By VERNON ROBISON
Moapa Valley Progress
Parents packed into a large auditorium at Las Vegas Academy on Tuesday, Sept. 29, to voice opposition to proposed changes in the way that sex education is taught in the Clark County School District (CCSD).
Around 500 people attended the CCSD Board of Trustees meeting to provide input on topics that have become controversial over the past year as CCSD officials have sought to update curriculum and policy toward sex ed. Public comment and board discussion went on for nearly seven hours.
Much of that time was focused on a single agenda item: a state policy which trustees technically have no power to change. Mandated by the state legislature, the existing opt-in policy requires written parental consent before any public school student can participate in sex education classes. In the meeting, school board members were considering a proposal to lobby lawmakers for a change from that opt in policy to a new opt out policy. This would allow all students to automatically be enrolled in sex ed training unless individual parents specifically said otherwise.
A solid majority of people commenting at the meeting urged board members not to take any legislative position other than full support of the current opt in policy. They represented a broad cross section of the community including Las Vegas inner city, various Christian church groups and suburban parents. Moapa and Virgin Valley parents were also well represented.
“According to your own numbers you are seeing 93.8 percent of those opt-in forms coming back at this point,” commented Amy Mulcock of Logandale. “In any other issue you would consider that statistic a huge success. Why would you get rid of something with that kind of effectiveness?”
In another comment, Erika Whitmore of Logandale pointed out that retaining the opt in policy would continue to fulfill a district goal of encouraging parental involvement.
“I want to be involved in what my kids are learning on this topic,” she said. “I want to provide that teaching at home. The responsibility for educating my kids is mine, not yours.”
Earlier in the board meeting, one of the trustees suggested a compromise whereby opt out could be established for secondary school students while opt in be preserved for the younger primary levels. But Logandale resident Lindsey Dalley refuted this idea in his comments.
“A child is a minor no matter what grade he/she is in,” Dalley said. “And a parent is a parent whether the kids are in elementary school, middle school or high school. The decision should reside with the parent.”
“No one loves my kids as much as me and my wife,” said Las Vegas resident Bryan Quest in another comment. “Parents have the right to educate their children according to their values. There have been some comments that we should keep values and morality out of the school system. That everything should be based on ‘facts.’ But that is a lie. Our very system and society is based on values and on morality. This curriculum will be based on morality one way or another; it will just be a question of whose morality it is going to be. So if you are going to teach my kids about sex it better be according to my morality.”
A smaller group of people at the meeting made comments in support of the district changing its policy to opt out. This group expressed concerns about the relatively small number of children who were being left out of sex education classes because of a lack of parent involvement.
Sarah Lemma, a parent and member of the CCSD Sex Education Advisory Committee made the comment that around 8 percent of Clark County students are in foster care and may not have an ideal home situation. She observed that this was a similar number to the percentage of students who are not turning in the forms.
“These are the children that I am here to fight for,” Lemma said. “An opt out policy would not take away any parents’ rights. But it would make sure that these students get the life-saving information that this material provides.”
Dr. Laura Reich, who introduced herself as a family therapist, pointed out that Nevada is one of only three states that has retained opt in on sex education. At the same time the state has the second highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation, she said.
“Why are we being like old-fashioned renegades here in Nevada?” she asked. “It is time that we address these problems. With opt in, we are saying that our at risk kids matter less. Why are these the throw-away kids that don’t matter?”
In the end, the board voted unanimously that the district not formulate a legislative strategy to seek a change to opt in.
Trustee Chris Garvey, in her comments before the vote, was careful to hold a neutral position on the subject.
“I am not willing to use one of the district’s bill draft requests on this issue at the legislature,” she said. “I respect the position of the parents who have spoken here tonight. But I want to be clear that I would not abandon the students that are being left out because there is no one that will sign their form. We need to develop ways of reaching out to them and bring them into the program.”
Trustee Linda Young emphasized the importance of parents being allowed to be involved in the sex education curriculum.
“Opt in gives parents a lot more than just a notice about sex ed,” Young said. “It is an invitation to come in and be involved.”
Young agreed that more needed to be done to engage children and parents who are considered to be in the at risk category. But she said that there were many steps that could be taken to do that before seeking to change opt in.
“We need to engage in a forward thinking discussion as a community on how to reach out to the kids and parents who are not involved,” Young said. “But it is not just the schools that should be doing that. It is an opportunity for us all to come together as a community and do what is needed to engage every child.”
Trustee Patrice Tew, who had made the motion to not pursue a change to opt in, said that there was really no need to have this issue end with perceived winners or losers. Rather the district could employ new techniques that could give both sides what they want. She said that the use of technology and blended learning could be a solution to the problem. These 21st century methods could allow for a menu of curriculum items that parents and students could opt into or opt out of, all while maintaining the basic standard that is required by state law to be taught, she said.
“With this hybrid of online learning and brick and mortar schools it gives kids and parents more options,” Tew said. “Parents can make the choice of what their kids should opt into. All of a sudden the parents are involved and there is a dialog with children on the various principles.”
Tew mentioned that she would like a task force formed to look into those options.
Trustee Carolyn Edwards, who has been vocal in her support of adopting an opt out policy, picked up on Tew’s suggestion and asked if the motion might include the task force to be formed. Edwards said that the task force could look at future blended learning options; but also it could weigh other opt in/opt out alternatives such as a tiered curriculum, opt in for elementary and opt out for secondary and other possibilities.
Tew said that the intent of her motion had been to keep any task force research completely aside from the district’s legislative position.
“I think that it is pretty clear that it is not some CCSD committee that we need to listen to on this,” Tew said. “It is the parents that we need to be listening to.”
