Dexter school board hears hours of public comment on proposed sexual‑health curriculum; deliberation deferred

The Dexter Community School District Board of Education opened a public hearing on a proposed sexual‑health curriculum and heard extended public comment from residents, parents and former district committee members. Speakers voiced both support for an inclusive, medically accurate curriculum and opposition citing developmental appropriateness, single‑sex instruction and parental‑consent concerns. The board did not deliberate or take a vote at the meeting; it said deliberation will follow a second public comment period scheduled at the next board meeting.

Supporters said comprehensive, age‑appropriate instruction protects student health and mental well‑being. "Comprehensive and inclusive sex education is one of the ways we do that," said Jessica Feeley, a pediatrician and member of the advisory committee, arguing that instruction about consent, relationships and family diversity helps reduce bullying and supports students’ mental health. Feeley told the board she participated in lesson review and a district survey that showed students wanted more inclusive lessons and noted opt‑out options for specific lessons.

Opponents urged more restrictive scope and changes to delivery. Cynthia Wolf, a retired fifth‑grade teacher and district resident, said she opposed coeducational lessons and questioned the timing and detail of topics beginning in fourth grade. "I believe that parents are the primary educators of children," Wolf said, and said some material "robs our children of childhood innocence." Several speakers asked the board to reinstate an opt‑in process and to separate instruction by sex in elementary and middle grades.

Other residents said the curriculum appeared to emphasize gender theory and outside cultural examples. "Some of these videos were incredibly inappropriate in my opinion," said Austin Henderson, a parent who reviewed the materials. Multiple speakers urged the board to verify how the district chose materials, whether the curriculum complies with state requirements and whether community values were reflected.

At least two people who had served on prior reproductive‑health or advisory committees described past committee decisions to adopt an opt‑in approach and to limit the curriculum’s scope; one asked whether the district had returned to an opt‑out model. A staff member replied to a direct question during public comment that the district currently uses opt‑out enrollment for the course.

The board president read the district’s public‑comment rules at the hearing and reminded attendees that board members do not respond during the comment period; board members said they would listen carefully and follow up as appropriate. The packet for the meeting included board policy materials and an executive summary from the assistant superintendent and adviser. The board said a second public hearing is scheduled at the next meeting and that formal deliberation on the curriculum will follow that hearing; no vote occurred on the curriculum at tonight’s meeting.

The public hearing produced substantive disagreement about what belongs in K‑12 sexual‑health instruction, how and when certain topics should be taught, and whether the district’s current opt‑out policy should be replaced by opt‑in for certain lessons. Board members did not indicate a timetable for a final vote beyond the stated plan to deliberate after the additional public comment opportunity.