Textbook Wars Flaring Up Anew : Education: The battleground is health and sex education. Religious conservatives are attacking a framework for curriculum guidelines as promoting sexual activity and homosexuality.

California’s textbook wars, following controversies over history, biology and suitable reading materials, are flaring up on new fronts. The latest battlefield is health education and sex education, where new curriculum guidelines have been attacked by religious conservatives for allegedly promoting homosexuality and teen-age sexual activity.

A 94-page framework that would be the basis for new health education textbooks is being circulated for comment and will be the subject of a state Curriculum Commission hearing here May 27.

Much of the framework document appears to be non-controversial. It talks about the importance of good nutrition and exercise, points out problems caused by tobacco, alcohol and drugs, and urges that health education be the responsibility of parents and the community at large, as well as the schools.

The objections crop up in the areas of sex education and in the discussion of “alternative” family structures.

Under a section about family living, the framework says: “The term family here is used in its broadest sense to include not only the classic nuclear definition . . . but also the host of diverse living arrangements found in modern society. Blended families--created when parents with dependents divorce and remarry--have become increasingly common. Grandparent, sibling, relative or friend-managed families; foster parent arrangements; and households headed by partners of the same sex are all part of the contemporary scene.”

Explaining the wording, Glen Thomas, director of textbook development for the state Department of Education, said: “When we talk about the definition of a family, we mean all kids--literally all kids.”

“That’s not acceptable at all,” said the Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative evangelical group. “That’s a blatant homosexual ploy to change the culture. . . . They are assuming homosexual adoption, they are assuming a lot of married people are going to break up because of gender identity conflict, and they are trying to frame the issue in a way that is nothing but a recruiting tool for homosexuality.”

David Llewelyn, president of the Western Center for Law and Religious Freedom, said his organization objects to “other relationships, especially parents of the same sex being treated as equivalents of the traditional family.”

Not all religious groups are speaking with one voice. Al Miller, director of development for the Christian Educators Assn., another conservative group, said the framework was “basically sound.”

“They don’t encourage homosexuality,” he said. “They accept it as a reality of our society. I personally do not accept it but I recognize that it’s something we have to deal with--when you deal with the public schools, you have to deal with everything.”

Michael Hudson, vice president of People for the American Way, a constitutional liberties organization, said the committee that developed the health education framework “is acknowledging the reality that exists in society today and is trying to deal with the health needs of all families. It’s absurd to say that acknowledging reality promotes one lifestyle over another.”

The framework describes sexually transmitted diseases as a modern scourge, recommends abstinence as the best way for young people to avoid these diseases but also urges schools to teach “preventive strategies” to those who do not abstain from sex.

Sheldon was sharply critical of this part of the framework as well.

“They just tried to placate us by putting in abstinence, but what they really mean by ‘preventive strategies’ is ‘outercourse’ (sexual activity without intercourse),” he said. “What 15-year-old boy is going to stop with ‘outercourse’? He wants penetration. All he’s interested in is penetration. You think he’s going to stop at ‘outercourse’?”

Sheldon said objections voiced by the Traditional Values Coalition already have made the framework “much cleaner than it was” and expressed hope that further revisions would be made before the May 27 Curriculum Commission hearing.

Responding to Sheldon’s criticisms, Hudson, of People for the American Way, said: “It’s a real crime, if not a sin, in this day of people dying of AIDS, to deny reproductive information, including contraception, to our kids. Certainly abstinence is a good message but to think that will solve the problem of sexually transmitted diseases among teen-agers is more than naive.”

Religious conservatives are not the only critics of the new guidelines.

Justin Cunningham, chairman of the nine-member committee that worked a year to produce the document, said gay and lesbian groups, among others, “felt we hadn’t addressed their agenda enough.”

Cunningham, director of the Healthy Kids regional health center in San Diego, said the framework probably will be changed before it reaches the Curriculum Commission because it is too bland.

Dan Chernow, a member of the Curriculum Commission, agreed.

“I think the framework is too soft in its discussion of sexual diseases, homosexuality and some other subjects,” he said. “I don’t think it’s up to the level of other frameworks we’ve adopted recently and I expect some changes.”

The commission makes recommendations to the State Board of Education, which will discuss the health education framework at a meeting this summer.

If the document is approved by the board, it will become a guide to publishers who want to prepare textbooks and other instructional materials for California, which is the nation’s largest textbook market.