Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Curriculum Transparency topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Parents urge Bend‑LaPine board to remove and review 'My Future My Choice' lessons for sixth grade

Bend-LaPine Administrative SD 1 · June 17, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Multiple public commenters told the board they lack clear, parent‑facing access to the My Future My Choice curriculum and urged the district to pause lessons 4 (SOGI) and 6 pending review, calling parts developmentally inappropriate for 11–12‑year‑olds.

Several parents used the board’s public comment period on June 16 to urge the Bend‑LaPine board to review and stop teaching portions of the My Future My Choice curriculum for sixth graders.

Marlene Hunchberger said parents technically can access the material but it is scattered across 807 pages and multiple slide decks and that there is no single, clear parent‑facing document showing exactly what students see. "Not access but clarity and not availability but transparency," she said, and urged the board to "stop teaching it until it's reviewed again, especially lessons 4 and 6." She added that some explicit lesson wording could not be read aloud at the public meeting because it would violate the district’s decency rules.

Sherry Frey, a former substitute teacher, said Deschutes County has seen a rise in homeschooling and attributed some departures to a loss of trust in classroom content. Frey identified lesson 4 as introducing sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) and said lesson 6 (titled "Postponing [redacted] Involvement" in the materials) explicitly instructs students on categories the commenter called inappropriate for 11‑ and 12‑year‑olds.

Debbie Allison echoed those concerns, saying the lessons are not prevention or safety instruction but instead amount to instructional exposure to sexual acts and identity frameworks that are not age‑appropriate; she characterized the material as "sexualizing" children and called it "grooming."

Superintendent Steven Cook thanked the speakers for their comments and noted the district had received letters from some speakers; the chair reminded the public that issues raised may be referred to staff for follow‑up and that the board generally does not respond during public comment.

Why it matters: The comments focus on curriculum transparency and age‑appropriateness for a sixth‑grade health curriculum; these are recurring concerns that can influence policy reviews and community trust.

What's next: The public comments were recorded and the chair and superintendent said staff would follow up; the board did not take immediate action to remove the curriculum during the meeting.

Representative quotes:

"There is no single clear parent facing document that shows the full wording students will see," said Marlene Hunchberger.

"Lesson 4 introduces SOGI ... to children who are still forming their basic sense of self," said Debbie Allison.