Thank you to the District for providing this comprehensive sex education curriculum! I hope the parents who have been misinformed or are upset get the information they need to make their own private decision about whether or not they want to opt out. In this day & age, I would rather my kids get information about this important life aspect from an informed school classroom discussion not a school recess rumor.

Why change what is not broken? The Sex Ed curriculum was fine as it was prior to this experiment! Please return to the original, the one offered and taught by the PAUSD Sciences teachers. There were no complaints then!
Please concentrate your efforts on finding a good principal for Gunn!!!

We didn't get any information from the article about WHO is objecting to middle school sex education. My opinion: if you move to Palo Alto because of the high ranking of our schools, then don't try to change the curriculum.

Some of the parents are just so used to getting their own way, and are so busy pushing teachers and counselors and principals around, that they have failed to absorb the fact that "sex ed" is NOT a requirement!

If they don't want their children to take this class, then don't let them take it. Plain and simple!

But how will they keep their children from asking the ones taking the class what they are learning? Place gag orders on all the other kids?

[Portion removed.]

This morning I have a consult with an experienced sex ed educator who teaches parents how to speak with their kids and cover all the issues. If people choose to opt out, I hope they will make the effort to ensure their kids learn what they need to know to have healthy lives.

My take on sex ed is yes it has to be there, but it has to be done in such a way as to take the pressures off the teens who are reluctant to have sex and get involved in parties, drugs, alcohol as being as normal and healthy as those who do decide to get involved in sex.

I don't get involved in all the materials out there, but I do believe that teaching the subject should be done in such a way as those who "want to say no" to sex until such time as they are in a stable, long term relationship, or mature to deal with the issue are validated. I don't want them being told that when they get to high school (or whatever right of passage) that normal teenagers do sex and they will be pressurized into joining that culture. Saying "no" is perfectly acceptable.

I would also like to find out more about what is happening in these high school bathrooms. I think that if girls and boys were punished for going into the "wrong" bathroom then a lot of potential problems would not occur. If somebody goes into the wrong bathroom for any reason then it is breaking down societal norms. A girls bathroom should be a place of refuge for a girl and being asked into a boys bathroom for any reason is a red flag.

So for all those parents wanting to opt out of sex education, what responsibility will they bear if/when their child becomes a rapist because they never learned about consent or becomes the unfortunate victim of rape?

What professional sex ed counselors? A church where the pastor was recently found guilty of years of child molestation? Or the church on whose field trip the Paly rapist found one of his victims?

Silicon Valley, the DA's office and Stanford have sorry histories in failing to prosecute and/or even acknowledge sex crimes. Shame on all of them. And [Portion removed.]

I think we are all pretty much aware of who the people are who object to sex education in schools.

The problem is that chances are good that, if they don't want their kids to learn this at school, they almost certainly aren't talking to their kids at home!

Unfortunately, this is how things are in their native countries and have been for thousands of years.

All the rest of us can do is hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

The real issue is the lack of openness. As usual, they reviewed and selected the vendor behind closed door. For strange reasons, they kept the materials secret from all parents and some of the staff. Typically, for a situation like this, most districts would bring in several vendors and review the materials in several open meetings. There are many educators and many curricula available in the Bay Area. Again, they rushed it and kept it a secret. Too suspicious.

It's the other way around. This was an opportunity to choose a curriculum that included education on consent.

Instead we got: "Board President Terry Godfrey, Vice President Ken Dauber and member Jennifer DiBrienza agreed that the now-controversial Teen Talk curriculum, taught to seventh-graders this spring by Redwood City nonprofit Health Connected, is appropriate, legally compliant and useful."

So, rather than taking this opportunity to address one of the causes of rape culture at our high-schools by leveraging this early education, the majority of the board simply went with the minimal requirement that met their legal obligations.

This board seems incapable of learning from its mistakes.

The current program does cover the important topic of consent, including the concept that intoxication may make it impossible to appropriately consent. My 7th grade boy went through it this year, and it's one of several aspects of the program we talked about at home.

We've been talking about consent and people's bodies being their own in age appropriate ways for a while now, which is probably why he thought to mention/discuss that particular aspect of the program to us, but other parts of the program are built to involve parent discussion as homework too.

@MSP

Of course it does. Is it the best out there? Does it cover it in sufficient depth? Are the additional resources re-enforcing it? How can we re-enforce it? Has this been prioritized? Are there better options?

You know, all the questions which would have been answered if they had treated this in the same way as any other curriculum approval rather than: "we'll do what we we're legally required to do and no more".

Given the current rape culture in the school high-schools in this district and the lack of community input, the board's attitude is appalling.