SEX-ED BILL BLOCKED BY IDAHO HOUSE SPLIT

BOISE A split among Idaho House members Friday blocked at least temporarily a drive to repeal a rule critics say mandates sexual education in the classroom.

By a 10-8 vote, the House Education Committee opted to re-write a State Board of Education rule in order to spell out that sexual education programs will be devised and implemented by local school and community leaders.

The vote referred the issue to a three-member subcommittee.

Backers of the successful motion contended outright repeal would merely free the state board to write another rule mandating sex education in the classroom.

By passing their own rule, lawmakers would spell out their instructions to the state board and the schools, they said.

But opponents of the rule want the legislature to exercise its power to rescind it entirely.

They walked into the committee meeting with 10 votes to do so, but lost Republicans Frances Field of Grand View and Mel Richardson of Idaho Falls.

''When we keep adding to something they already have, we're just convoluting,'' said Rep. Herm Steger, R-Boise, architect of the rule repealer. ''We're not solving anything.''

Steger's ally, Rep. W.O. (Bill) Taylor, R-Nampa, added parents' groups that packed committee rooms each time the issue came up would not look kindly on the action.

''We're going to be stormed by patrons out there, as far as I'm concerned,'' Taylor said. ''It's going to be hard to control it from this point on.''

Almost on cue, Gail Bridenbaugh, a Boise woman opposed to the rule, accused Richardson of selling out in order to avoid a bloody floor debate.

''We will remember that,''she said. ''You're worried about your political career.''

Richardson contended he disagreed only on tactics, not the ultimate goal.

''I do not think we've deserted that at all,'' he said. ''I think we're implementing that in a way that's going to happen. I could give a damn about my legislative career. That has nothing to do with it. What we're talking about is to accomplish the purpose and this is a way to accomplish the purpose.''

The genesis of this controversy began in relative obscurity when the state board voted last June to require schools to provide ''comprehensive health education.''

In defining that program, the state board said the ''health curriculum shall contain instruction in substance use and abuse and the prevention and control of diseases and disorders, including HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.''

State board officials maintain how school districts provide that instruction is up to local school leaders and parents.

Muddying the picture, however, was a suggested course outline, prepared by the state Department of Education last July.

It infuriated some who felt it was too explicit.

For example, the guideline suggested instruction in human reproduction beginning in the third grade, classes about ''body parts, organs, functions of reproductive systems'' in the fourth grade and increasingly detailed courses including prevention of AIDS and sexually transmitted disease in junior high school.

Although some school districts adopted that program, it was not mandated from above, state education department officials said.

Moreover, the state board is poised to consider next month amending its rule to allow any parent to excuse her child from a specific class. The request would be in writing under the proposal.

And state board members may well follow up on legislative concerns by adopting language emphasizing that local school officials will decide the manner and scope of the health program, said Associate Superintendent of Public Instruction Robert E. Dutton.

A 21-year-old state law says the same thing.

Countered Steger, ''If this is indeed voluntary, why do I have to ask to get my child out of it?''

But Field suggested adopting a resolution spelling out local control rather than merely repealing the state board rule.

''We're not going to go out on the floor and cut ourselves to pieces,'' Field said.