Parent urges board to revise middle‑school human growth and development curriculum; advisory committee to present proposal in May

Rhonda Browning, a Sheboygan resident, told the Sheboygan Area School District Board of Education that parts of the district’s human growth and development curriculum are “simply pornographic” and asked the board to revise the materials and provide parents with opt‑out information and instructional videos.

Browning said she reviewed parts of the curriculum and could not find details on the district website about alternative coursework or the district’s opt‑out process. “I’m asking you to review the curriculum, send me the alternative classes, the opt out form, and the videos used in the 6 to 8th grade class,” Browning said.

The call for greater transparency comes while the board’s Human Growth and Development Citizens Advisory Committee is reviewing middle‑school standards and grade‑level priorities. Kaye Robbins, speaking in the committee report, said the group has formed subcommittees and will meet Feb. 10 at North High School; she said the committee’s goal is “to have the proposed middle school curriculum ready for the board in May.”

Browning told the board she had been informed that comprehensive sex education instruction is delivered over a short block (“only 10 days,” she said) but expressed concern about the curriculum appearing elsewhere across classes and over time. She also asked to see the specific learning materials used for grades six through eight.

Board members did not debate or vote on curriculum changes during the meeting. Instead, the advisory committee’s timeline suggests any changes would come through the committee’s May report to the board, followed by regular board consideration and possible policy or adoption steps.

The advisory committee’s work plan, as reported to the board, includes: convening topic subcommittees; reviewing grade‑level standards and priorities; and preparing a draft curriculum for board review in May. The committee also said it will solicit community members for its subcommittees and asked members to indicate which subcommittee they prefer.

What happened next: the board moved on to other agenda items; no formal action to change the curriculum was taken at the meeting. The board meeting packet and advisory‑committee notes were referenced in committee reports (details not included in the public remarks recorded).