105 Peavey Rd, Suite 116, Chaska, MN 55318
952-361-4931 www.edwatch.org - edwatch@lakes.com

April 12, 2007

Department of Education promotes graphic and offensive
sex education curriculum to teachers.

This picture of the Minnesota Department of Education table
at the February 2007 MN School Health Education Conference
shows the Minnesota Department of Education promoting
Comprehensive Sex Education Curricula,
"Reducing the Risk" and "Safer Choices".

Testimony presented Tuesday, March 27, 2007, in opposition to HF 615, mandating Comprehensive Sex Education on all public schools, grades 7 through 12.
By Barb Anderson, former teacher, with input from Gayla Bell, parent in the Eden Prairie School District

Some legislators have raised the question as to whether these materials are in actual use in the Minnesota public schools.  Brenda Corbin, health teacher at North High School in the Minneapolis School District stated on March 26th that she has used the Birds & Bees Project and she would use them again.
The Minnetonka School District also uses the Planned Parenthood-recommended Birds & Bees curriculum in presentations to youth.
West Suburban Teen Clinic, which receives funding from Planned Parenthood, uses the Birds & Bees Projects materials and speaks to health classes in Hopkins.  They teach and give to  students graphic and offensive materials all under the guise of comprehensive sex education.
Birds & Bees Project regularly presents their anti-abstinence materials to students every quarter for each health class at Eden Prairie High School
This is just the tip of the iceberg.  Bird & Bees Project works hand in hand with MOAPPP [Minnesota Organization on Adolescents Pregnancy, Prevention, and Parenting], Planned Parenthood and the school based clinics in Minnesota to bring in graphic comprehensive sex education to lower and lower grade levels.
Comprehensive sex education does not affirm family values and sexual morality.  The graphic and illicit detail of their various curricula such as Bird & Bees Project or Reducing the Risk is a disgrace. Giving multiple sexual options to kids is only producing more injured youth. Our teenagers in Minnesota are contracting more and more sexually transmitted diseases.  HPV is epidemic. Comprehensive sex education has failed and we do not need additional classes with this kind of teaching.  Please reject this bill to mandate comprehensive sex education.    

I have given previous testimony as to the danger of mandating the graphic and offensive content of comprehensive sex education as in Birds & Bees Project.  Briefly I will share highlights from two more comprehensive sex education curricula:  Reducing the Risk and Safer Choices.  Both of these are Recommended Curricula by MOAPPP and were on display in the MN Department of Education booth at the MN School Health Education Conference last month.

[EdWatch note: Rep. Neva Walker, the author of the bill to mandate Comprehensive Sex Education on all Minnesota 7th through 12th graders brought up the Executive Director of MOAPPP as the chief testifier on behalf of her bill, HF 615, when it was heard in the legislative committees. MOAPPP is the chief group behind HF 615.]
REDUCING THE RISK:  Building Skills to Prevent Pregnancy STD & HIV
  1. Reducing the Risk has been used in the Fridley School District for the past seven years.  The condom is the centerpiece of this curriculum.

  2. Responsible sex is either abstinence or sex with a condom. Both actionsto abstain or protect (page 2) are seen as equally valid choices. Minors having sexual intercourse (page 1) are viewed as participating in responsible alternatives for teenagers.

  3. Teachers are instructed to be neutral regarding choices.  The curriculum states (page 2), No judgment is made about which of these responses is best. Page 109 says, remind students that this information is for when they decide to have sex  The decision is up to themADno guidance.

  4. Gender-neutral names such as Lee and Lee, Taylor and Bobby or Chris and Pat are used in role-play lessons so the reader will not know if the partners are same-sex or opposite sex.  On page 19 the narrator says, Lee and Lee have been going out for three months, and although taking it slow, theyve been getting closer to having sex.  Theyre sitting on the sofa together.  Music is playing.  Lee and Lee begin to get down to some serious kissing and touching.    Sexual petting and mutual masturbation are not discouraged.  As long as a condom is used for protection, sexual activity is ok.

  5. Lesson plans include condom and foam shopping (page 119)encouraging students to discover locations, brand names, prices, whether condoms are lubricated, and whether they are plain or with a reservoir.

  6. Three forms of intercourse are presented as equivalent.  Page 123 states, Condoms made of latex provide good protection from HIV when used correctly and consistently during, anal, vaginal or oral sex.Condoms must be used from start to finish during every act of anal, vaginal or oral intercourse.

  7. Students practice visiting or calling a clinic (page 125), and even planning how to catch a bus or train from their school to the clinic.  Page 141 states, You do not need a parents permission to get birth control at a clinic.  No one needs to know that you are going to a clinic.
  1. Safer Choices contains same or similar comprehensive mixed messages.  Students can learn to say NO to having sex or NO having unprotected sex. (page 81)<

  2. The objectives (page 197) state that Students will be able to:  Describe the steps for proper use of condoms and Demonstrate the proper use of a condom.  Classroom lessons have students practice in pairs unrolling a condom over 2 fingers of their handstressing that they need to hold the condom at the base of the penis when the penis is pulled out of the partners body. (page 201)  On page 266 it states, Put the condom on after the penis is erect and before it touches any part of a partners mouth, anus or vagina.


House Authors of HF 615:   Walker; Greiling; Mariani; Erhardt; Clark; Tingelstad; Huntley; Slocum; Hansen; Murphy, E.; Solberg; Slawik; Anzelc; Hornstein; Laine; Thissen; Davnie; Benson; Ruud; Kelliher; Sertich; Loeffler; Kranz; Tschumper; Tillberry; Johnson; Hausman; Liebling; Hilstrom.

Roll call votes by members of the House Education Committee and members of the House K -12 Finance Division Committee may be viewed here.

105 Peavey Rd, Suite 116, Chaska, MN 55318
952-361-4931 www.edwatch.org - edwatch@lakes.com

EdWatch is entirely user-supported. The continuation of our research and distribution work depends upon individual contributors. Click here to contribute to our work. To subscribe or unsubscribe to this EdWatch e-mail service, mail to: edwatch@lakes.com. Put "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the SUBJECT of the message. EdWatch shopping cart here.