eliminating one controversial topic (as in St. Lucie) or changing administrative rules.  One of the most common compromises districts made was to change their opt-out policies, which place the responsibility on parents to request their children be removed from a class, to an opt-in policy, which requires each student to get parental permission before attending a class.

After a careful process in Granville, OH, the school board unanimously approved the first update of the health curriculum in ten years.  The district’s old curriculum emphasized abstinence at the expense of risk-reduction information and was presented by the Responsible Social Values Program (RSVP), an abstinence-only-until-marriage program created by Abstinence the Better Choice, Inc.  Abstinence the Better Choice receives $600,000 a year through 2011 from the federal government to provide abstinence-only instruction in Ohio.76 

District officials acknowledged that sex education has been a contentious topic over the years, with some parents arguing for more information and others advocating for strict abstinence-only programs.  Some parents have also lodged complaints against the RSVP program, saying the speakers give students inflated failure rates for condoms.77 

The task of updating the curriculum fell to a 15 member committee of administrators, teachers, and parents. The committee recommended updating contraceptive information in both eighth and tenth grades and adding a discussion of abortion for sophomores.  In May 2007, the school board unanimously approved the proposal.  The new curriculum uses a holistic approach discussing social, emotional, physical, and mental well-being, and is no longer being delivered by the RSVP program.

To avoid controversy, however, the board also approved a new opt-in provision, requiring parents to sign and return a permission slip before their children can attend the class.  Previously, the district notified parents of the classes and placed the responsibility on them to pull their children if they disagreed with the content.  The principal of the high school thought the opt-in provision would be a good compromise.78  In this instance, the district was able to avoid controversy as parents were supportive throughout the curriculum update process and no complaints were registered at Parent Advisory Council meetings.  Parents also spoke favorably of the program itself.  One in particular said “I think that in the past, we as a society have fallen to what we wish rather than what we know.  If we love our children, it’s time to move beyond what we hope would work to what we know will work.”79

Across the country in Las Cruces, NM, the school board also grappled with an update to the district’s curriculum, but managed to retain an opt-out policy despite some heated meetings.  The debate was a result of new statewide guidelines aimed at addressing New Mexico’s high rates of teen pregnancy.  The guidelines define sexuality education as part of public school health curriculum and mandate comprehensive discussions of contraception beginning in middle school.80

Las Cruces School District is located in Doña Ana County, which has the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the state.  In 2005, teenage mothers accounted for 75 out of every 1,000 births in the county, amounting to approximately 53 births to teenage mothers each month.81

A Las Cruces school board member argued that public schools must address this problem, saying “We have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the state and we are doing nothing…We are going to sit on our hands?”82

The school board met twice in January 2007 to discuss how to handle the Education Department’s directive.  Debates at both meetings centered on the issue of parental approval for sexuality education instruction.  While the state requires schools to allow parents to remove their child from sexuality education classes, some members of the Las Cruces school board felt that the policy should be reversed.  “A parent has to request sexual education [for their children], not request to be exempted” the board secretary asserted.83

Other members of the board disagreed, questioning why an opt-in policy would be necessary for sexuality education and whether this would ultimately lead to a similar approach to other subjects such as history, math, and language instruction.  “I have a concern where you say [parental approval is required] before a child can be educated,” said one board member, “How many other areas do we have where a parent has to allow their child to be educated?”84

The discussion continued when a local teen pregnancy prevention group came before the school board to urge “broad and accessible sex education.”85  After hearing from this group, as well as members of the public on both sides of the debate, the school board voted 4–1 in favor of implementing the state guidelines with an opt-out policy.86

Staving Off Censorship
Each year controversies over what students read, write, or perform erupt across the country as parents, teachers, and students disagree on what is appropriate and what constitutes undue censorship.  Though these materials are not always a part of a sexuality education class or lesson, more often than not the questions about the materials revolve around topics or passages that some deem too sexually explicit.  Conservative parents and community members often attack these resources for the same reasons they object to sexuality education lessons: they argue that these lessons rob children of their innocence and encourage sexual activity.  This year, many communities were able to put an end to these controversies without censoring the materials.

In Howell, MI, the would-be censors worked themselves into such a frenzy that they deemed it necessary to involve the FBI and review such classics as Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye, Richard Wright’s Black Boy, and Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five for obscenities.87 

The investigation began after a citizens’ group, the Livingston Organization for Values in Education (LOVE), complained that the books, which also included Erin Gruwell’s The Freedom Writers Diary and Augusten Burroughs’ Running with Scissors, were profane and pornographic.88  In a press release, a LOVE spokesperson compared the five books in Howell High School’s curriculum to Penthouse and Playboy magazines, saying that they “contain similarly graphic material in written form [and] are equally inappropriate.”89  LOVE’s President called Morrison’s The Bluest Eye a “graphic child rape book.”90

In February, LOVE demanded that the books be removed from curriculum, filing formal complaints with the Howell School Board, the District and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and the Michigan Attorney General.  On February 12, the school board voted 5–2 to reject LOVE’s complaint.91  “We should be very careful about dismissing literary works because they test our belief system or challenge our values,” said the district superintendent.92

County prosecutor David Morse concurred.  In a letter that he sent to LOVE on March 2, 2007, Morse concluded that the books are legal on two grounds.  “Since the school board has approved use of these books, the teachers and administrators have complied with the school code and are excepted from criminal prosecution under the statute,” he wrote.93  Further, he explained, to qualify as obscene, a book must be found to appeal only to readers’ prurient interest in sex and to have no literary or educational merit.  Morse continued, “After reading the books in question, it is clear that the explicit passages illustrated a larger literary, artistic or political message and were not included solely to appeal to the prurient interests of minors.”94

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox and U.S. Attorney Stephen Murphy agreed with Morse.  Both declined prosecution in mid-March.95  The books will continue to be used in Howell High School’s AP English classes.

In Cross River, NY, the school district’s attempt to censor students themselves made national headlines. Three young women at John Jay High School were punished with a one-day suspension from school after reading a passage from The Vagina Monologues, during an “open mic night” at the school.96

School officials explained the students had been warned prior to their presentation that they could not use the word “vagina” because there would be young children in the audience.97  The principal asserted that the suspension was for insubordination and not for using the word vagina. “When a student is told by faculty members not to present specified material because of the composition of the audience and they agree to do so, it is expected that the commitment will be honored and the directive will be followed,” he said in a written statement. “When a student chooses not to follow that directive, consequences follow.”98

The students contended that they had never made such an agreement, and that cutting the word from their presentation amounted to censoring artistic material.99  Their suspension drew attention and concern from the community, and sparked a debate about freedom of speech in public schools that made national headlines.

Playwright Eve Ensler, who calls her play “an anthem about female empowerment,” joined the discussion, supporting the girls’ decision.  “Why a school has a problem with teenagers saying the word vagina is beyond me, and is truly a throwback to the dark ages,” she said.  “It’s just shocking in 2007 to even be engaged in this dialogue.”100 In an interview on the Today Show, one of the young women pointed out that half of the younger children the principal was reportedly trying to protect from the word vagina, had vaginas themselves.101 

The media and community attention caused the school to postpone the students’ suspension, which was supposed to take place during the second week of March 2007, until after a meeting of the Katonah-Lewisboro School Board.102  After that meeting, the district superintendent reversed the students’ suspension.103

STUDENTS PUSH FOR MORE INFORMATION

Students are in a unique position to know both what their peers need from sexuality education and what they are and are not getting.  This year, as in years past, many students voiced their concerns about the inadequate education they were receiving, and in some cases they even set about fixing it by creating their own program. Reaction to such programs is mixed. Though often greeted with initial enthusiasm by teachers and administrators, these young people have had to struggle to be taken seriously when they approached their districts about implementing the programs. 

A prime example of this student advocacy occurred in Macon County, NC.  After assessing the results of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, a survey of a wide variety of behaviors conducted biennially by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a group of students at Franklin High School decided that sexual activity was the most troubling issue among their peers.  The students pointed to the sizeable number of girls in their high school who were pregnant, and determined that while illicit drug use (including alcohol) is routinely addressed in schools, sexual activity remains taboo and shrouded in myths and misinformation.

The students developed a new peer-education program entitled “Sexy Abs—Sense Enough to Expand Your Awareness About Sex.”  “Sexy Abs” was designed to be a “peer talk program,” which would be presented to area middle-school students by trained high school students.   The curriculum included engaging skits about common situations teens may face, such as the role alcohol at parties plays in sexual behavior.  The students developing the program received help from professionals, including those from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction and the Macon County Health Department.

The student spokesperson met with the superintendent early in the process.  “We explained everything to him, including the peer talk,” she said.  “He didn’t discourage us in any way.”   She added that the superintendent suggested that she address the board about her concerns with the county’s sexuality education policy.  “I wouldn’t have done it if he hadn’t suggested it,” she said. 

The students presented an outline of the program to the school board in April 2007 and board members were supportive.  The superintendent, however, had an apparent change of heart and told the students “there would be no kids teaching kids about sex.”  He noted, “this is not the direction we need to go,” and that parents should be more proactive in speaking with their children about sex.   Citing his prerogative to “refuse the program independently,” he refused to allow the Macon County Board of Education to discuss or formally vote on the curriculum, effectively stymieing any attempts to further the program.

One board member “expressed disappointment” when she learned that the issue would not go forward.  “I think they would have done a fine job,” she said.  “We need to have people stand up and say this is something that is needed.”  Another board member also felt let down, “We got an email with the rough draft…with a few changes, I would have no problem with it.”   Many other members of the board also felt that the topic was prematurely pulled from discussion.

The Macon County School Health Advisory Council (SHAC), a state-mandated board of health professionals, also announced its support for “Sexy Abs.”  While SHAC can only make policy recommendations not changes, it strongly endorsed the student-created program.  One council member, who also serves as the Assistant Director of the Public Health Department, explained that the students “had conducted themselves with dignity and put in a lot of hard work.”  The students were told that a template for their program would “remain for future years when the administration and the system catch up with you.”

The students, however, have no plans to drop the subject.  They plan to continue writing letters to their state representatives and educating themselves in hopes that the peer-education program can be revisited in the future.

Students in El Cajon, CA, a suburb of San Diego, faced a similar situation this year.  Within one breath, school administrators told three students at Valhalla High School that their project “No Glove, No Love” would both receive a top grade and be barred from being presented on campus.

The project, which was meant to educate students about the risks of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), was rejected because it was “too controversial.”  A vice principal at the school told the students “We want to keep [the school’s] name out of the headlines, especially if it has to do with teen sexuality.”

The project was the result of a semester’s worth of work on an assignment called “Change in America.”  The students created the project because they felt their school needed to change the way it presented sex education.  A school representative reported that the school, like all schools in the district, follows an abstinence-only-until-marriage policy.   The students who created “No Glove, No Love,” however, argue that abstinence-only programs don’t work and this policy needs to be changed.  Their arguments are supported by California state law, which requires districts to take a more comprehensive approach to sexuality education and mandates that all information be age-appropriate and medically accurate.

Although the project was supported by a teacher and backed by three separate written proposals, administrators blocked each attempt to let the program move forward.  The students called the decision “censorship,” noting that STDs are on the rise and that “the school should help students deal with the problem.”

The students plan to take their complaints about the lack of sexuality education in their school to their state senators and representatives.

The persistence of these student advocates is encouraging.  Even when they don’t win the implementation of their programs, they still gain valuable experience advocating for themselves and their peers.  As the trend in sexuality education controversies moves toward the inclusion of more comprehensive information, their input and skills should be in high demand.

LGBTQ ISSUES CONTINUE TO BE EXPLOSIVE

The progress that we are seeing as communities update and expand their sexuality education, allow teachers to answer questions, and prevent censorship is encouraging.  Unfortunately, while many topics are becoming less controversial and many debates are becoming less fierce, there is one topic that continues to tear communities apart—homosexuality.  This year a number of communities became embroiled in battles over lessons that taught tolerance, students’ attempts to form Gay-Straight Alliances, and teachers’ decisions to allow discussion of sexual orientation.  As we reported last year, this issue is sparking some of the most explosive controversies SIECUS monitors each year.  

Communities Become Embroiled in Battles
The best example this year was the case of Evesham Township, NJ, where the school district fell under heavy criticism for showing a video about diverse families in the elementary school. 

The film, That’s a Family, was shown to third graders in an effort to encourage tolerance.104  Families with step-parents, adopted children, mixed race parents, and bilingual parents were all shown.  However, it was the inclusion of families with same-sex parents that caused a furor among some residents in the school district.

The controversy broke in January 2007 after some parents, angry that their children had seen the video, complained to school administrators.  In response administrators held a forum for parents to voice their concerns.  Local media outlets covered the event, which was sometimes less than civil.  One parent screamed that homosexuality was a “horrible concept” and as such had no place in the Golden Rule—doing unto others as one would do unto oneself.  Another called the depiction of same-sex families in the video “absolutely appalling.”  And, a third claimed that the school district did not have the right to show something that she felt was morally wrong.105

District officials initially defended the video as an important tool in teaching tolerance of diversity.106  The curriculum director said, “The video makes no judgment about lifestyles… the video is to teach respect for the diversity of all children.”107  Another parent agreed with the school board, saying, “You have to acknowledge that these different kinds of families exist.”108

The argument over the video continued through the summer until the school board voted 7–1 to stop using it in September 2007.  The board reasoned that the video had simply created too much controversy within the community.109  One board member said, “I look out here and see a community tearing itself apart. It’s obvious that this video is a lightning rod.”110

Despite the school board’s ruling, Garden State Equality, a lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) civil rights group, says that it will push to reverse the decision.  “This saga is very far from over,” said group chair Steven Goldstein.111

While the video is not mandated by the state, New Jersey law does stipulate that second-grade students should have the ability to “identify different kinds of families and explain that families may differ for many reasons.”  The state also recently passed civil union legislation which gives legal rights and recognition to same-sex couples. 

The events in Evesham Township show that even in states with progressive policies on LGBTQ issues, this topic still has the ability to create a storm.  In fact, one of the controversies that catapulted these issues into the national consciousness began over three years ago in Montgomery County, MD, a progressive-minded suburb of the nation’s capital.  After two attempts to overhaul the sexuality education curriculum, an extended court battle, and an onslaught of criticism from a small number of local community members and their allies at national conservative organizations, the district finally succeeded this year in implementing its new program, complete with a condom demonstration and a lesson on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Montgomery County School Board approved the original curriculum update for middle and high school health classes in November 2004.  The program included a video in tenth-grade health classes that showed students how to put on a condom and a pilot program for selected schools to discuss homosexuality in the eighth and tenth grade Family Life Curriculum.112

A small group of parents and community members disagreed with the changes and formed an organization called Citizens for Responsible Curriculum (CRC). The group campaigned against the curriculum and brought in representatives from national conservative organizations such as Concerned Women for America and Family Research Council to speak against it. 

When the district pushed ahead with its plan to pilot the program despite the opposition, CRC and its new allies, Virginia-based Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) and the Liberty Council, brought a federal lawsuit against the school system.113  The lawsuit claimed that allowing discussions over homosexuality to take place in the schools and distributing resource materials that included information on gay-positive churches and religious groups gave preference to religions that are tolerant of homosexuality and ignored those churches that teach that homosexuality is wrong.  In addition, the lawsuit claimed the school board has an “irrational phobia of the ex-gay community.”114

The case was eventually settled when the school board voted to scrap the controversial curriculum and begin building a second curriculum from the ground up.  As part of the settlement, representatives from CRC and PFOX were allotted seats on the curriculum advisory committee.  Throughout the following year, the debate over the lessons continued within the committee, and was often reported on in local and national papers, including the Washington Post.  Members of CRC and PFOX argued that any lessons on sexual orientation should include the perspectives that “homosexuals can change, that transgenderism is a mental disorder, and that anal intercourse is dangerous.”115  

The lessons on condoms and sexual orientation and gender identity ultimately made it into the second revision of the curriculum, but parent advocates supportive of the first version argued that the new tightly scripted lessons are neither comprehensive nor youth-friendly. One member of committee called the condom demonstration video “very impersonal” and noted that it opens and closes with messages about abstinence, but fails to include any information for gay students.116  The lesson on sexual orientation and gender identity was also criticized as not being strong enough in its support of LGBTQ students.  Progressive parents had to lobby the school board to add a sentence stating that mainstream medical and mental health organizations have concluded that homosexuality is not a disease or a mental illness.117  

The school board voted to approve this second revision for use in the 2007–08 school year, though some students in the pilot classes were similarly unimpressed with the new lessons.  “Our teacher… she read straight from the manual…It was very strict.  Like, you couldn’t ask questions,” explained one 14-year-old.118

After the approval, opposition groups worked desperately throughout the summer of 2007 to postpone implementation of the curriculum.  First, they appealed to the Maryland State School Board asking it to step in and halt the lessons.  When the state school board refused to get involved, the groups filed an administrative appeal in circuit court in hopes of overturning its ruling.119  A circuit court judge ended the delay tactics in October when he ruled that the lessons could be implemented.120  Nonetheless opponents vowed to continue their crusade against the program.

Though MCPS and supportive parents persevered and finally won more comprehensive sexuality education, the high-profile controversy has had a chilling effect on surrounding districts that were considering teaching about LGBTQ topics. 

In Alexandria, VA, another Washington, DC suburb, the district decided to shelve lessons on abortion and sexual orientation after initial objections from PFOX and one school board member.  The lessons were drafted as part of the review of the family-life education curricula and included a history of abortion in the United States, a video titled What if I’m Gay?, and a discussion of both topics.121

A district spokesperson said that the video has been a part of the curriculum for the past decade and information about abortion and sexual orientation has been taught since 1982.122  The difference is that the topics were previously taught from supplemental material in the textbooks, as opposed to the formal lessons that were proposed in January 2007.

The lesson plans became an issue, however, when a member of the Family-Life Education Advisory Committee objected to them.  He argued that applicable Virginia laws should be included in the lesson and in particular wants to tell students that minors cannot obtain abortions without parental consent and that sodomy is a felony.123  (In 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Lawrence v. Texas that state laws outlawing sodomy were unconstitutional.  Many states, including Virginia, continue to have anti-sodomy laws on the books but they cannot enforce them.)

Soon after the committee member’s objection, PFOX—who at the time was also engaged in the fight over MCPS’ curriculum—sent a letter to the district demanding that it include information on ex-gays, people who believe they have changed their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.  “Why is there no mention of the ex-gay community in the lesson plan when every other sexual orientation is discussed and supported?” asked the executive director of PFOX.

The district responded that all materials would have to be vetted by the advisory committee.  Months later, in August, the district announced that the lessons would not be added to the curriculum for the 2007–08 school year and that any changes would have to wait until the 2008–09 school year.124

With the visible example of Montgomery County, MD right next door, officials in Alexandria were especially cautious and it seems that the threat of a prolonged controversy or possible litigation was enough to cause the school board to back off from its proposed lessons. 

Perhaps because she was halfway across the country from this atmosphere of controversy, an English teacher in Woodburn, IN didn’t think the opinion column she signed-off on in her school’s newspaper was at all controversial.125 The column, written by a sophomore, discussed some of the hardships gay students face when they come out, and advocated tolerance for LGBTQ individuals.  Shortly after it appeared, the teacher, who served as newspaper advisor, found herself fighting for her job.  

District officials, angered by her failure to run the article by the school’s principal before publishing it, suspended the teacher. They said this was not a first amendment issue but that the teacher had failed to follow the guidelines given to her by her principal for reviewing newspaper articles. “The way we view it,” said an assistant superintendent, “is the broad topic of homosexuality is a sensitive enough issue in our society that the principal deserves to know that it’s something the newspaper is going to write about.”126  The assistant superintendent believes the principal would have only asked for a few changes to the article.

The teacher did show her principal four stories about teen pregnancy for the same issue because she believed they might “cause a stir.”  She admits, however, that she didn’t show him the column on coming out because she didn’t think it would be a problem.  “There isn’t anything controversial about tolerance,” she said.127  

The principal has since decided that he will have to preview all articles for the paper and the district recommended that the English teacher be fired.128 While she waited for a decision from the school board, the teacher was put on paid leave and cited for insubordination, neglect of duty, and substantial inability to perform teaching duties.129

Despite the harsh reaction by the district, the teacher has received support from local and national groups alike.  A local chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbian and Gays (PFLAG) expressed disappointment with the school’s decision, and media advocates from the Student Press Law Center to the Society of Professional Journalists have all expressed their bewilderment with the school’s response.130  A month after her suspension, the teacher was recognized by American University’s law school and the Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project with their Mary Beth Tinker Award.  The award is named for the student who was suspended for wearing a black armband to school in 1965 to mourn soldiers killed in Viet Nam.

The teacher and the district eventually reached a settlement that included her transfer to a different school within the district, barred her from teaching journalism for three years, and required her to issue a written apology.131

Despite Precedents, Communities Still Fight GSAs
Though sexual orientation remains one of the most frequently debated and contentious issues in sexuality education, one area in which advocates have gained a firm footing is in the formation of Gay-Straight Alliances.  When these student clubs began popping up in communities across the country a few years ago, student advocates were often shut down by administrators unwilling to host such a controversial club.  Over the past five years, however, there have been numerous cases in which students have sued their school district and won the right to form a GSA based on the Equal Access Act of 1984 which states that school districts cannot restrict extracurricular clubs on the basis of “religious, political, philosophical or other content.”132  In fact, so many students have been successful that many school districts, fearing a lawsuit, do not even attempt to ban the clubs despite community protest. 

Unfortunately, this year we saw some dogmatic districts persist in trying to fight the formation of GSAs and restrict the activities of these student clubs.  District officials in Okeechobee, FL, for example, refused to accept legal precedent and are attempting to prevent students there from forming a GSA.  While this challenge to the Equal Access Act may concern some GSA advocates, they should take heart in the fact that the Okeechobee school district seems to be fighting a losing battle.

The controversy began in September 2006 when five high school students approached their principal asking for permission to start the new club.  School administrators denied the request; first saying that they didn’t allow any clubs, then that there were already too many clubs, and ultimately that a GSA ran counter to the school’s abstinence-only-until-marriage policy.133

The students sought the help of the ACLU, which filed suit against the principal and the school board in November claiming that banning the GSA violated the Equal Access Act.  In the months following the lawsuit, the conservative community showed its support of the district’s actions and disregard for the well-being of the students.  The students reported being harassed by their peers and overhearing a teacher who said homosexuals should die.  “I don’t think it’s right.  If they’re going to let that in school, it’s showing it’s okay.  In the Bible, it says it’s an abomination.  [A Gay-Straight Alliance] is not a message you want to give your kids,” said one resident who seemed to echo the views of many in Okeechobee.134

The school board also had the support of such groups as the Liberty Counsel, the legal arm of Jerry Falwell’s evangelical ministry, which offered to represent the district in the lawsuit.  The organization, however, quickly changed its mind and backed out because it was concerned that a win in the case might also restrict the access of Christian student groups to meet on school campuses.135

In fact, it was Christian conservatives who championed the Equal Access Act in 1984 in an attempt to secure the rights of Christian clubs to meet on school premises.  In recent years, courts have found that it grants these same rights to GSAs; students in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and Kentucky, among others, have secured the right to form GSAs at their schools.

Despite the outcomes of these previous court cases, the Okeechobee school board pressed on claiming that the GSA was a “sex-based” club and allowing it to form would violate the district’s abstinence-only-until-marriage policy.  In April 2007, a U.S. District Judge issued a preliminary injunction allowing the GSA to meet on school grounds during the duration of the court case.  The ruling is not a total victory for the club, but is a good indication of the final ruling.  In his decision, the judge rejected the district’s argument that the GSA is a “sex-based” club.136

Nonetheless, the school board decided to continue with the case and, in October 2007, even voted to explicitly ban any club that is “sex-based or based upon any sexual grouping, orientation or activity of any kind.”137 Though this seems like a blatant move against the GSA, because of the judge’s ruling, this new policy cannot be applied to the GSA, at least until the case is settled.  In the meantime, the GSA continues to be allowed to meet. 

In November 2007, lawyers for the school district told the press that the lawsuit could be settled if students agreed to change the name of the club.  The district’s lawyer said that one of the club’s members had suggested changing the name to ADAPT (Accepting Diversity and Promoting Tolerance).  The ACLU’s lawyer, however, refuted that claim saying that district officials, not students, were interested in a name change.  He said that his clients have already rejected the idea of the name change, “The students have made clear that the name of the club is important to them because it describes their mission.”138

Also, in November, a judge agreed to postpone the date of the trial originally scheduled for March 2008 until June 2008 to give the ACLU more time to prepare for the school district’s new strategy. 

Attorneys for the school board now say they plan to rely heavily on expert testimony in their attempt to ban the GSA from meeting on school grounds in the future.  Lawyers for the district have said that they plan to use four experts who will testify on the “negative health effects of homosexual sex” as well as the “serious consequences” of heterosexual teenage sexual activity including teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and “poorer emotional health.”  These experts, whose names have yet to be shared by the school board, will also argue that “homosexual lifestyle/relationships are appropriate topics beginning at college age” and it is important “to prevent contact by underage students with adult-only materials.” 139

The ACLU’s lawyer characterized this new strategy as “…the most rabidly homophobic response the school board could have taken,” and says that if the case goes to trial, he will ask the judge to “prevent witnesses from giving opinions that homosexuality is harmful.”  Nonetheless, he has asked for and received a later trial date to have more time to prepare for the testimony of these experts.140 SIECUS will continue to monitor the ongoing controversy and lawsuit. 

Officials in Currituck County, NC made a different decision when faced with a student’s request to form a GSA in September 2006.  The openly gay student believed that the club would foster an end to the discrimination that she faces in school. The idea was met with opposition from parents and religious leaders, who believed that a “sexually oriented” club would engender homosexuality in schools.  A pastor at a local church was among those who were against the GSA, “It just seems to me that it is very disturbing where we’ve come in society when something of this nature could come before us and be considered by so many.”141

Though many community members wanted the school to ban the club outright, district officials realized that the legal precedents were against them. One school board member researched past legislation surrounding GSA controversies and reported that there was no legal way to skirt the issue.142  As the student petitioning for the GSA said herself, “I’m not forcing anyone to go to this club.  But the First Amendment gives me the right to free speech.”143

The school board did, however, vote in new rules for all non-academic clubs.  The new guidelines state that non-academic clubs are not allowed to use the public address system, can only post announcements in designated areas, and will not be pictured in the yearbook.  Furthermore, students now need written parent permission to join any student-initiated non-curricular club.144  Though these rules are clearly designed to make it more difficult for the GSA to function, they appear to be legally permissible as long as they are applied equally to all non-academic clubs.

The controversy in Currituck County highlights two trends in battles over GSAs. As a result of the legal progress made in recent years, fewer districts, even those in the conservative South, are willing to go to court to ban a GSA.  At the same time, however, districts that begrudgingly allow GSAs to form frequently institute new parental permission policies and restrict the privileges allowed to non-curricular clubs.  While parental permission slips can make it harder for students who need the support of a GSA to access the club, these new policies do not run afoul of the Equal Access Act as long as they are applied fairly to all non-curricular clubs.  In most cases districts have used them to appease parents who believe GSAs encourage sexual activity.145

Despite these roadblocks, however, students in numerous communities across the country, aided by a supportive legal system, have managed to overcome the objections of administrators and community members and make their schools a more tolerant place by creating a GSA.  Their hard fought success is a good indication that, though it may take more time, we will soon see communities become more accepting and expand their sexuality education to include discussion of sexual orientation in much the same way programs have expanded this year to include other topics.

CONCLUSION

Over the last few years, many advocates have felt like they were fighting a never ending losing battle.  Despite the hard work of advocates and educators, the existing research, and the support of most mainstream parents, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs were thriving, more often than not at the expense of comprehensive sexuality education.  Thankfully, things have started to change.

Though they continue to receive vast monetary support from the federal government, abstinence-only-until marriage programs were the focus of numerous negative reports from the government, private researchers, and the media this year, which made them more vulnerable on the local level.  Emboldened parents made more objections, districts took criticism more seriously, and advocacy groups helped keep the pressure on.  Not every district involved in a controversy over its abstinence-only program reformed its ways, but the trend is certainly moving in the right direction.

Districts dealing with opposition to new, more comprehensive curriculum updates are also using this momentum to move in the right direction.  Some compromises were made, but all in all, programs include more information, teachers are allowed to answer more questions, and fewer materials are banned or censored.

In the 2006–07 school year we began to see the pendulum swing back towards more skepticism of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and more trust in curricula that provide students with the information they need to make the complicated decisions they face.  We hope that in the coming years, the delay in acceptance of LGBTQ students and families will diminish so that programming can be truly comprehensive.

References

1. Kate Brennan, “Ban abstinence-only group, parents say,” FloridaToday.com, 15 June 2007, accessed 18 June 2007, <www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070615/NEWS01/706150353/1006>.
2. Ibid.
3. See SIECUS’ information update on the report at www.siecus.org/info/info0006.html.
4. “Our view: A duty to inform,” Florida Today, 3 June 2007, accessed 12 June 2007, <www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/OPINION/706030322/1004>.
5. Kate Brennan, “Sex Education advisory committee meets,” Florida Today, 10 July 2007, accessed 10 July 2007, <www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070710/BREAKINGNEWS/70710006/1086>.
6. Kate Brennan, “School panel split on sex ed program,” Florida Today, 12 July 2007, accessed 17 July 2007, <www.flatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070712/NEWS01/707120337>.
7. Kate Brennan, “Board weighs sex ed strategy,” Florida Today, 8 August 2007, accessed 9 August 2007, <www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070808/NEWS01/708080382/1006>.
8. Marc Fisher, “Don't Gum Up Sex-Ed; Leave Instruction to Professional Teachers,” Washington Post, 15 February 2007, accessed 15 September 2007, <www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
   dyn/content/article/2007/02/14/AR2007021401477.html>. 
9. Eliza Kern, “MCPS bars Rockville Pregnancy Center from schools after critics attack gum-chewing game,” The Black and White (Walt Whitman High School Newspaper, Montgomery County, MD), 4 March 2007,
   <http://www.blackandwhiteonline.net/DesktopModules/Articles/Articles_Detail.aspx?x=
   WXHyHI6VMpA8m1ms%2BNa%2BpbpKvs3E7hAqG%2F%2F33AQaYaJBDZIWhbB
   CoEZmi4gDfeBHSrV8aKdOPOiiRX3ls%2B%2Ft3A%3D%3D>.
10. Fisher, “Don’t Gum Up Sex-Ed.”
11. Brian McNeill, “Groups tout opposing plans for sex education in schools,” Charlottesville Daily Progress (VA), 27 April 2007, accessed 30 April 2007, <www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP%2FMGArticle%2FCDP_
    BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173350971993&path=!news>.
12. Kris Frainie, Why kNOw Abstinence Education Program Teacher’s Manual (Chattanooga, TN: Why kNOw Abstinence Education Programs, A Division of AAA Women’s Services, 2002).  For more information, see SIECUS’ review of Why kNOw at <www.communityactionkit.org/reviews/WhyKnow.html.>
13. McNeill, “Groups tout opposing plans.”
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Michael Alison Chandler, “The Abstinence Shtick, Minus Jesus,” Washington Post, 13 October 2006, accessed 8 January 2008, <www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101201576.html>. 
17. Ibid.
18. Keith Deltano, Home Page, (2005), accessed 8 January 2008, <www.virginityrocks.com>.
19. Chandler, “The Abstinence Shtick, Minus Jesus.”
20. SIECUS Speaker Review: Keith Deltano “The New Sexual Revolution” or “Abstinence is Cool” (New York: SIECUS, 2007), accessed 10 January 2008, <www.communityactionkit.org/reviews/Deltano.html>.
21. Charlie Jackson, “Deltano Returns Over Objections to Promote Abstinence,” Leesburg Today, 11 February 2007, accessed 12 February 2007,
    <www.leesburg2day.com/articles/2007/02/11/schools/edt85deltano021107.txt>.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Michael Alison Chandler, “Christian Sex-Ed Lesson Criticized,” The Washington Post, 15 March 2007, accessed 19 March 2007, <www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
    dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031400013.html>.
27. Richard Wilson, “Guest speaker leads to note sent to Mason Middle parents,” The Oxford Press, 26 April 2007, accessed 27 April 2007, <www.oxfordpress.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2007/04/26/pjm042607schoolspeaker.html>.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Pure Love Club, Catholic Answers (2007), accessed 2 November 2007, <www.pureloveclub.com>.
31. Mike Taylor, “Abstinence assembly postponed at Bret Harte,” Calaveras Enterprise (CA), 8 November 2006, accessed10 November 2006, <www.calaverasenterprise.com/articles/2006/11/13/news/news03.txt>.
32. For more information see SIECUS California State Profile at: <www.siecus.org/policy/states/2006/mandates/CA.html>.
33. Taylor, “Abstinence assembly postponed.”
34. Lily Stoicheff, “Abstinence speaker stirs discussion,” Calaveras Enterprise, 16 March 2007, 19 March 2007, <www.calaverasenterprise.com/articles/2007/03/16/news/news04.txt>.
35. Ibid.
36. Bill Zlatos, “The sex debate,” PittsburghLive.com, 2 November 2007, accessed 6 November 2007, <www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/today/s_477553.html>.
37. For more information see SIECUS Pennsylvania State Profile at www.siecus.org/policy/states/2006/mandates/PA.html
38. Zlatos, “The sex debate.”
39. Sam Scott, “Group claims ‘abstinence only’ sex education books used in New Hanover are misleading,” Wilmington Star (NC), 27 December 2006, accessed 6 January 2007, <www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061227/NEWS/612270455/-1/State>.
40. Ibid.
41. For more information see SIECUS’ Curricula Reviews at www.communityactionkit.org/curricula_reviews.html and SIECUS’ In Their Own Words fact sheet at www.siecus.org/policy/in_their_own_words.pdf.
42. Scott, “Group claims ‘abstinence only’ sex education books used in New Hanover are misleading.”
43. Angela Mack, “Schools to get new abstinence curriculum,” Star News (NC), 4 December 2007, accessed 5 December 2007, <www.starnewsonline.com/article/20071204/NEWS/712040366/1004>.
44. The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Program (U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, December 1, 2004), accessed 8 January 2008, <http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf>.
45. Scott, “Group claims ‘abstinence only’ sex education books used in New Hanover are misleading.”
46. Jessica Marks, “ACLU: Sex Ed Biased in Hart District,” The Signal (CA), 5 December 2006, accessed 8 December 2006, <www.the-signal.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=34836&format=html>.
47. For more information see SIECUS California State Profile at: <www.siecus.org/policy/states/2006/mandates/CA.html>.
48. Marks, “ACLU: Sex Ed Biased in Hart District.”
49. Connie Llanos, “Abstinence message restricted,” Daily News (CA), 29 December 2006, accessed 5 January 2007, <www.dailynews.com/santaclarita/ci_4921322>.
50. Connie Llanos, “Parents: Sex class one-sided,” Daily News (CA), 2 December 2006, accessed 4 December 2006, <www.dailynews.com/santaclarita/ci_4762623>.
51. Ibid.
52. 
    Rick Holtz, “Board okays more sex education,” The Paper of Montgomery County (IN), 10 May 2007, accessed 16 May 2007, <www.thepaper24-
    7.com/main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=22&ArticleID=9827&TM=66095.53>.
53. For more information see SIECUS’ Indiana State Profile at <www.siecus.org/policy/states/2006/mandates/IN.html>.
54. Holtz, “Board okays more sex education.”
55. Doug Hunt, “Board hopeful of less teen pregnancies with new sex education course,” Journal Review (IN), 13 May 2007, accessed 16 May 2007, <www.journalreview.com/articles/2007/05/13/news/04sex.txt>.
56. Holtz, “Board okays more sex education.”
57. For more information see SIECUS October 2006 Controversy Report at: www.siecus.org/controversy/cont0045.html.
58. Allyson Bird, “Group Urges AIDS Education in St. Lucie Schools,” Palm Beach Post, 12 May 2007, accessed 24 May 2007, <www.palmbeachpost.com/search/content/local_news/epaper/2007/05/12/m1b_slsexed_0512.html>.
59. Ibid.
60. Cara Fitzpatrick, “As St. Lucie sex-ed plan advances, focus on condoms draws fire,” Palm Beach Post, 12 August 2007, accessed 13 August 2007, <www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/tcoast/epaper/2007/08/12/
    m1a_SL_SEX_EDUCATION_0812.html>.
61. Westbury, “Testimonials on need for sex ed in schools left lasting impression,” TCPalm.com (FL), 30 August 2007, accessed 4 September 2007, <www.tcpalm.com/news/2007/aug/30/30testimonials-on-need-for-sex-ed-in-schools/>.
62. For more information see SIECUS Policy Updates on Palm Beach County at: www.siecus.org/policy/PUpdates/pdate0244.html and Hillsborough County at: www.siecus.org/policy/PUpdates/pdate0216.html  
63. Keona Gardner, “Details on sex-ed curriculum in St. Lucie could be out by October,” TCPalm.com (FL), 29 August 2007, accessed 30 August 2007, <www.tcpalm.com/news/2007/aug/29/details-on-sex-ed-curriculum-could-be-out-by/>.
64. Shawn Lewis, “School: New sex ed will help keep kids safe,” The Detroit News, 20 June 2007, accessed 21 June 2007, <www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070620/METRO02/706200375/1003/METRO>.
65. Shawn Lewis, “Sex ed proposal stirs controversy,” The Detroit News, 30 May 2007, accessed 19 June 2007, <http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070530/SCHOOLS/705300378/1026>.
66. Lewis, “School: New sex ed will help keep kids safe.”
67. Lewis, “Sex ed proposal stirs controversy.”
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid.
70. Lewis, “School: New sex ed will help keep kids safe.”
71. Ibid.
72. Lewis, “Sex ed proposal stirs controversy.”
73. Suzanne Pardington, “Board OKs New Sex-Ed Program,” The Oregonian, 23 January 2007, 8 February 2007,
    <www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/116951732690540.xml&coll=7>.
74. Suzanne Pardington, “Sex Education to Push Envelope,” The Oregonian, 29 January 2007, accessed 30 January 2007, <www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/1170041111154270.xml&coll=7>.
75. Ibid.
76. For more information see SIECUS’ Ohio State Profile at www.siecus.org/policy/states/2006/mandates/OH.html.
77. Charles Peterson, “Granville schools OK Opt-In sex education program,” The Newark Advocate, 22 May 2007, accessed 23 May 2007, <www.newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070522/NEWS01/705220317/1002>.
78. Charles Peterson, “School proposal may add contraception unit to sex education,” The Granville Sentinel, 29 March 2007, accessed 10 April 2007, <www.newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070328/COMMUNITIES02/703290315>.
79. Peterson, “Granville schools OK Opt-In sex education program”.
80. Jason Gibbs, “Schools Argue Role in Sex Ed.,” Las Cruces Sun-News, (12 January 2007), accessed 29 January 2007, <http://lcsun-news.com/ci_4997836>.
81. Ibid.
82. Ibid.
83. Ibid.
84. Ibid.
85. Jason Gibbs, “School Board Takes Up Sex Education,” Las Cruces Sun-News, (30 January 2007), accessed 30 January 2007, <www.lcsun-news.com/ci_5115733>.
86. Jason Gibbs, “Board OKs State Sex-Ed Plans,” Las Cruces Sun-News, (31 January 2007), accessed 1 February 2007, <www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_5122925>.
87. “FBI to review claims that books used in Mich. school are obscene,” First Amendment Center, 2 March 2007, accessed 19 March 2007,
    <www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18234>.
88. Dan Meisler, “Controversial Books Cleared,” Daily Press & Argus (MI), 6 March 2007, accessed 19 March 2007, <www.dailypressandargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070306/NEWS01/703060318/1002>.
89. Jim Brown and Jenni Parker, “Feds Asked to Investigate ‘Obscenity’ in School Curriculum,” OneNewNew.com, 1 March 2007, accessed 8 March 2008,
    <www.onenewsnow.com/2007/03/feds_asked_to_investigate_obsc.php>.
90. “FBI to review claims that books used in Mich. school are obscene.”
91. Ibid.
92. Meisler, “Controversial Books Cleared.”
93. Ibid.
94. “FBI to review claims that books used in Mich. school are obscene.”
95. “Feds, state won't pursue obscene-book claims,” First Amendment Center, 11 March 2007, accessed 19 March 2007,
    <www.firstamendmentcenter.org/%5Cnews.aspx?id=18269>.
96. Anahad O’Connor, “‘Monologues’ Spurs Dialogue on Taste and Speech,” New York Times, 8 March 2007, accessed 8 March 2007,
    <www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/nyregion/08vagina.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin>.
97. Ibid.
98. Ibid.
99. Diana Costello and Susan Elan, “Cross River Students Suspended for Saying ‘Vagina’ at Open Mic Session,” The Journal News (NY), 6 March 2007, accessed 8 March 2007,
    <www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070306/NEWS02/703060363/1018#top>.
100. O’Connor, “‘Monologues’ Spurs Dialogue on Taste and Speech.”
101. “Students: ‘Vagina’ suspensions unwarranted,” The Today Show, 9 March 2007, accessed 16 January 2008, <www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17535427/>.
102. O’Connor, “‘Monologues’ Spurs Dialogue on Taste and Speech.”
103. “New York High School Lifts Suspensions of 3 Students for Using ‘Vagina’ on Stage,” Fox News.com, 13 March 2007, accessed  30 March 2007, <www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258645,00.htm>.
104. “School Video Featuring Gay Families Riles N.J. Parents,” 365Gay.com, 31 January 2007, accessed 1 February 2007, <http://365gay.com/Newscon07/01/013107video.htm> ; “Parents Upset Children Shows Diversity Take on Gay Parenting,” NBC10.com, 22 January 2007, accessed 31 January 2007, <www.nbc10.com/news/10817119/detail.htm>.
105. Todd Quinones, “Parents Outraged By ‘Family’ Video Presentation,” CBS3.com, 31 January 2007, accessed 31 January 2007, <http://cbs3.com/topstories/local_story_030235258.html>.
106. “School Video Featuring Gay Families Riles N.J. Parents”
107. “Parents Upset Children Shows Diversity Take on Gay Parenting,” NBC10.com, 22 January 2007, accessed 31 January 2007, <www.nbc10.com/news/10817119/detail.html>.
108. Quinones. “Parents Outraged By ‘Family’ Video Presentation.”
109. “School District Bans Diversity Video Because It Includes Gay Couples,” 365gay.com, 3 September 2007, accessed 4 September 2007, <www.365gay.com/Newscon07/09/090307video.htm>.
110. Ibid.
111. Ibid.
112. For more information see SIECUS Policy Updates at: www.siecus.org/policy/PUpdates/pdate0178.html
113.   Jon Ward, “Schools Expected to Defer on Sex-Ed,” Washington Times (DC), 10 May 2005, accessed 25 May 2005, <http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20050510-101925-2342r.htm>.
114. “Ex-Gay Group Sues School Board Over Pro-Gay Stand,” 365gay.com, 3 May 2005, accessed 11 May 2005, <www.365gay.com/newscon05/05/050305exGays.htm>.
115. Daniel de Vise, “Board of Education Approves New Sex-Ed Curriculum,” The Washington Post, 10 January 2007, accessed 15 January 2007, <www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901707.html>. 
116. Lori Aratani, “Foe of Condom Video Praises Revision,” Washington Post, 12 September 2006, accessed 14 September 2006, <www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/11/AR2006091101167.html>; Joshua Lynsen, “Revised Montgomery sex-ed program criticized,” Washington Blade, 15 September 2006, accessed 17 September 2006, <www.washblade.com/2006/9-15/news/localnews/program.cfm>.
117. de Vise, “Board of Education Approves New Sex-Ed Curriculum.”
118. Daniel de Vise, “Montgomery Starts Sex-Ed Pilot Program,” The Washington Post,” 7 March 2007, accessed 7 March 2007,
     <www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602331.html>.
119. Daniel de Vise, “Groups Take Fight Against Lessons to Court,” Washington Post, 3 August 2007, accessed 2 November 2007, <