DATE: Tuesday, August 5, 1997               TAG: 9708050066

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B7   EDITION: FINAL 

SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS 

DATELINE: RICHMOND                          LENGTH:   50 lines

LOCALITIES SOON MAY HAVE AUTHORITY TO SCRAP SEX ED STATE BOARD SAYS THE PLAN WILL GIVE SCHOOL DISTRICTS GREATER CURRICULUM FLEXIBILITY.

The State Board of Education is poised to make sex education in public schools optional, even though teen pregnancy among high school-age girls has declined since the program was made mandatory in 1988.

Pregnancies among 15- to 17-year-old girls have decreased from 7,364 in 1988 to 6,166 in 1995, the last year for which figures are available. The state board cited an increasing teen pregnancy rate as one of the reasons for requiring family life education classes nine years ago.

The board, which now consists of appointees of conservative Republican Gov. George F. Allen, is expected to vote Sept. 4 to allow localities to scrap the program and hire reading specialists instead.

``The change is being made to allow localities more flexibility,'' said Michelle Easton, board president.

``Some people might have expected this board to say we won't have (family life education) at all,'' she said. ``But instead we took a very moderate and reasonable position that allows localities to make this kind of decision on their own.''

A majority of speakers at four public hearings across the state on July 14 spoke in favor of keeping the mandate. The proposed change is part of a revision of the state's public school accreditation standards. The public comment period on the new standards ends Thursday.

``We're not opposed to sex ed, but there are components that are controversial and need to be dealt with on the local level,'' said Walt Barbee, president of the conservative Family Foundation, based in Richmond.

``What's good for inner-city Alexandria may not be good for Craig County. So why should a one-size-fits-all mentality be forced on everyone?''

Supporters of the program argue that making it optional would provide an opening for conservative activists who want to add restrictions, not flexibility, to current curriculum.

``We know that should this happen, there will be many localities that strongly believe in the family life education program and they will continue to offer it,'' said Cheri James, president of the Virginia Education Association.

``But we also know that there are other areas where parent groups will bring such pressure to bear, either on the (school) board . . . or board of supervisors, making it particularly difficult for some school systems to continue to offer this important information.''

If the proposal passes, some legislators already are promising to revisit the issue.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu