Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Curriculum Is a Go

The great news -- the Montgomery County, Maryland Board of Education voted 6-1 to implement the new sex-ed classes for 8th and 10th grades in the fall. There was passionate debate, beautiful oratory, glamorous heroes and angry villains: it had everything.

I want to get this news on the Internet, so I'm not going to go on and on about it. Steve Abrams, who recently claims to have switched from Republican to Democrat, voted against it. He seemed to be making the point that he was voting against it because the Superintendent had recommended a change after the board members had had their briefings. He didn't accuse the Superintendent of lying. He did say things about "political games" and "pressure" applied to the Superintendent and board, both in the meeting and in the halls afterwards. So there's politics? So he votes against it for that reason? He claimed to agree with the content of the classes, even the last-minute statement, but he voted against it because he was angry about the process. Tell your kids to thank him next time they see him.

Dr. Weast gave an eloquent speech, explaining why he had decided at the last minute to include the statement about homosexuality not being an illness. Waving his finger across the board table at Abrams, he pretty much struck everybody in the room dumb, I don't know how else to put it. It was one of those moments. (Of course, the cynic in me notes that there were cameras present from all the networks, and the lighting was perfect.) You'll want to watch that one again on streaming video, once they've gotten it up.

Aw, OK, I'm thinking about it, and I shouldn't be so cynical: Jerry Weast kicked ass.

One of my favorite parts of the meeting was Pat O'Neill's heartfelt and obviously unrehearsed remarks. Her homespun presentation always surprises me, she has a way of speaking that is conversational and colloquial, but there's no beating around the bush; she says what she means to say, clearly and with a ring of honesty that you can't fake, and her vision is clear. She was very effective today, sometimes referring to the obvious where other might have been afraid to; she was the only one to use the word "bigotry" and she referred to the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum by name.

I didn't see any CRC people around the boardroom when the board voted, which is interesting. They put out their press release and showed up in the morning hoping for press coverage, but when the real story broke they couldn't be bothered to be there.

A lot of people seem to think it's all over. Keep reminding yourself we have a State board ruling to wait for, and then the CRC has threatened to sue again in federal court, so we'll probably have to slug through that, if they have the heart for another beating.

This was definitely a big milestone, though -- let's give ourselves that, people. MCPS developed a new curriculum, evaluated it, tested it, and voted to implement it, all with the constant howling of the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum in the background. I think it was possible because the good people of the county stuck together and kept their sense of humor and kept on fighting the good fight.

In a rational universe, this would be over.

PS I'm sure I'll write more about this after I've had a chance to go through the video a little bit. It was a very rich lot of interactions, often emotional, some of it done on a high-wire without a net, some of it in the mud.

18 Comments:

Blogger Robert said...

PFOX sent out this press release about the MCPS BOE vote. I've written CRC asking them to take down the link to the teacher's email to PFOX (since I think it's an effort to "out" him and foster parent complaints), but haven't received a reply:

News Advisory: June 13, 2007
Contact: Regina Griggs, Director, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX)
703-360-2225 PFOX@pfox.org www.pfox.org

Montgomery County, Md. School Board finds “gay gene”
Violates State Board of Education’s Order

ROCKVILLE, Maryland – PFOX released this statement in response to the Montgomery County School Board’s approval of a new sex education curriculum for public schools:

“According to the American Psychiatric Association, there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological cause for homosexuality. But now the Montgomery County Board of Education has done what science and medicine could not do by declaring in its newly approved curriculum that homosexuality is “innate” or inborn. The board could not produce any factual evidence for what it will now teach students -- only political “pledges” and payoffs for last year’s school board elections as claimed by gay rights activists.

The board has demonstrated its bias and arrogance in ignoring the March 7, 2007 Order of Maryland State Superintendent Nancy Grasmick that states that the Maryland Board of Education will render a decision in July on the legal appeal of the curriculum. PFOX, Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, and Family Leader Network had filed an appeal of the proposed curriculum, citing factual inaccuracies and violations of state and federal law. The local board’s action in adopting a final curriculum without waiting for the state board’s decision as to the legality of that curriculum tramples on the rights of parents and violates the intent of the Superintendent’s Order.

In her Order, Grasmick cites the curriculum’s attempt to address harassment problems relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. PFOX has documented how the curriculum fails to provide instruction on tolerance of ex-gays -- a group that is the object of harassment encouraged by Montgomery County public school staff and students, a fact which the Montgomery County Board of Education does not deny.

When PFOX distributed flyers to the high schools urging tolerance of the ex-gay community, the faculty at multiple schools cooperated with Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) student clubs to oppose our message of tolerance.

A typical example was Winston Churchill High School where GSA students were allowed to place trash cans in the school hallways and carry trash bags labeled “PFOX” to urge all students to trash their ex-gay flyers. The principal, Dr. Joan Benz, stood by the trash cans to ensure that the protest against ex-gays would not be disturbed.

At Wootten High School, a gay teacher and co-sponsor of the school’s GSA club warned PFOX to stay out of the public schools, compared sexual preference to African-Americans’ skin color, and also compared PFOX to the Ku Klux Klan.

This discriminatory treatment is not corrected by the curriculum on teaching tolerance for sexual orientation because former homosexuals are not included in the curriculum. Why did the Board approve a curriculum that is supposed to teach respect for diverse sexual orientations when it excludes former homosexuals -- the only sexual orientation that is subject to intolerance by both students and teachers?

We wait for the Maryland State Board of Education to correct the failings of the local board and protect the civil rights of all groups, and not just gays, bisexuals and cross-dressers.”


To view the Montgomery County public school teacher’s emails against the ex-gay community, see

June 13, 2007 9:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"According to the American Psychiatric Association, there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological cause for homosexuality. But now the Montgomery County Board of Education has done what science and medicine could not do by declaring in its newly approved curriculum that homosexuality is “innate” or inborn. The board could not produce any factual evidence for what it will now teach students"

Completely factual and, yet, TTF is opposed.

That's an interesting fact, in itself.

June 13, 2007 5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"According to the American Psychiatric Association, there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological cause for homosexuality. But now the Montgomery County Board of Education has done what science and medicine could not do by declaring in its newly approved curriculum that homosexuality is “innate” or inborn. The board could not produce any factual evidence for what it will now teach students"

The lack of proof does not mean something does not exist - isn't that what faith is all about. Does this mean that in order for kids to be taught about God in school (even private schools), we first have to prove the existence of God? Are there any specific biological causes for "ex-gayness?" If not, then had the school board included it in the curriculum, I assume you would be spouting that it should be taken out.

June 13, 2007 6:05 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at June 13, 2007 5:49 PM

Anonymous, its just like being left handed, there isn't incontrovertable proof that its innate but only a fool would argue otherwise - ditto for sexuality.

Do you think your sexuality isn't innate?

June 13, 2007 6:36 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

And let's give Dan deVise of the Washington Post credit for his continuing clear and crisp reporting on this issue. If they've got to keep writing about this and feeding the frenzy, at least let's have people like Dan doing the reporting.

A-1, above the fold. Not bad at all, Dan. And thanks for putting "gender identity" in the first paragraph.

June 13, 2007 8:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous, its just like being left handed, there isn't incontrovertable proof that its innate but only a fool would argue otherwise - ditto for sexuality."

Illogic.

Handedness refers to which of two symmetrical bodily parts is chosen to perform the same task to the same object.

Sexual preference involves using the same body part to perform the same task to different chosen objects.

June 14, 2007 11:30 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

You are completely and totally ignorant of the most basic biological phenomena.

I hope you're not a product of MCPS.

June 14, 2007 12:02 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous, that's irrelevant. The relevant comparison is the desire to do things in a certain way. Handedness and sexuality are the same in that they are both an inborn desire to do something in a particular way.

June 14, 2007 12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You are completely and totally ignorant of the most basic biological phenomena.

I hope you're not a product of MCPS."

A thought-provoking analysis, Dr. Thanks for the contribution.

June 14, 2007 12:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Handedness and sexuality are the same in that they are both an inborn desire to do something in a particular way."

Handedness is about what to do it with. Homosexuality is about who to do it with. Neither is about a particular way to do it.

June 14, 2007 12:46 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous, by your logic having blue eyes isn't innate because unlike handedness its not about "what to do it with". "What to do it with" is irrelevant. The point is that there is no incontrovertable proof that handedness is innate, but just as with sexuality only a fool would argue that it isn't.

June 14, 2007 2:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous, by your logic having blue eyes isn't innate because unlike handedness its not about "what to do it with". "What to do it with" is irrelevant. The point is that there is no incontrovertable proof that handedness is innate, but just as with sexuality only a fool would argue that it isn't."

Randi, your logic is getting thinner and thinner.

Eye color is a physical characteristic shown to be determined by genes. Look up Mendel.

Handedness is an ability or, more precisely, a dexterity.

Sexual preference is just a choice about preferred direction of one's actions and pursuits.

June 14, 2007 2:49 PM  
Anonymous i said...

Your wife must be glad you chose heterosexuality as your own sexual preference.

June 14, 2007 3:21 PM  
Blogger Robert said...

Someone said:

"we first have to prove the existence of God"

I did a paper in college (I've forgotten for which class) on Anselm's ontological proof of the existence of God (from the Greek 'onto", to be or being). Anselm defined God as "that greater than which there is no other", i.e. God is the most perfect being. Since clearly some beings exist, any being which is greater than all others must have the attribute of existence, otherwise said being wouldn't be greater. Thus, God exists. QED.

I would include Anselm's proof in a comparative religion class, or even a class on Christianity, along with Aquinas, Augustine and all those guys. Fascinating stuff.

rrjr

June 14, 2007 3:30 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous, only bisexuals can be said to have a sexual preference. Those who are exclusively gay or straight do not have a sexual preference, they have a sexual orientation - they have no choice about what they feel, just as people have no choice over which hand is dominent.

June 14, 2007 3:32 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Robert, I read that proof for the existence of god in Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion". It doesn't make any sense to me, it just comes across as a total non-sequitor. It's like saying I define god as that which exists, therefore god exists.

June 14, 2007 3:37 PM  
Blogger Robert said...

Randi

I bought the argument when I was 18, but not now. Anselm's argument was essentially that if we can conceive of a perfect being, part of perfection is existence, thus our conception of perfection proves the existence of perfection. I would deny both the premise and the conclusion: I don't think we can conceive of perfection, and our act of conception doesn't prove that perfection is possible. But when I was 18, I very much wanted to believe in a proof of the existence of God, and our mind tends to lead us in the direction of our desires (that is, we believe what we want to believe to be true).

But anyway, I think it would make for interesting discussions in a high school class (somewhere other than Texas). BTW, did you hear about the right-wing kid who taped his teacher talking about atheism, and got the parents all riled up? Maybe addressing the possible existence and non-existence of God would be too controversial for most high schools; it's a shame, since students have such interesting ideas.

rrjr

June 14, 2007 9:08 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

I see Robert. No I didn't here about the kid that taped his teacher talking about atheism. If you've got a link I'd be interested in seeing it.

June 15, 2007 1:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home