34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - Directions - (508) 222-7000
Home News Sports Features classifieds milestones services photos tvlistings cars jobs realestate subscribe
News

Parents may get veto on sex ed




Schools would have to receive permission of parents before teaching children sex education under a bill filed by state Rep. Betty Poirier.

Poirier, R-North Attleboro, said many sex education programs allow parents to "opt out" of a lesson they do not want their child to hear.

That, however, puts the onus on the parent, and some schools are not cooperative, she said.

Her proposal comes at a time when a Lexington man is in a legal fight with a school over his child being taught about homosexuality.

Poirier said she wants a law that would limit sex education lessons to children whose parents give signed permission for them to participate. "I think a lot of parents would have a great deal of problems if they knew what their kids are being taught," she said.

The bill would also require schools to make their sex education curriculum available for parental review and arrange for a meeting between the teacher and parents, if parents want one.

Poirier said the current method of allowing parents to opt out of objectionable classes does not work because students often do not bring the information home.

Some students do not let their parents know they have a right to opt out because the student would be embarrassed if their parents pulled them from the class, she said.

Poirier said her bill has become all the more necessary because of a health curriculum proposal at the Statehouse that contains "outrageous" sex information for young children.

She said she opposes the state mandating curriculum to local schools and objects to the explicit information in the health curriculum.

Poirier said her bill faces a tough time in the House because there is a lot of opposition to it.

 


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
View Comments » No comments posted. « Hide Comments

No agenda wrote on Feb 9, 2007 9:56 AM:

" I see nothing wrong with teaching the biology of sex in schools. A good knowledge of what you are doing and the consequences is important. That was the original purpose of sex education. However, many groups try to make this into a tolerance/diversity training program. Sex ed programs should not be about books like "Heather has two mommies", "Daddy's special Friend", "Gee I have a lot uncles that sleep over" (the last one is a joke, lighten up), etc that try to discuss all the aspects of human sexual behavior. Save that for the AP psych class. That being said, the teaching of the morality of sex and the different aspects of it (homosexuality etc) is up to the parents. The cannot abdicate this role to the schools or Mrs Clinton's village. "

dan k. wrote on Feb 9, 2007 9:23 AM:

" Keep up the defense of parents rights!! It's funny. The liberal types don't want the ten commandments in school because of a perceived conflict of church vs. state, but then when it comes to the teaching of homosexual sex practices, they think the parents are wrong when they don't want the state(school)to teach morals(church). By the way.. in case you want to know where to stand on the issue... The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Teaching that homosexuality is morally ok, could be validly construed as promoting a moral stance (make no law respecting religion), or one could reasonably present that the teachers are prohibiting the free exercise of the children who are raised into a religion that believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. And before people say Racist!, Homophobe!!, I'm looking at this thing neutrally, as law, through the lens of the Constitution. If folks believe that homosexuality is wrong, so be it. In America you still have the freedom to be stupid. You see it every day, it's called diversity of opinion. "


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
 or