Capistrano Board OKs Plan for Serx Education

The Capistrano Unified School District board voted unanimously Monday night to institute an expanded “family life” curriculum that includes sex education in the district’s schools.

The vote spelled defeat for a local group that has fought the curriculum for two years, contending that it will encourage sex, godlessness and homosexuality among children.

Members of the group, Citizens for Family Strength, protested outside the administration building as the board met.

The seven-member school board’s vote called for a pilot family life program starting in the fall at eight elementary schools, two junior highs and all four of the district’s high schools.

Anita Burkett, founder of the Citizens for Family Strength, said afterwards, “I felt like they (board members) have listened for three months and heard absolutely nothing . . . . They have paid no attention to what the community has said,” she said.

In the pilot program, family life materials will be incorporated into conventional subjects such as English and social studies.

Following the vote, there was applause from some of the 120 residents who packed the school board’s meeting room.

One resident who favored the decision, Eileen Fallman, criticized the curriculum’s opponents as not being representative of parental opinion in the district. She added that family life curriculum is widely accepted by other school districts, including one New Jersey school district in which she had taught.

Two residents who opposed the board’s action, Steve Young of Mission Viejo and John Barlow of Dana Point, said they plan to run for two of the three school board seats open in November’s election.

Barlow criticized the board for what he called a “lack of response” to the community views.

Supt. Jerome Thornsley, who favored the board’s decision, praised board members for their decision, which came after two years of board study.

The vote ended a controversy that began in 1983, when the school board decided to name a community task force to update the family life curriculum, which has been taught in junior and senior high schools in the district for nearly 10 years.

The task force, made up of parents, teachers, school administrators and local clergy, came up with topics and concepts to be included in the family life curriculum. The task force also decided at what grade levels various lessons --such as animal and human reproduction and information about drug abuse--should be taught.

Under the pilot program, elementary school students will learn about the life cycles of plants and animals. Junior high school students would learn about dating and how to resist unwanted sexual advances. At this level, students will begin to receive instruction in prevention of pregnancy and venereal diseases.

Although sex education is a major component of the family life curriculum, it is not by any means the sole topic. The expanded program also includes teaching elementary school children not to take medicines without parental supervision and warning high school classes on the dangers of drug abuse.

State law permits parents to remove their children from classes dealing with human reproduction and venereal disease. The Capistrano district will supply materials and train any parents who want to handle those lessons themselves.

Last June, after the family life task force issued its recommendations, the school board authorized a review committee of teachers and administrators to select texts and other instructional materials to meet those goals.

The committee finished its work in February. Since then, Capistrano board meetings have been scenes of near-pandemonium, as opponents of the curriculum used the public hearings to denounce the program.

Much of the furor centered on teachers’ materials. Opponents alleged that the curriculum would be used to drive a wedge between children and their parents, and would promote promiscuity and homosexuality. Russell Neal, president of Citizens for Family Strength, denounced the curriculum as “socialist, statist and anti-family.”

Neal’s criticisms of the curriculum ranged from its treatment of sex to lessons dealing with parenthood skills and family finances, which he said constituted an invasion of privacy.

Supporters of the family life curriculum, including the head of the local PTA and many students, argued that the courses are necessary to counter rising teen pregnancy and drug-abuse rates.

At the last board meeting, several of the components in the family life program that had drawn fire, including a teacher’s text that opponents said favored homosexuality, were dropped. Resistance to the curriculum did not slacken as a result, however.