CRC Appeal is Wrong: Opt-out Does Not Preclude Graduation
Yesterday's CRC appeal to the state had a section complaining to the state school board that:
You remember, we already told you that The Examiner had that all wrong, when it reported that students who didn't take the course would not be able to graduate. The idea was absurd, and the school district immediately obtained a response from the paper.
A statement in the print edition (not online) of The Examiner said:
Now, I'll agree that isn't much of a "retraction," but I think that's as close as you get with these guys. It all turns on that word "implied." It seems to me they could have said "may have mistakenly created the impression," or "may have been misread as saying," or some other equally vague thing.
That was really the point of the article (the headline was Students required to take controversial sex-ed class), and it was dead wrong. But now they have clarified, MCPS is developing alternatives, and it was only "implied" that you need the classes to graduate.
Whatever, we know the CRC reads our blog, we know they knew better when they put that incorrect statement into their complaint. There's no way the school district can offer an option on a course and then not let a student graduate if they opt out.
How are state officials supposed to figure out what's a lie and what's true?
... Students are forced to sit silently ... or to opt out of class (which under state law is required to be an elective, not mandatory class, thus such an opt out is not realistic and precludes graduation) (See Exhibit V Washington Examiner Article, Dena Levitz)...
You remember, we already told you that The Examiner had that all wrong, when it reported that students who didn't take the course would not be able to graduate. The idea was absurd, and the school district immediately obtained a response from the paper.
A statement in the print edition (not online) of The Examiner said:
CLARIFICATION
Montgomery County Public Schools is in the midst of coming up with alternative lessons for 10th graders enrolled in the required health class who do not have their parents' permission for the three week unit including controversial sexual orientation subject matter. An article in the Jan. 16 Examiner implied that there will be no way for students to get out of that unit.
Now, I'll agree that isn't much of a "retraction," but I think that's as close as you get with these guys. It all turns on that word "implied." It seems to me they could have said "may have mistakenly created the impression," or "may have been misread as saying," or some other equally vague thing.
That was really the point of the article (the headline was Students required to take controversial sex-ed class), and it was dead wrong. But now they have clarified, MCPS is developing alternatives, and it was only "implied" that you need the classes to graduate.
Whatever, we know the CRC reads our blog, we know they knew better when they put that incorrect statement into their complaint. There's no way the school district can offer an option on a course and then not let a student graduate if they opt out.
How are state officials supposed to figure out what's a lie and what's true?
posted by JimK at 4:53 PM
7 Comments:
From CRC- assume everything is a lie and then dig to get the tiny bits of truth
That's what's called desperation.
Very soon, Montgomery County teachers will be able to tell the truth -- that there is nothing wrong with being gay, and that gay teens do not need to call some bogus, misleading liars like PFOX to "fix" them. They can just be who they are.
"They can just be who they are."
Let's also say that to the smokers, alcoholics, couch potatoes, cyber-porn addicts and those who don't like to do homework.
Anon, are you saying that there's something wrong with just letting couch potatoes and smokers etc do what they enjoy doing?
Is it your responsibility to "fix" them?
MH
"Anon, are you saying that there's something wrong with just letting couch potatoes and smokers etc do what they enjoy doing?"
No. I'm saying that schools shouldn't be telling them that it's a great lifestyle choice.
I don't there's anything wrong with letting gays above 18 do what they want either.
"Is it your responsibility to "fix" them?"
No. I also think if you discuss their situation, though, that students should be made aware that there are anti-smoking and time management programs available.
Anonymous said...
"I also think if you discuss their situation, though, that students should be made aware that there are anti-smoking and time management programs available."
Just like gay students what makes you think smokers ect. want to change? Ever occur to you that maybe they want to enjoy smoking or watching TV all day? Why would gay students want to go to "management" programs when they are already perfectly fine?
Nice design of blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home