<p>It will be interesting to see how this plays out. </p>
<p>[California</a> school district sued over abstinence-only sex ed - U.S. News](<a href=“U.S. News: Latest Breaking Stories, Video, and Photos on American Politics, Economy, and Society | NBC News”>U.S. News: Latest Breaking Stories, Video, and Photos on American Politics, Economy, and Society | NBC News)</p>
<p>I thought it was going to be about Seattles math curriculum.</p>
<p>How can a District teach what is not legal under state law?</p>
<p>Interesting – this case is solely focusing on a state law. Unless the state law says that suits for violation can only be brought by the attorney general or something, typically parents do have standing to sue.</p>
<p>I am so not surprised it was Clovis. Back when I grew up in the Central Valley their dress code still didn’t allow boys to have hair below their earlobes.</p>
<p>It is difficult to comment on this without knowing exactly what the state law requires to be taught. It is certainly not inaccurate to teach that the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy and disease is by abstaining from sex.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or commit suicide.</p>
<p>I really can’t fathom why abstinence-only is taught in any public school district. It’s proven to be ineffective and it’s doing a disservice to our children. Health should teach ALL aspects of health which includes comprehensive sex ed. This really shouldn’t be up for debate IMO. If you’re going to teach health at all, you can’t just teach the parts that you like.</p>
<p>Found the CA State standards for health education. It requires that both of the following, among other things, be taught in 9th-12th grades:</p>
<p>
and</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:oSkSrN9LQokJ:www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/healthstandmar08.pdf+california+health+education+content+standards&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjluBRg4pONtUs6betAKaWxQnE7NzwhiUCysiv948HeZVig4_oDESR5-lvzytUkZcJnhkSXB4FUQWNIvssEm3pS3ozwpPIOtlWMRJdi8XKTTRLNxE7xiyKHFr9Z3nzMyp7kM9CS&sig=AHIEtbTX00BWo0nnmIU1_Kohl71w_Ffryg[/url]”>https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:oSkSrN9LQokJ:www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/healthstandmar08.pdf+california+health+education+content+standards&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjluBRg4pONtUs6betAKaWxQnE7NzwhiUCysiv948HeZVig4_oDESR5-lvzytUkZcJnhkSXB4FUQWNIvssEm3pS3ozwpPIOtlWMRJdi8XKTTRLNxE7xiyKHFr9Z3nzMyp7kM9CS&sig=AHIEtbTX00BWo0nnmIU1_Kohl71w_Ffryg</a></p>
<p>I didn’t see anything about being required to teach that sex outside of marriage is okay or not okay.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Schools shouldn’t be teaching this one way or the other, but I don’t see that being the issue here (at least not in the article). The point seems to be that they weren’t teaching comprehensive sex ed. You can teach comprehensive sex ed without making a judgement about whether or not sex outside of marriage is okay.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here it is in the article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is absolutely necessary to file suit. With all the excess cash CA has sitting around…what better way to spend it.</p>
<p>As a lawyer friend once so clearly stated…anyone can sue anyone for anything. It’s what makes a certain part of the economy go round and round…or is it round and down the drain. </p>
<p>Geez. How about we take the funds and PAY the PARENTS to talk to their kids.</p>
<p>Let’s start worrying more about the fact that the basic curriculum is so watered down to meet NCLB. Now THAT is something I’d love to sue about! Sex ed is really no different. Just don’t teach it if you can’t teach it right. And right means all the facts. Just the facts. The kids are gonna do what they gonna do so they might as well be safe doing it.</p>
<p>^ Here, here!</p>
<p>A method could be “effective” but unless it is likely to be applied, how is the success rate?
K-12 schools are supposed to be teaching accurate information that students can build on throughout their life. It should be taken into consideration that for some of those students high school graduation is the end of their
formal education. Even if they go for graduate school, unless they are in a medical field they are unlikely to ever take another health class. </p>
<p>In a time when syphilis is
ONE antibiotic away from being untreatable, isn’t it our responsibility to insure that they have the information they need to protect their health?</p>
<p>Sex ed is unique in that students in CA public schools can be exempt from taking it, even though it is required for graduation, if their parents file a form. I don’t think there is any other required course that students can get out of in this way and still graduate.</p>
<p>Which makes me wonder whether the Clovis district dilutes the course so that parents won’t opt their kids out of it, thus missing other valuable information.</p>
<p>How can you opt out of a requirement? Isn’t that like saying you need math to graduate, but it’s ok if you can’t divide fractions?
If you don’t want your kids to learn what the district is obligated to teach in public schools, homeschool them or enroll them in private school.</p>
<p>A very good friends son attends an alternative HS her in CA. One of the benefits is the ability to opt out of Algebra and still graduate with a full diploma. So yes, you can opt out of math.</p>
<p>^^ Wow, in Indiana one has to pass Algebra I, Algebra II, and geometry. The Algebra II, imho, is overkill and causes a lot of problems…especially in districts with poor math programs…like ours…</p>
<p>@emerald: not everybody has access or can afford private school. Homeschooling can be an even worse solution. Public schools are in an overall pitiful state.</p>
<p>@walker- that’s fine but that doesn’t mean the school district should sacrifice comprehensive health education because some people have moral objections to it.</p>