Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Hurray for These Moms

Some Montgomery County moms showed the power of persistence when they discovered something that was just plain wrong in their kids' sex-ed curriculum (the one that the CRC recommends), and got the school district to change it.

The Gazette had it this morning, though we'd heard about it earlier:
The county school system is re-thinking its definition of sexual abstinence after complaints from two parents that their children were receiving incorrect and even risky information in sex ed classes.

Karen Sees and Cindy Richards said the "contraception comparison chart" used in eighth-grade health class at Herbert Hoover Middle School describes three types of abstinence: No intercourse, withdrawal (ejaculation outside of the body) and rhythm (no intercourse during ovulation).

"Since when did the term abstinence change to include the two most ineffective forms of birth control possible?" said Cindy Richards of Potomac. "Here we have been teaching our kids that abstinence means not having sex, period. What kind of message is this [chart] sending?"

Sees, also of Potomac, first became aware of the chart while helping her son study for health class in late October. She said she immediately e-mailed her son’s health education teacher about her concerns.

"I’m all for teaching sex education, but I want it to be accurate information," she said. "I was told by my son’s health teacher that withdrawal and rhythm are considered abstinence because [sexual partners] are refraining from what they want to do."

Both Planned Parenthood of Maryland and the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington agreed with the parents that the definition was faulty. Parents slam sex ed material: Schools’ definition of abstinence undergoes review

Man, when you have the Catholic archdiocese agreeing with Planned Parenthood that something is screwed up -- you have definitely screwed up.
"Abstinence is when you’re not having sex, as simple as that," said Wendy Royalty of Planned Parenthood.

And Susan Gibbs, archdiocese spokeswoman, also suggested another correction for the chart.

"The use of the word ‘rhythm’ went out about 40 years ago when it was replaced with the term natural family planning," she said.

The MCPS chart dates back to the early 1990s, said Barbara Pearlman, MCPS coordinator for health education.

It lists a dozen methods of contraception with columns for how the method works, its effectiveness in preventing pregnancy, side effects, if it protects against sexually transmitted diseases and how it is obtained.

Each method falls under one of four categories: permanent (vasectomy), mechanical (condoms), chemical (birth control pills) or abstinence.

Yeah, if you talk to a kid about "abstinence," you really don't want to find out they were obeying you by withdrawing before ejaculation.

The story goes on -- it was not easy for these ladies to get these changes made:
Earlier this month, Richards and Sees began calling and e-mailing various school officials about their concerns.

Sees asked that more emphasis be placed on teaching students the pregnancy risk involved in withdrawal.

"I was told [by MCPS staff] that it’s too complicated to explain to kids that you could get pregnant [from withdrawal]. I said, ‘Too complicated? It’s one sentence, easily understood,’" Sees said.

Far more complicated was determining who within MCPS could authorize the change, she said.

"The [Hoover school staff] told me only the county could make that decision. Then the county [MCPS officials] told me they set the curriculum but have no control over how the schools implement it," Sees said.

But changes to the chart are in the works, said Brian Edwards, MCPS spokesman.

TeachTheFacts.org exists to support comprehensive, inclusive sex education in Montgomery County. A fine curriculum was introduced, with lots of improvements, but certain religious radicals were feelin' their Cheerios right after the 2004 elections and decided to try to throw out the school board and re-make the school district in their own image, using the new health classes as their lever to topple the status quo. They succeeded in wasting a lot of time and $36,000 in taxpayers' money, and delayed the new curriculum for a year.

This Gazette story points out something that should be part of any new curriculum, and that is that it needs to be extensible. These moms should have been able to submit a simple "trouble ticket" and have the district review it and act on it. They are clearly correct, this is no way to teach abstinence, and it needed to be changed immediately. But the schools and the district seem to have no real process for making adjustments.

Another thing that needs to be extensible is the condom video that was going to be part of the new curriculum. It was a great video, with tons of excellent information, but by the time it was due to be implemented, some of the information was out of date. The recommendation that spermicide be used, for instance, should be revised in light of recent findings that it can irritate the vaginal lining and increase the possibility of disease transmission. At our forum, one audience member pointed out a couple of other things that should have been included.

The CRC, and the Washington Times, opposed the video because it had a cucumber in it. They thought it was funny to talk about "veggie sex." That is the wrong approach, they just didn't like it because they didn't like it, and they complained about anything they could find. If they had suggested improvements, we could have moved forward in improving our kids' education, but no, they didn't want to improve it, they wanted to make fun of it and throw it out.

Sometimes people think of science as a set of facts. But that's not correct -- science is a way of improving knowledge, a way of learning, a process. That means it's always changing, and the new curriculum needs to allow for that. The current curriculum has been in place for fifteen years, unchanged, even though the world has changed a lot in that time, and medical and scientific knowledge have expanded amazingly. Look at how the status of gay people has changed in those fifteen years, look how many celebrities and leaders have come out and been accepted -- unthinkable, even a couple of decades ago. Look at the advances in genetics, in understanding the intricacies of our bodies and how they work, the changes in medicine that have resulted from that research, the advances in information technology and communication ... it's a different world now. It's changing, and as scientific knowledge changes, education needs to change along with it.

So we say, hurray to these moms who fought the system and won. And hurray to all the others who are fighting for a realistic curriculum for our Montgomery County students.

14 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Man, Jim, the first half of this made me think "Wow, Jim going to put up something we can all agree on and create some good feelings for the holidays."

Fat chance, uh? Then we've got to go on with the attack on CRC (glad we finally got your true position on that). Then, it's off to the races implying that science has made a whole bunch o' discoveries about sexual orientation that we need to teach to kids. Nothing new's been discovered.

The story does show how incompetent MCPS is in implementing curriculm and how habitually resistant they are to constructive criticism. The story those mothers told about trying to get changes made was so instantly believable. Whatever curriculum is implemented needs to be detailed and there has to be a policy to prevent teachers from ad libbing.

November 23, 2005 11:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said:

The story does show how incompetent MCPS is in implementing curriculm and how habitually resistant they are to constructive criticism.

*************

CRC and company did anything but put forth constructive criticism.
That is why CRC and company are labeled homophobic bigots. Things they have done from day one have shown that. Open your eyes....

"anon free"

November 23, 2005 12:20 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, the CRC is not interested in improving the curriculum, they want to eliminate it. It is not a matter of moving the center of gravity toward the right, what they want to do is put the full weight of the health curriculum on the extreme end.

Also, we could re-word your suggestion that "there has to be a policy to prevent teachers from ad libbing." Isn't that just the same as saying "there has to be a policy to prevent teachers from teaching?" What do you want them to do, read a script? No, they have to interpret and adapt in the classroom. They need to know exactly what it is that they're trying to teach, and then use their skills to help the students understand. We would not support a scripted classroom lecture, as you suggest.

JimK

November 23, 2005 12:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim K said...We would not support a scripted classroom lecture, as you suggest.

***************

How correct you are when the script CRC and company want would say abstinence only and teachings about non-existent ex-gays among their other wacky ideas such as that homosexuals are nasty beings in their eyes and would corrupt all children. How many times have we heard CRC and company imply that the curriculum is an indoctrination program while
homosexuals are pedophiles and worse?

"anon free"

November 23, 2005 12:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, the CRC is not interested in improving the curriculum, they want to eliminate it. It is not a matter of moving the center of gravity toward the right, what they want to do is put the full weight of the health curriculum on the extreme end."

You might want to try and see if you can go a week or so without mentioning CRC. Try and define yourself as more than the anti-Michelle Turner.

"Also, we could re-word your suggestion that "there has to be a policy to prevent teachers from ad libbing." Isn't that just the same as saying "there has to be a policy to prevent teachers from teaching?" What do you want them to do, read a script? No, they have to interpret and adapt in the classroom. They need to know exactly what it is that they're trying to teach, and then use their skills to help the students understand. We would not support a scripted classroom lecture, as you suggest."

Yes, you could reword my statement that way. The teachers of this county have repeatedly been shown to be irresponsible in their handling of this material. Probably, reading assignments with quizzes would be a better way to handle this and control disinformation in this area, which has life and death implications. If not, how would you protect kids from these "loose cannon" teachers?

November 23, 2005 1:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said


You might want to try and see if you can go a week or so without mentioning CRC. Try and define yourself as more than the anti-Michelle Turner.

and

Yes, you could reword my statement that way. The teachers of this county have repeatedly been shown to be irresponsible in their handling of this material. Probably, reading assignments with quizzes would be a better way to handle this and control disinformation in this area, which has life and death implications. If not, how would you protect kids from these "loose cannon" teachers?


***********

Maybe because all Michelle has in life is CRC and since she herself lives and breathes it..why not mention CRC and company as the homophobic bigots they are? That describes Michelle Turner as well.

Well anonymous how would you feel if sex ed was not taught at all?

I think that is where you are heading.

"anon free"

November 23, 2005 1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Jim.

If this error had been brought to the old CAC, I can assure everyone that we would have gone ballistic over it.

Let's all take a collective deep breath and enjoy Thanksgiving!

November 23, 2005 3:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've no doubt you would have put a stop to it, David.

Have a good one.

November 23, 2005 9:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"anon free" writes...or rather should I say emotes,

Maybe because all Michelle has in life is CRC and since she herself lives and breathes it..why not mention CRC and company as the homophobic bigots they are? That describes Michelle Turner as well.

Well anonymous how would you feel if sex ed was not taught at all?

I think that is where you are heading.


If "anon free" and others that share his/her views want to be taken seriously in the public square they need to stop the name calling. What exactly is a "homophobic bigot" anyways? Would I be a "homophobic bigot" if I stated in this forum that the average life span of a homosexual male is 42 years? Yet, in so doing, I would be merely repeating FACTual information for which there is considerable substantiation.

As to the allegation that those of us that support an abstinence directed curriculum would rather have no sex education if we "can't get our way"...to be honest, even before I became interested and involved (here in Fort Collins, CO) in the "sex ed wars" I was of the mind that in-school instructional time was limited, and really ought to focus on the task at hand: education. Sex education curriculum battles are not about education per se; rather, they are about competing and colliding worldviews and socio-political agendas.

Here is a thought that just came to me...develop two curriculums, one that is comprehensive and another that is abstinence. Then put those curriculums online and require each student to log in and complete one or the other of these curriculums. Even add a parental unit or log in that would require the student to complete part of the online instructional material in the company of a parent/gaurdian. (I know this is possible as this is the way my 16 year old studied to get her "learner's permit" to drive).

The advantages of this approach would be many...not least among the advantages would be the instructional time that would be now available for working on the basics: reading, writing and math. This advantage becomes even clearer with the testing mandates of the NCLB Act. Another advantage to this approach would be that parents/guardians would actually have to be involved in the process of their child's sex education (be it comprehensive or abstinence) as an active participant, rather than a passive bystander, reduced to signing an opt-in or opt-out form. And most importantly, it could substantially reduce the conflict over what should be taught as sex ed and thus maintaining wide public support for our public schools.

Are there problems with this approach? LOL...I suspect there are no shortage of problems. But, would it not be worth it to explore a way out of what seems to be a never-ending conflict where nobody is happy with the result, no matter the time or effort towards compromise?

Just a thought...

Sincerely,

Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO

oryssman@hotmail.com

November 24, 2005 4:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting again, Orin.I believe we already have that kind of online choice here, as I know that at least a few students have taken such a course.

Thanks for the compliment...and I am glad to hear that an online choice is available. Now perhaps such a choice ought to be expanded.

As to whether most high school students would choose to participate in sex-ed with their parents -- ROTFLOL.

Why this reaction? Though I disagreed with about half of her book, Sabrina Weill, the author of The Real Truth about Teens and Sex makes it clear that teens really DO want to hear it first from their parents (sorry, I can't find the page reference, but it is in the book...I was a bit surprised, yet felt "empowered" by such information).

The question of whether or not sex-ed should be taught developed back in the 50s when teenage pregnancy began to become a problem, as well as VD as it was called at the time. It was quite clear that parental education was not up to the challenge, so sex-ed was deeveloped.

Frankly I am not convinced...and see this more as an excuse and rationalization for political groups that have as much a vested interest in pushing American culture in one direction as Family Research Council and Focus on the Family do in the opposite direction. For anyone to posit that SIECUS and the Alan Guttmacher Institute are neutral parties in this educational dispute/controversy is to strain credulity to the breaking point.

It still isn't, so I believe we still need sex-ed, and I don't believe a small minority should dictate the issue. Should they have input, as they did on the CAC? Yes. Should their beliefs be determinative? No.

When the local county health department came into my 14 year-old's biology class, without my knowledge or consent and showed a video on human contraception they violated my rights as a parent to morally/ethically instruct and direct my children. And what did my daughter learn from such a video? She learned every method of birth control presently available. Oh, and she learned that "they really don't want us to het pregnant."

News Flash: put parents like myself in this situation enough times and public education will significantly lose the support they need, and frankly that I think they deserve.

As for NCLB, I consider that a terrible waste of time and a distraction. But on this blog debating that issue would also be a distraction.

No debate here...if I had my way it would be repealed immediately. I shudder to think what my education would have been like with teachers forced to worry themselves sick over getting test scores up.

"Reading writing and math"? Sure, but there's more to high school than those three. And there are many on your side who don't seem to be too supportive of reading in general.

Why I focus on those three is not that I am some kind of educational "fundamentalist" (though I think a some that frequent this forum might think differently), but rather because by any standard present day high school students, are not even mastering those basic skills. Is this the fault of the teachers? Might be in part, but it does not fully explain the problem. So, what is the problem? Too many distractions for students...

More writing? Definitely. More math we are getting, at earlier ages as well.

My high schooler brought home her school newspaper...the writing was so bad I could not figure out what the students were attempting to say...

The life span of gay men is not 42. I have no idea where you got that number, but I've heard it bandied about a lot from your side.

Then I would be interested in knowing what you base such an assertion on (friendly challenge here). As for me, if I recall clearly enough I first came across this figure while looking at Gabriel Rotello's Sexual ecology : AIDS and the destiny of gay men. I will need to double check this...

Whatever the life expectancy is now, it has definitely been increasing over the past 15 years.

Yes, it has, and at considerable cost to society...though I think the project is worth the effort. But is the effort genuinely appreciated?

The reason I ask this is because I have a subscription to and read The New Yorker magazine, and in an issue back in May of this year, I read an article that gives me pause. The article is online and can be found by going to the New Yorker here,
http://www.newyorker.com, and then search using the title of the article, HIGHER RISK and Michael Specter. And here is a particularly stunning admission (especially coming from a writer at what is clearly a magazine as much to the liberal side as The Atlantic is to the conservative side),

After years of living in constant fear of aids, many gay men have chosen to resume sexual practices that are almost guaranteed to make them sick.

Mind you, I did not come across this by reading some alert from the Heritage Foundation or some such similar group. I came across this because I have voracious appetite for good writing and a passion for reading.

Michelle Turner, unfortunately, comes across as a homophobic bigot (except with regard to her gay cousin).

What exactly is a "homophobic bigot" anyways? I mean our area recently played host to none other than Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas, who protested the funeral of a soldier killed "defending fags" (his words). Clearly, Phelps is homophobic and a bigot, but that still leaves us without a working definition, not to mention interested groups that would like to use their definition in order to silence, censor if you will, debate this issue.

That being said, not everyone who disagrees with me must be doing so out of bigotry.

Phew! That's a relief...I think.

But when people want to deny an entire group of people of their rights, and to legally permit discrimination against them as a group because of who they innately are, then that's bigotry.

So, what you are saying is this...that if a small segment of American society wants to radically redefine (and do so by judical fiat, rather than thru the legislative process) an institution such as marriage, and based upon the assertion of innate characteristics (an assertion that while not false, is highly problematic), the majority
should say and do nothing?

Anyone care to answer that?

Sincerely,

Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO

oryssman@hotmail.com

November 25, 2005 12:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana Beyer, M.D. writes,

The bottom line re: marriage is that expanding it to include same-sex couples will enhance the institution, and have zero emotional or social impact on the vast majority of opposite-sex married couples. No one has made a rational case that will not be the result; there's just the usual "end-of-the-world" hysterics that have been the norm since the end of the Dark Ages.

And how, with "marriage" extended to homosexual couples, will it be limited to them and heterosexual couples?

On what rational basis?

Ok, so you propose that we limit it to whatever any two consenting adults desire? Ok, that is fine...until you have a father that wants to divorce his wife and marry his adult daughter (since whatever any two consenting adults do ought to be of nobody's business). What then?

And to the best of my knowledge, sexual orientation is not considered to be an immutable characteristic. In fact, as I recall, sexual orientation is considered a continuum scale (0 to 7 I think), with a scale that runs from exclusively homosexual, say 7 to 0 which represents exclusively heterosexual. This conceptually explains the phenomenon of bisexuality, which would be represented as the middle of the scale continuum.

No one has made a rational case that will not be the result; there's just the usual "end-of-the-world" hysterics that have been the norm since the end of the Dark Ages

Oh, really? The rational case has been made by Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Professor of Politics and Director of the James Madison Program at Princeton University (not to mention others). You can also find some info about him here,

http://www.bioethics.gov/about/george.html

as well as a chapter in the book, Same-Sex Matters: The Challenge of Homosexuality, edited by Christopher Wolfe (Professor of Political Science at Marquette University). I checked Amazon.com and you can pick up a gently used copy for $12, and that includes shipping.

While I have never attended Princeton or Marquette, I am under the impression that they are not exactly bastions of "end-of-the-world" hysterics that have been the norm since the end of the Dark Ages.

So, truth be told, the case has been made, but as the old saw, hackneyed and quite cliche ridden expression goes, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." - John Heywood (c.1497-1580)

Sincerely,

Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO

oryssman@hotmail.com

November 25, 2005 3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana Beyer writes,

I don't understand why you, as a parent, get so worked up about this.

Since it is late here in Colorado and I have to drive down to Denver in the morning to pick up a car, this answer will have to suffice for now.

I get "worked up" over this issue for the same reason I suspect you get worked up about prayer or the Ten Commandment in the public schools, or Intelligent Design (which I oppose being taught as any sort of science equivalent), or any number of ways that so called right wing religious extremist attempt to influence public education.

I would be delighted to drop this as an issue...you leave your condoms at the school house door and I will leave my abstinence until marriage. Deal?

It's just nature, natural law as the Catholics like to say. You can't create sexual beings at age 11-13 and then expect them not to act on their natural desires until they get married at thirty.

"Create" you write? You can't be serious...thank you, I have gained greater clarity about the mission of Teach the "Facts" and it has more to do with assumptions about human nature and the development of character than it has to do with facts as you choose to call them.

Bottomline for me is this: I want my two daughters to learn about and develop good character. Such character is developed by way of discipline and self-control, not by learning how to use condoms to stop "sperm and germs". And just as I am certain you would not like it if I interferred with how you raised your children, I deeply resent any uninvited influence over my children.

I would welcome rational discussion.
Just as long as they happen to agree with your social and political opinions, no doubt.

Orin Ryssman

November 26, 2005 1:35 AM  
Blogger andrea said...

The only statement I want to address is the idea that if gay couples could marry -we would then be open to incestuous marriages or animal- human ones. Why would any rational person think that?( I do not count Rick Santorum as rational). Orin has said he has gay friends who have loving relationships-I do too and family as well- so why would you compare gay relationships- and the possibility of these others

November 27, 2005 11:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Orin emotes....Bottomline for me is this: I want my two daughters to learn about and develop good character. Such character is developed by way of discipline and self-control, not by learning how to use condoms to stop "sperm and germs". And just as I am certain you would not like it if I interferred with how you raised your children, I deeply resent any uninvited influence over my children.

***************

The opt out feature should work quite nicely for sex ed curriculum in this case if that is offered to your children and you want them to have no part of that.

But in case they do decide to have sex...they should know how to protect themselves.

"anon free"

November 27, 2005 7:52 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home