Many people believe that the sexual education curriculums in the schools of Massachusetts are dictated by the state. When we wrote our story about the Nauset schools in our January issue, the chairman of that town’s School Committee, Truman Henson, told us that the state required them to do what they were doing. "Her issue is with the state," he said.

When we contacted the Department of Education, they did not respond despite many promises to do so.

Therefore, we went to the top and talked about the matter with James Peyser, Chairman of the state Board of Education. 

The Board finalized its "frameworks" for the curriculums of health education, which includes sexual education recommendations for all grades, during the fall of last year.

Massachusetts News--March, 2000

By Jarrett Conner

MassNews: We conducted a survey in which 92% of people in Massachusetts said teenagers should not be encouraged to be sexually active. Does the Sex Ed curriculum encourage teens to be sexually active?

Peyser: I can’t speak about specific district’s curriculums. The curriculum framework does not, I don’t believe. It does introduce subjects of sexuality and sexual activity and I don’t think that mere discussion of these topics encourages sexual activity. It is how they are discussed which is more important. 

The curriculum frameworks make repeated references to abstinence more often than any other element of the curriculum.

My short answer is that I don’t think the frameworks are encouraging sexual activity. The question is how are these things implemented at the local level. That is what matters more than anything else.

MassNews: We ran a story about a Nauset woman, Pat Stewart, who brought a report to her local school committee that raised concerns about the curriculum encouraging sexual activity. The response from their school committee chair was that there are potential problems with the curriculums, but her problems are with the state. That the frameworks permit things that the local school does not do. What is your response to this?

Peyser: The framework is entirely a guideline. It is not at all a requirement. There isn’t a test, thankfully. Therefore, districts are free to do, literally, whatever they want in this area. There is nothing in the framework that is mandatory. The framework tried to be as neutral as possible in order to underline the fact that specific decisions about curriculum are reserved for the individual school or district. So, again, I think the text of this part of the curriculum was designed to send as neutral a message as possible in order to allow communities to make their own call in terms of what is appropriate.

MassNews: If that is the case, why have the framework at all?

Peyser: The framework is called for in the statutes. Health education is a common subject across most schools and districts. So that it makes some sense to create some template from which schools can develop their own curriculum. It has a certain practical benefit as well as being responsive to the law. 

MassNews: This report on the Nauset schools accused the curriculums of violating the latency period between 6-12 when children are essentially asexual. Do you think the curriculum frameworks violate this latency period?

Peyser: Again, the frameworks certainly do not. There are no recommendations for specific materials in the frameworks. The decisions about content are made at the local level.

MassNews: What is the first step for a parent who wants to have a hand in shaping their local sex education curriculum. Where should they go?

Peyser: The first step is to understand what the local curriculum is. Go to the school principal or superintendent to get copies of the curriculum from them. This is all in the context of parental rights and parental notification. It is something that should be readily available.

MassNews: People should be able to get the sex education curriculum from their local schools?

Peyser: One would think so. I have not tried to do this. I don’t know how easy or hard it is. But it is hard to imagine that a district can comply with the parental notification law without having an understanding of what curriculum is and its basic scheduling. That is the first step. Sit down and compare the curriculum to the frameworks.

MassNews: But given the neutrality of the frameworks and the lack of actual standards for health education that you have described, citizens should get the curriculums and simply compare the contents with their own ideals and values, correct? They wouldn’t need to refer to the frameworks since they are only a guideline?

Peyser: The frameworks are a guide, not a requirement, so whether a local district health curriculum is or is not aligned with the frameworks is not really relevant.

MassNews: The Board is charged with establishing the process by which the curriculum frameworks are drawn up, correct?

Peyser: In the case of the health frameworks, a draft of it came to the Board and the Board rejected it. Board members and myself got involved at that point in trying to wordsmith certain pieces of it. That was done in June or July. The concerns of the Board were not focused on the reproduction and sexuality section, although there may have been some individual changes made there. Other issues such as group identity versus the individual were more central. The primary concerns of the Board were not around the reproduction and sexuality part of the curriculum frameworks as much as they were about the tone. As a result of those concerns there was fairly heavy involvement of myself and maybe one or two other Board members making changes to the draft.

MassNews: How were the original people who worked on the draft selected?

Peyser: I don’t know. I think they were volunteers, but I do not know how they were selected among volunteers. 

MassNews: Several of those people were members of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. Isn’t it a conflict of interest to a have an abortion and birth control provider creating health education curriculum?

Peyser: I am not sure that it is a conflict of interest. One would hope that there is balance on the committee. I don’t know that there was. 

MassNews: Were pro-family or pro-life groups consulted in the process?

Peyser: I don’t know.

MassNews: Some schools are employing pamphlets from the Centers for Disease Control which mock abstinence and suggest students should applaud one another for condom dexterity and creativity. Given that these things are going on, why hold the neutral framework up as an ideal? Why not use the framework to make a strong statement about what kinds of materials are appropriate and what are not?

Peyser: It has not been the pattern of our frameworks to discuss particular curriculum materials as being especially good or especially bad, particularly the latter. This is a text book case of an issue that needs to be resolved locally. People need to grapple with it locally and if the state tries to impose itself, not only is that going to lead to problems in terms of implementation at the local level, but is also one of those things where you have to be careful what you wish for. If you establish the state’s primacy in this area, that means whatever the statewide political winds yield is what you have to live with. It is a tricky area to get involved in because the repercussions may go well beyond the specific recommendations that may appear in a particular document at a particular point in time.

MassNews: You are saying that one Board could draft a curriculum that would please a pro-family group and it would be supplanted by one they disagree with only a few years later?

Peyser: Yes, they could enshrine that CDC pamphlet you mentioned as a required text. I think this is true across the Board and particularly true in these issues that are controversial and morally charged. I think it is more than appropriate for the state to be deferential to local control. 

MassNews: Is that clear in the frameworks? Is that what the frameworks say? 

Peyser: I don’t know. To tell you the truth, I don’ t know if the frameworks even address it, as I haven’t read them for that.

MassNews: Could the frameworks’ neutrality be used as endorsement of some curriculum ideas that are inappropriate?

Peyser: There may be something to that. In trying to be neutral, it means that you are opening a lot of doors and you are not closing off very many. So it is a potential problem. It is a relatively small bit of ammunition, regardless of which side is using it in a local debate, of the appropriateness of various curriculum materials or the curriculum in general. I don’t know that the state carries so much weight on these issues in particular. A kind of neutral document like this (although the neutrality may be open to some debate) isn’t the kind of thing that will turn decisions one way or the other.

MassNews: In the example of Pat Stewart, the frameworks were used to deflect criticism of the curriculum.

Peyser: I do think that communities need to confront the subject of sexual education. And communities will have to make a decision about it. In the background, of course, is the parental notification law which serves as a sort of safety valve in those cases where parents who have strong objections to the curriculum can remove their child. That is an important state protection that needs to be there so that majority decisions at the local level do not run roughshod over a minority which is holding strong beliefs. The question is, in part, to find balance between those two things – between the protection of the rights of those who may not be winning at the local level in terms of curriculum decisions and at the same time respecting the rights of the majority who are winning the local battles.

MassNews: What is the process by which a curriculum framework gets revised? Can any Board call for a new framework at any time?

Peyser: At any time the Board can change a framework. Ideally the Board would adopt frameworks and let them stand for a while rather than having them constantly in flux. The Board does have the authority to make changes at anytime.

MassNews: What would you see as a reasonable reason for an abrupt change in the framework?

Peyser: A framework would have to demonstrate to be completely irrelevant or mismatched with actual practice. To some extent, the frameworks are not intended to be a mirror of current practice, but if the frameworks are so out-of-line with what is going on in the schools or if they are totally at odds with what everyone else considers to be good practice, that might be a reason for revisiting them. Or if they prove particularly expensive, both monetarily or expensive in terms of the kind of change that is being required over a period of time. If we want to go from A to Z, and districts cannot reasonably go from A to F, it may not be in anyone’s best interest to hold on to a document that is beyond the capacity of the districts to reach.

MassNews: Is there a specific mention of condom distribution in the frameworks?

Peyser: I don’t believe so.

MassNews: Does the state have a position on condom distribution?

Peyser: We have not taken a position. 

MassNews: Can condom distribution to students be seen as anything but encouraging sex?

Peyser: It is obviously an enabler. The thing that I have had a hard time understanding about school condom distribution is that these products are widely available. It is not as if these things are in short supply or that students can’t afford them. There is no prescription required. I wonder why it is even a topic at all. I think free, anonymous, condom distribution in the schools is, at best, overkill given their availability in the marketplace.

MassNews: The Globe recently reported that chlamydia is on the rise, particularly among teens. For 15-19 the rate is 4 times that of the general population, and for black and latina teenage girls, the rate is 8 times that of the general population. Do those figures suggest that there is something wrong with the current policy?

Peyser: I don’t know the research that would or would not connect school condom distribution and sexual activity. I don’t know if it is a significant factor. I would not, however, put condom distribution as a priority for a school. I say that not based only on its potential effects on sexual activity, but also on the market reality that students who want to get condoms can do so.
 

RETURN TO FRONT PAGE