Insufficient?

Last year two groups sued over a sex education curriculum that had been unanimously accepted by the Montgomery County Board of Education. As a result of negotiations following a temporary restraining order, the school district is currently working toward developing a new curriculum, and toward that end they have asked a group of pediatricians to come up with something.

Last week a memo became public, sent by those doctors to the Superintendent of Schools. In it, among other things, they noted that they had reviewed various published curricula, including the previous proposed MCPS curriculum:

"We have evaluated the curricula for medical and scientific accuracy, clarity of information, appropriateness of age and developmental level, alignment with Maryland state curriculuar requirements, sensitivity, and balance. Based on these criteria, we find the previously approved revisions to the Grade 8 and Grade 10 curriculum on family life and human development to be insufficient."

We have heard several CRC members emphasize that last word, "insufficient," as if it proved their point.

The previous curriculum was evaluated for nearly two years by a 27-person citizens committee. You will hear the CRC and their allies whine that the previous citizens committee was anti-Christian, liberal, pro-homosexual, but it was very fairly composed -- right-leaning, if anything. For instance, it included members from:

• Daughters of the American Revolution
  
• Peoples Community Baptist Church
  
• Archdiocese of Washington
  
• Parents Against X-rated and R-rated Books
  
• Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX)
  
• Maryland Coalition Against Pornography
  
• Plus, an independent member who is now President of CRC

That's seven members out of twenty-seven who represented conservative interests. That's about the right mix for Montgomery County, which is overwhelmingly progressive -- certainly the argument that the committee was "stacked against them" sounds hollow.

But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about that "insufficient" quote.

Some of the conservative members of the committee wanted to include some strange stuff in the curriculum. They wanted to teach students that gay people can switch and become straight, just like that, that sexual orientation is a choice. They wanted to include all kinds of material that would put homosexuality in a bad light without adding anything to the educational content -- I believe they would agree that the idea was to try to influence students who found themselves attracted to members of their own sex to pretend otherwise, out of fear, shame, or whatever it took. They were adamantly opposed to the condom video, and wanted the schools to teach about chastity, not safe sex.

These members have tried to complain that the rest of the group outvoted them and didn't listen to them, but of course when more than a quarter of a group's members advocate a position, they have some effect. At the least they move the group toward a compromise position. No, the committee didn't decide to teach about "ex-gays," but they were very circumspect in other things. Wording was abstract and dry, definitions were terse, certain sexual behaviors were not mentioned or mentioned only in passing.

We complained here, even before the lawsuit, that the curriculum was conservative. It was a terrific first step, but not a big one. It mentioned homosexuality, and defined a few terms, and admitted that some families have two daddies or two mommies, but it was still ... very conservative.

And I would say that that conservative tendency reflected the presence of these members on the previous citizens committee. They didn't get their "ex-gays" and their chastity but they had their effect.

Now some pediatricians are looking at that curriculum, and have described it as "insufficient."

We never said it was above criticism, in fact, if you asked most TeachTheFacts.org members, we would say it didn't go nearly far enough. And I have the feeling that's what these doctors have decided, too.

We wouldn't have said "insufficient," because it was a sufficient step forward. We would've said "moderate," or "conservative," but we were pleased enough with it as a sign of progress. It said some things that needed to be said -- the other side said it promoted promiscuity and sexual experimentation, but of course it didn't do that, it just gave some much-needed facts.

Because the Fishback-chaired committee did take into account the conservative views expressed, because the committee was perhaps too fair, the resulting curriculum is being described as "insufficient."

OK, let's just see what these doctors propose instead. We should know pretty soon.