Beaufort County advisory committee assigns reviewers for online high-school reproductive-health modules

The Beaufort County Health Advisory Committee on Monday introduced three new members and began a district review of two online high‑school personal health modules that cover reproductive health.

Cindy Ambrose, executive director of the Lowcountry Education Consortium, told the committee the consortium developed the course with partner districts and that "we have modules 6 and 7, which are the reproductive health modules," adding that those lessons must be reviewed by each district under state guidelines before submission to the State Department of Education. Ambrose said most videos are stored inside the course's learning-management system and "most of the videos came out of YouTube for education, and they don't have ads," though she cautioned that a few public links might show ads if accessed outside the LMS.

The committee is charged with vetting whether the modules are appropriate for local high-school students and aligning content to state objectives. Chair Amy Prior said the committee uploaded a spreadsheet that lists each lesson's name, its state objectives, and a comments column where reviewers should record questions, concerns or suggested edits. "So Module 6 is on Relationships," Prior said, and the spreadsheet will let members add line-by-line feedback without individually opening each course page.

Members divided the review work across the two modules. Prior assigned individual lessons in module 6 (including content on protecting oneself from abuse, healthy vs. unhealthy relationships, sexting and laws, and knowing who to talk to about reproductive-system health) and module 7 (topics such as pregnancy and adoption, contraception and abstinence, STIs and related definitions). Student member Caleb Singleton and teacher member Sandra Lembo were among those given specific lessons to evaluate for appropriateness for high‑school audiences. Prior asked reviewers to flag particularly sensitive items so the committee could consider who should teach those lessons.

Ambrose described the course's interactive design, noting features such as embedded videos, slide decks, short-answer prompts and drag-and-drop activities. She said the course was developed and reviewed by district subject-matter experts and has undergone at least two rounds of review; each district retains the ability to customize and vet the reproductive-health modules locally.

On timing, members discussed meeting again in June to finish reviews and allow district staff time in July to prepare the course for an August start. The group debated June 8 versus June 15 for the next meeting; members flagged graduations and scheduling conflicts and asked to receive the reviewer spreadsheet and instructions by email so they could begin work remotely.

Procedural business at the start of the meeting included unanimous voice approval of the agenda and approval of the Feb. 18 minutes. The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent after the chair called for a motion to adjourn. Prior asked members to continue recruiting a medical professional and a clergy parent to broaden the committee's representation.

The committee plan: members will complete line-by-line reviews in the shared spreadsheet, compile comments for committee discussion at the mid‑June meeting, and then forward the committee's recommendations to district staff for any further edits and for the State Department of Education review required by law.