“When did we suddenly not trust local boards of education?”

The rhetorical question posed by Carol Rupe, a member of the Kansas Board of Education, demands the attention of all Kansas voters.

The issue was raised Wednesday after the state board once again dipped into the micromanagement of local school districts by mandating that districts obtain written permission from parents before enrolling children in sex education courses. The measure was passed on a 6-4 vote that followed the now-familiar split between conservative and moderate members of the board.

Board Chairman Steve Abrams, an Arkansas City Republican, sought to portray the decision as an issue of parental control, saying, “It’s about empowering parents; that’s the bottom line.” But the much larger issue involves the state’s attempt to usurp local districts’ control over curriculum decisions.

The crux of the measure approved by the board on Wednesday is to change the current “opt-out” policy for sex education classes to an “opt-in” requirement. Currently, any child can opt out of sex education classes if requested by a parent or guardian; the new policy would enroll in sex education classes only those students whose parents specifically give their permission.

Board members who favored the new mandate said it would force parents to become more involved in their children’s education. Opponents say the likely result is that children whose parents fail to get more involved – and, by extension, probably are less likely to provide any sex education at home – will simply end up getting information about this important life and health issue from sources far less reliable than a classroom teacher.

To take this whole issue a step further, board member Kathy Martin Wednesday declared her intention to seek board action to require districts to include nine consecutive weeks of “instruction in abstinence until marriage,” in order to retain their state accreditation. Presumably, students in a sex education class wouldn’t be allowed to “opt out” of the abstinence unit.

The issue here is not parental involvement; it’s already a simple matter for any parent who is paying attention to keep a child out of sex education classes or, conversely, make sure their child is in a sex education class. The real issue is taking authority away from the local school boards that are in a far better position than the state board to represent the interests of local students and parents. State mandates actually place decisions further away from individual parents rather than closer.

Board Member Sue Gamble, in fact, said the mandate violated the Kansas Constitution and “local districts can ignore this entirely.” Perhaps that is what districts will do, but it’s not a good situation when local districts find themselves in the position of openly defying the state board.

Local districts may actually find themselves caught between the requirements of a state board mandate and a state statute. A bill approved by the Kansas Senate and pending in the House prevents districts from using abstinence-only sex education programs or eliminating sex education altogether – a measure that seems in direct conflict with the state board decision. Legislators also are getting into an issue that is better left to local school boards, apparently because they don’t trust the state board to act responsibly.

The bottom line is that the Kansas Board of Education’s interest in imposing personal agendas on public schools is having an increasingly disruptive impact on local districts. The answer lies at the ballot box; Kansas voters need to stand up for local control of school curriculum.