Over the past two years, the debate in our schools has shifted from critical race theory and diversity, equity and inclusion to sex education and gender identity. But these issues come from the same legislative act adopted March 1, 2021. Specifically, Public Law 2021, Chapter 32, titled “An Act concerning diversity and inclusion instruction in school districts,” reads,
a. Beginning in the 2021-2022 school year, each school district shall incorporate instruction on diversity and inclusion in an appropriate place in the curriculum of students in grades kindergarten through 12 as part of the district’s implementation of the New Jersey Student Learning Standards.
b. The instruction shall: (1) highlight and promote diversity, including economic diversity, equity, inclusion, tolerance, belonging in connection with gender and sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, disabilities, and religious tolerance; (2) examine the impact that unconscious bias and economic disparities have at both an individual level and on society as a whole; and (3) encourage safe, welcoming, and inclusive environments for all students regardless of race or ethnicity, sexual and gender identities, mental and physical disabilities, and religious beliefs.
This law, as well as similar laws passed in many other states, have triggered protests against critical race theory across our nation and garnered a significant amount of interest in our county in reaction to op-eds published in this paper last year, and in the several letters that followed.
Some argued that diversity, equity and inclusion was basically the same thing as critical race theory, just rebranded. Others argued that diversity, equity and inclusion had nothing to do with critical race theory, and that it was not being taught in our public schools.
But in 2022, the focus started to shift from critical race theory to instructions on sex education and gender identity, as the federal government and many state governments set course on an agenda aimed at introducing sex education into the early elementary school grades and in teaching children about sexual orientation and gender identity.
This has followed a nationwide trend in which a man can identify as a woman and compete in women’s athletics, and to make it politically incorrect to assume the use of pronouns. So they decided to require curricula in schools, starting in grades as early as kindergarten, geared toward teaching children about sex, reproductive systems, identifying parts of the anatomy, and gender identification.
Although the New Jersey law was passed in 2021, the state Department of Education had previously adopted Comprehensive Health and Physical Education Standards in 2020, which outlined the core ideas and performance expectations for all school districts in the State of New Jersey.
These included core ideas that were deemed necessary for understanding personal growth and development, and social and sexual health. Among the performance expectations was to discuss the range of ways people express their gender and how gender role stereotypes may limit behavior by the end of grade 2, explaining human sexual development and the role of hormones, with examples of sexual feelings and masturbation by the end of grade 5, and defining vaginal, oral and anal sex by the end of grade 8.
These standards correlated to the new public law that was adopted the following year. At a meeting of the Lower Township School Board in April of this year, the Board was urged by parents to reject any type of sex education as required by the standards, but they pledged to those attending that they would not include these performance expectations or any material that was not age-appropriate in the curriculum.
They then proceeded to approve the purchase of lesson materials called “The Great Body Shop” to be used for satisfying the requirements of the state Department of Education pertaining to the standards.
The underlying question is “who exactly controls what is being taught in our public schools?”
Historically, our public school system was based on a principle of in loco parentis, which is a Latin term that means “in the place of the parent.” Our nation was not founded with a view toward public education, and in the formative years, homeschooling was the method used to teach our children.
It was not until the demands of running a household and working grew that communities decided to pool their resources and hire teachers to educate their children. But it was the parents who set the agenda, following the principle of in loco parentis.
But things have changed over the years, as government became more and more involved in the education of our children. The state law referenced above seems to say that certain instructional materials are mandatory. However, an April 14, 2022, memo issued by the Department of Education states that “the State does not mandate curriculum,” and that “material adoption is a local educational agency (school board) decision.”
So why are school boards so reluctant to reject sex education and gender identification as part of the curriculum? It appears to have an impact on state aid, but this has not been confirmed by the Lower Township School Board.
Although the Board members continue to say that they do not support the performance expectations, at the same time, they say they are working hard to adhere to the standards.
From The Great Body Shop mentioned above, here are some excerpts from the material, which is at the core of the controversy:
Grade K: Name reproductive body parts, using proper anatomical terms; list potentially unsafe body fluids to avoid.
Grades 1 and 2: Describe ways to prevent communicable diseases, including HIV and AIDS.
Grades 3 and 4: Define sexual orientation; identify the human reproductive systems, including reproductive anatomy and function; recognize differences and similarities of how individuals identify regarding gender and sexual orientation.
Grade 5: Demonstrate how to access sources of medically accurate information about human sexual and reproductive anatomy.
Grade 6: Identify various methods of contraception, including abstinence, condoms, and emergency contraception; examine factors that might influence condom use and other safer sex decisions; identify the steps to correctly use a condom; identify differences between biological sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity and expression.
And the Board is caught in the middle of a real dilemma. Do they just reject the standards and run the risk of losing state aid, or do they accede to the mandates of the state? The high wire balancing act is very difficult to maneuver.
Although the law is not clear as to the consequences of rejecting these state requirements, which we believe will be a loss of state aid, a future op-ed will provide more insight on this issue as it is researched further.
