The second author of a report that has been posted at the Recall the School Board web site has written a summary of it, which I see is making the rounds of the conservative web sites. I will insert a few comments.

As Goes Montgomery County, So Goes the Nation?
The Story of how Social Policy Crept into a Sex Education Curriculum

By David Blakeslee, Psy.D

What are parents and educators to do when they are presented with a curriculum touted as "scientific" and asserts that it will help reduce the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases in adolescents and the incidence of bullying and harassment of gays and lesbians? Such was the situation for parents and educators when the Montgomery County School Board presented to them last month their Annual Report of the Citizen's Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development. The results of this two year project were about to be implemented county wide to 8th and 10th graders.

The author tries to imply that someone pulled a fast one here. In fact, a citizens' advisory group worked out this curriculum over a period of years. Then they submitted it to the Board of Education, who asked for revisions, which were made. The citizens' committee voted by a large majority to accept everything, and the school board's vote was unanimous.

The curriculum is still quite conservative. It teaches objectively about homosexuality, not that it is evil, but that some people are just gay. As a consequence, a group formed, with the aim of removing the entire school board. Those who had voted in the minority have now apparently decided that, since they were unsuccessful in forcing their hateful "family values" on the county from within the system, they would have to attack it from without.

Many parents were appreciative of the schools efforts to help protect and educate their children. They were concerned, however, that the actual curriculum designed during this two year process may have unintended consequences that would undermine the very purpose of the proposed changes. And so they decided to look closer.

This is pure fiction. The leader of the "recall the school board" group was on the committee. She and another committee member just didn't like the way the vote went.

What they found was a curriculum that makes five critical errors in sex education. In a recent report titled, Health Education as Social Advocacy, co-author, Warren Throckmorton and I critique the proposed curricular changes and examine problems in detail.

And we note that the "report" does not mention anywhere in its text who paid for thirty five pages of criticism.

First, the curriculum may present too much too soon. As in many schools, material is offered to 8th and 10th grade students. We have an observation and concern about this practice. Durex, the condom manufacturer, did a world-wide survey on sexual behavior and sex education. In analyzing their data, we came to a startling conclusion: there is a statistically significant linear relationship between onset of sex education and onset of sexual behavior. Simply stated, the earlier an adolescent is educated about sex, the earlier he is likely to engage in sex. This observation is so remarkable because it remains true across a worldwide tapestry of cultures which have different political systems, ethnic makeup and religious systems. This disturbing finding raises the provocative question: Are there unintentional negative consequences from merely the presentation of sexual education programs?

The change introduced in the eighth grade is that students will learn about homosexuality. Until now, the rule was that a teacher could only talk about it if someone asked. Now, kids will be taught that there are various sexual orientations, and will learn what they are.

In tenth grade, they will be taught about condom use, including a video that shows how to put one on. The statistics that Dr. Blakeslee forgets to mention in this section show overwhelmingly that knowledge of contraceptive techniques reduces the rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STD).

Second, adolescents are not adults. There is a growing body of research which indicates that the adolescent mind is undergoing a huge renovation: from thinking concretely to thinking abstractly. During this renovation, however, research suggests that adolescents process their decision making in a highly emotional and impulsive manner. Material in the curriculum which educates about condom flavors and creates an artificial line between sexual behavior of adolescents and high risk sexual behavior in adolescents overlooks this central feature of the adolescent mind. While this is not news to anyone who has one or was one, adolescents are predisposed to think and act impulsively when contemplating sexual behavior because that emotionally driven behavior easily overwhelms their compromised decision-making ability.

Blakeslee is here referring to the findings of a professor at Binghamton Univerity, who has done much research on changes in the brain during adolescence and their effects on behavior and development. When asked in email about the conclusions as they were applied by Throckmorton and Blakeslee, she wrote "How that relates to sex education -- or what should be taught in sex education (and when developmentally) --seems to be more a matter of interpretation. It could be argued that the more hard facts and strategies for dealing with emotional situations, the better armed adolescents would be..."

Third, biology is not destiny. When discussing sexual orientation, the curriculum is permeated by a world view which sees same sex attraction as determined by one's biology. This "born-that-way" position is used by advocacy groups to strengthen their arguments for civil rights in the current political climate. It is not a position supported by research into same sex attraction. Furthermore, the curriculum ignores a competing view in academia which holds that sexual attractions are acquired via an interaction of environment and temperament. Why would the Montgomery County school board present only one view on this topic when the actual research picture is so much more complex?

There is no serious debate in the scientific community. There is wishful thinking by some conservative groups, whose world-view remains consistent if sexual orientation is simply another choice that a person makes. An individual can choose whether to engage in sexual behaviors of any kind, there is no argument there, but in that place called reality, some people "just are" gay.

Further, his argument that the curriculum ignores the interactions of environment and predispositions is simply false -- he's hoping you won't read the report itself. A section called "Interactions Between Psychological and Physical Development" outlines a section on:

B. Factors Contributing to Sexual Identity as Part of Total Personality

1. Physical (genetic, anatomical)

2. Psychological

3. Environmental

4. Other

This clearly contradicts his argument.

Fourth, health education is not an appropriate venue for social advocacy. The curriculum cites resource materials which come from advocacy groups and completely overlooks peer reviewed scientific studies which present more educationally sound material. This is one of the saddest parts of the curriculum, because it so clearly undermines the most cherished value of every educational system: credibility. Credibility leads to trust and trust accelerates the learning experience by defeating unnecessary skepticism and cynicism. This is especially harmful to adolescents who are just learning to think critically. Why would Montgomery County allow their credibility as an educational system to be needlessly undermined by advocacy based education?

The minority on the citizens' committee wanted to include "advocacy" literature, too -- this argument is transparent. Would you object to some facts from the Heart Association if your child was studying the heart? There are groups who promote sex education in America and around the world, and they produce literature. Most of those groups try to teach tolerance, which is what this group can't stand -- our children may grow up thinking that homosexuals are just people.

This point cannot be made too strongly. Blakeslee and those who pay him believe in teaching social advocacy. They wouldn't mind if the school district taught that homosexuality was a disease, or a form of mental illness, or a sin. You can be very sure they wouldn't complain about that. They can't stand your kids learning that some people are gay, without also learning that it's evil.

Fifth, tolerance does not require distortion of facts. The curriculum, in an effort to teach tolerance completely obscures the overwhelming benefit of the two parent family. It defines family in a nearly meaningless fashion: "two or more people who are joined together by emotional feelings or who are related to one another." It implies that those who have significant concerns about the destruction of the family over the last 40 years are "intolerant:" The curriculum states: "American families are becoming more complex and the greater variety of households encourages open mindedness in society." There is no discussion of the significant and still growing body of evidence that shows that these "complex" and "various" households have significantly higher negative outcomes for children and women. This is education, in service of tolerance, becoming a vacuous exercise in social persuasion.

There are many kinds of families. Some homes include the grandparents, aunts and uncles and cousins; some homes have adults without children, for one reason or another; and some kids have two daddies or two mommies. It is impossible to see any real way that a gay couple threatens the traditional family.

And note, further, that the notion of a "family," as used by hate-groups such as American Family Council, is a pure fabrication. Look it up. The dictionary doesn't say how many people it takes to be a family.

A family is defined by love. Blakeslee's rhetoric, quoted here, is motivated by hatred of what it does not understand.

Despite recent attacks on abstinence education in the media and by politicians licking their wounds from the November election, recent data suggest that this type of education is making a difference. Teen pregnancies during the last ten years have declined over 20%. Furthermore, children who take virginity pledges delay their first sexual experiences by 3 years (from 16-19 years). Older children making decisions about sexual behavior is likely going to lead to more mature, responsible decision-making. Finally, significant risks for gay identified adolescents and young adults persist: although gay men account for only 2-3% of the general population, they account for 44% of the new cases of HIV. Maybe virginity pledges for gay identified adolescents will help lower the incidence of HIV for these vulnerable adolescents?

Yes. teen pregnancies are declining, and condom use is increasing. Coincidence?

Everybody on both sides of this debate hopes that their children have the good sense to abstain from sex in their teens years. But the facts are that approximately half of teenagers do, in fact, have sexual intercourse. We can't stop them, but we can teach them what to do so that they don't get pregnant or spread disease.

The sexual revolution has been a tremendous success for adults who did not contract incurable STD's and for publishers of sexually explicit material. For nearly everyone else it has had devastating consequences. Let us make sure that during this process of educating our children that we tailor our information to the tried and true and to the developmental needs of our children.

Somebody needs to tell this guy that the sexual revolution was a long time ago. It ran into a brick wall when herpes became epidemic, and rolled over and died with AIDS. Teenagers need to have information, so they can make the right choices, even when they're making the wrong choices. Maybe your kid is one of the few who gets the facts at home, but what about the kid that your kid is going out with?

David Blakeslee, Psy.D. is a Clinical Psychologist in Lake Oswego, Oregon. He is co-author, along with Warren Throckmorton, PhD is Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the College Counseling Services at Grove City College (PA) of the recent report, Health Education as Social Advocacy, which is available at _http://www.drthrockmorton.com/montgomery.pdf._
(http://www.drthrockmorton.com/montgomery.pdf.)

In sum, Dr. Blakeslee has a story he wants you to believe. It's right in the title -- he wants you to think that "Social Policy Crept into a Sex Education Curriculum." But no, that isn't what happened. The well-established processes for curriculum change were followed. After years -- literally, years -- of discussion, it was decided that the curriculum needed to be brought up to date. All the t's were crossed, the i's were dotted, votes were taken, citizen input was plentiful. The school board made the right choice, but some people can't stand it.

It is extremely important for the people of Montgomery County to take a stance against those who would force their narrow preferences on us. We need to support the board in this.