Thursday, February 15, 2007

Parent Involvement

From yesterday's Gazette:
Parents blasted the county school system this week, saying that it moves forward with initiatives - ranging from the closing of secondary learning centers to the approval of a sex-ed curriculum - without properly involving them in decisions that directly affect their children.

School board members, faced with a constant barrage of letters and e-mails from parent advocates this year, counter that parents had ample opportunity to weigh in on issues during two budget worksessions last month.

The board held a daylong retreat last month where members discussed open communication with parents and advocates. During an informal breakfast with the school board last month, some County Council members said they hear about important initiatives from constituents before hearing from the board.

"Why do you think parents are upset for so many different reasons?" asked John Garza, new president of the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, which has fought with the school system over revisions in the recently passed sex education curriculum. "Parents aren’t included. There’s a feeling in the school system that they know what’s best for the children." School system leaves out parents, advocates complain

Ah, interesting: John Garza is their new president.

Let's see what else he's whining about this time:
CRC, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays and the newly formed Family Leader Network have filed an appeal with the Maryland State Board of Education, claiming that the county school board released factually inaccurate information and did not put out material for public review before unanimously approving a revised curriculum.

If the state board does not throw out the curriculum, CRC will sue the Montgomery school board, Garza said. "I just wish they’ll pick up the phone and say, ‘Let’s sit down and work this out,’" he said.

Oh, that's rich. Garza wishes the school board would call him.

Why would they?
Board member Patricia B. O’Neill (Dist. 3) of Bethesda, a member of the board’s communications and public engagement committee, does not agree with parents who claim they are not fully involved in school system’s decision making.

"People believe that if their opinion is not adopted, then they didn’t have input," she said. "Everyone in Montgomery County has their own opinion about everything."

Amen, sister.

Everybody has an opinion. And as long as everybody can negotiate and compromise, I'm sure the school district will be able to work with them.

The controversy in MoCo over the sex-ed curriculum is not that some parents are more conservative and others are more liberal. The problem is that the CRC insists that everything has to be their way, or no way. The problem is that they want to recall the board, and file lawsuits, and appeal to the state, when they are outvoted by the majority.

There are conservative parents in Montgomery County, people who are concerned about their kids learning too much too soon. And that's fine, everybody understands that, the trick is to find a balancing-point between what they want and what the more progressive parents, who are also more numerous in this county, would want. I think the school board and the citizens advisory committee have really succeeded at that, even with all the background noise.

Here's an example, here's the problem. After the citizens advisory committee had seen the school district's proposed condom video, the CRC member announced she would vote to adopt it -- but only if no changes were made. Well, there were things wrong with it -- misspellings, incomplete information, some production details -- and the committee did vote to change it. So CRC voted against it. The video was improved greatly by the committee's recommendations, but CRC was unable to compromise, unable to accept that the version they liked could be improved.

I don't know about other changes the district has been working on, special ed issues, mobile classrooms, Seven Locks, other things, but as far as sex-ed development goes, it has seemed to me that parents are pretty well integrated into the change process.

It doesn't bother me that the school district is staffed with professionals who are competent to see that our children are educated well, and it doesn't bother me that decisions are made inside Carver without a referendum by the public. Because the board is elected, members are motivated to serve the public. If they don't ... adios.

The school board notices when parents show a commitment, they hear the public comments, they read the emails -- but they are human, they recognize who the nuts are, too. Just because you write an email or talk to them about some gross sexual details, or just because you hold up signs at a school board meeting, doesn't mean you get your way. Sometimes you lose, and that's part of the process, too.

17 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obviously, the Board didn't seek parental input for the sex ed curriculum. The CAC was stacked. The average parent was excluded in favor of people whose views aligned with the Board. This is not what the authors of COMAR envisioned.

Garza as President of CRC will significantly increase the group's support. While Ms Turner did a great job and deserves the gratitude of parents, the truth is most evangelicals would not want to be active in a group headed by a Mormon. The theological differences have too many practical implications.

Another bad sign for TTF this week.

February 15, 2007 12:32 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "the truth is most evangelicals would not want to be active in a group headed by a Mormon. The theological differences have too many practical implications.".

That's hilarious. This is supposed to be about a sex ed curriculum, not religion. Obviously anonymous believes ultimately these people are primarily concerned with pushing their religion in the schools.

February 15, 2007 1:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny as it is, Randi, they have a worldview, based on their religious beliefs, which influences everything they do.

You never seem to be shy about sharing your religious views with anyone. Materialism has practical theological implications too.

February 15, 2007 2:22 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous, I've averaged about $5000 U.S. a year income for several years. I'm far less into materialism than you are I'd venture to say. I'm an atheist, I don't have any religious beliefs.

February 15, 2007 3:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's the definition of materialism:

"a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter"

A materialist can also be an atheist. Both are religious viewpoints. You are much more agressive is promoting these religious viewpoints than anybody you complain about.

February 15, 2007 4:50 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

I don't subscribe to your definition of materialism.
Religion is the belief in the magic being in the sky. I don't believe in magic, I have no religious beliefs. Atheism is the absence of religion.

February 15, 2007 5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don't subscribe to your definition of materialism."

Lifted straight out of Webster's, my friend. I didn't make up the English language.

"Religion is the belief in the magic being in the sky."

Here's the definition for religion:

"a personal system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality"

Atheism is the theory of ultimate reality you believe in. There is no real reason to decide conclusively that there is no God. It is a willful decision you made.

"I don't believe in magic,"

The belief that the universe had a beginning and a cause is accepted by virtually all scientists. The cause, by definition, would have to be outside of our physical universe. Thus, there is a reality beyond our physical universe. Call it magic if you want but it is something that is widely accepted.

"I have no religious beliefs. Atheism is the absence of religion."

No, that would be agnosticism, and who could really consistently maintain such a stance?

February 15, 2007 8:40 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

Johnny, Johnny, are you writing as Anon? Garza as president will increase the support in CRC? Well, bad news- buddy, wait until people find out your wife is the same as me- a JEW. What kind of good evangelical has a Jewish wife? Why we are virtually Satan's handmaidens, aren't we? Anon, you always make me chuckle with your inane comments. Kind of like Johnny at the Board meeting"WE LOVE YOU, BOE".

February 15, 2007 9:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well, bad news- buddy, wait until people find out your wife is the same as me- a JEW. What kind of good evangelical has a Jewish wife?"

Andrea, you don't know much about evangelicalism in the 21st century. Stop by services at a Messianic congregation next Saturday and enlighten yourself.

February 15, 2007 10:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do evangelicals let anybody in now, like the military?

February 16, 2007 10:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So...one of the anonymi might be Garza? Too bad...now I guess we will be subjected to more of his psychoneurotic babble because he believes he has even more credence as a "highly placed official" of a (bogus) community group? I'm sure the B.O.E., like readers at TTF, are wretching at that thought! And what moral integrity he has! An important public figure who doesn't even have the b...s to stand behind his name when he misuses this forum for his own sad, lunatic-fringe, and discredited ramblings.
Bob

February 16, 2007 10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He's beat you guys before, Bob. And I don't think he's stupid enough (unlike I) to comment here.

February 16, 2007 11:18 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

I said to anonymous "I don't subscribe to your definition of materialism."

Anonymous said "Lifted straight out of Webster's, my friend. I didn't make up the English language.".

I don't care where you got it from, I don't subscribe to it as you stated it.

I said "Religion is the belief in the magic being in the sky."

Anonymous said "Here's the definition for religion:

"a personal system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality"".

No, I've got a Websters' dictionary and it says religion is "1. The expression of man's belief in and reverence for a superhuman power or powers regarded as creating the universe" - a magic man/being(s) in other words. I have no such belief in a magic man, I have no belief in religion.

Anonymous said "Atheism is the theory of ultimate reality you believe in. There is no real reason to decide conclusively that there is no God. It is a willful decision you made.".

I don't subscribe to any ultimate reality of how the universe came to be - I simply don't know and don't care. What I do know is that the theories given by any religion I've heard of are laughably preposterous.

The fact that we never see the supernatural in day to day life is a real reason to decide that it is highly, highly, highly improbable that there is a god. I don't rule it out altogether, but for all practical intents and purposes we can resonably assume there is no god.

I said "I don't believe in magic,"

Anonymous said "The belief that the universe had a beginning and a cause is accepted by virtually all scientists."

I don't know that that is the case and I wouldn't take your word for it.

Anonymous said "The cause, by definition, would have to be outside of our physical universe."

That's a non-sequitor - says who?

Anonymous said "Thus, there is a reality beyond our physical universe. Call it magic if you want but it is something that is widely accepted.".

Again, that is a non-sequitor. As I understand the theories of the big bang, it is all due to the properties of our physical universe. I don't accept your bald assertion that a reality beyone our physical universe is widely accepted. And that is not the magic I was refering to. The religious magic I'm referring to is the belief in stopping the sun in the sky, raising the dead, turning water into wine, making the blind see and the crippled walk without physical intervention, a few fish feeding thousands, the stars dropping from the skies and people holding them in their hands, Yaweh creating the universe in six days, life in paradise or eternal torture after death, etc. As to the specifics of the big bang/versus a steady state universe, I don't give a damn.

I said "I have no religious beliefs. Atheism is the absence of religion."

Anonymous said "No, that would be agnosticism, and who could really consistently maintain such a stance?".

No agnosticism is an uncertainty as to whether or not there is a god. As I merely consider the possiblility of a god highly, highly, highly unlikely (in the order of one chance in 1000 million or less) I am technically an agnostic or as Dawkins put it I am a defacto atheist.

February 16, 2007 2:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don't care where you got it from, I don't subscribe to it as you stated it."

I guess this is pretty much the end of this conversation. Who can argue with someone who makes up their own language? I thought we were speaking in English.

February 17, 2007 10:42 AM  
Blogger andrear said...

Sorry, anon, I am Jewish and I know "messianic" congregations are not.I see people like you won't be happy with a guy who has a Jewish wife. Like you weren't happy with Ms. Turner because she was LDS- gosh, that never even figured in my issues with her. Dishonest, misleading(divorced!!!- doesn't God have something to say about that), dense-yes- but LDS- more power to her.

February 17, 2007 10:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Like you weren't happy with Ms. Turner"

Who said they were unhappy with Ms Turner? I think everyone recognizes her accomplishments. I doubt few believed that, in Montgomery County of all places, that the liberal freight could be halted and yet she did it.

The only point was that many evangelicals would not want to be involved in a group defending biblical values unless the leader was someone who had a similar understanding of scripture. More might be encouraged to sign up with a group lead by someone who beliefs they understood better.

February 18, 2007 5:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Halted?"

If Ms. Turner succeeded in *halting* the inclusion of information about sexual orientation in the MCPS health education curriculum then what pray tell, was she "protesting" at the BOE meeting on January 9, 2007?

After the Settlement Agreement was signed in June 2005, former BOE member Gabe Romero got it right when he said:

"We put this little obstacle behind us and we're moving on so thank you very much."

Pat O'Neill got it right when she said:

"So we put this litigation behind us and move forward with the revisions to the health curriculum through our central office."

And Superintendent Weast also got it right when he said:

"There’s a provision in this agreement that says, ‘Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to diminish or enlarge the legal right of MCPS to develop, revise or implement curriculum, including curriculum that provides information on sexual variations and promotes tolerance of others regardless of sexual orientation.’

So that is a key component of this agreement. And we will be moving forward. I have instructed Dr. Lacey to move forward now, now that we have a signed agreement. Remember, this was two lessons 45 minutes each in length. And we will move forward on those two lessons..."


PTA

February 20, 2007 4:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home