CRC: Up Is Down
In a recent TV interview, Citizen for a Responsible Curriculum president John Garza made a statement that piqued our curiosity. He said:
We did wonder what that was about.
Now the CRC has posted the results of that "study."
Mmm, you won't really be surprised.
They sent a questionnaire to students at Watkins Mill High School, one of the 10th-grade pilot schools, using addresses taken from the PTA student directories, and got back 61 responses. 32 were from students who had taken the classes, and 29 from students who had not.
Uh, this is not a hundred, like he said on TV. OK, faulty memory, happens to all of us.
But wait. According to school data, 12 students opted out at Watkins Mill, and 13 forgot to return permission slips. That's only 25. And yet, CRC is reporting data from 29 students who did not attend the classes -- a spectacular 116 percent response rate!
And only 32 of the 123 students who did take the classes returned the questionnaires. We would call that "sampling bias." Whatever, let's keep going.
Oddly, the CRC's report starts with Question 6. They say that before Question 6 they explained the term "reliable protection" as meaning highly effective protection - it does not mean absolute 100% protection, nor does it mean a reduction in risk where there is still the danger of a substantial risk of infection.
OK, so then ... man, this is a hoot.
Uh, so the correct answer, to the CRC is "No." In this they oppose every government agency and medical organization, they refute all the published data that do show that condoms do provide reliable protection in preventing infection from most STDs.
By turning the correct answer into the incorrect one, they can show that, as Mr. Garza said, "the kids who did not take the pilot program were better educated about sex than the ones who did."
Let us be clear about this. Granted, given the response rate these data have no credibility anyway, but ... the fact is, the students who took the classes, according to this report, were more accurate by nearly thirty percent, than those who didn't take them.
Next:
Now I'm going to do something nasty. I am going to go to a piece of literature that the CRC loves, that they have fought to have quoted in the curriculum. This is a report from an NIH Consensus Conference on the effectiveness of condoms for preventing STDs. The report says:
Is that unclear?
This is unbelievable. By saying that up is down, they can draw the conclusions that they want.
And the good news is, students who took the classes were ten percent more likely to know this fact. The other good news is, even 62 percent of those who didn't take the classes knew this fact.
The humorous news is, the CRC says up is down. By defining the consensus of the scientific and medical establishments as "false," they are able to align themselves with "truth," under their new definition.
Does anybody buy this? Apparently they mailed these results to a lot of homes, I can't tell who received it. What do you think when something like this comes in the mail?
Next, a tricky one:
This one is tricky because the correct answer is "Unknown." HPV only requires skin-to-skin contact, you can catch it from shaking hands with somebody, and well over half of Americans have contacted this virus at some time in their lives. The condom probably does protect against genital transmission, but it is hard to demonstrate using the usual research techniques because it spreads so many ways; generally it is not useful to think of HPV as a sexually transmitted infection.
More good news: the correct answer is "Unknown," and kids who took the classes got it right 25 percent more than kids who didn't.
These results are very impressive. Somebody needs to teach the CRC how to make up numbers that support their position.
That's all the give for "survey" results. The letter goes on for six pages of incoherent distortions of data and scary descriptions of sexually transmitted diseases, which you've heard before and I'm not going to repeat any more.
I have to say, fresh back from my trip to Europe, with a new perspective, a fresh point of view, and jet lag, that these guys -- the CRC -- never cease to amaze me.
Can you believe that this person, John Garza, who is a lawyer and should know that the truth will eventually come out, would sit in front of a TV camera and tell this to the world?
This isn't even sleight of hand, they don't try to make you think they're making sense -- they simply turn the truth around backwards and then try to tell you that the results of their "survey" mean what they want them to mean.
It may be that they really did get a 116 percent response rate for non-attenders and a 26 percent rate from students who took the class. Uh, no, that can't be. Well, let's say, it could be that they didn't make up these numbers totally out of their heads, but maybe some pranksters sent in some questionnaires, and these data roughly correspond with reality.
If that's true, then we can say happily that the curriculum worked -- the students who took the pilot test classes got the correct answers, by what appear to be significant amounts, more frequently on all three of these questions.
On the other hand, the indication is that they made up these data, just looking at the response rates. In which case, we have to ask, why didn't they make up data that really supported their point of view, instead of relying on an inversion of reality to make their case?
Well, we did a study at Watkins Mill after the first pilot and we sent out a questionnaire to all the parents there. We got back about 100 responses. About 60 of the parents whose kids took the pilot program responded and about 30 of the kids who didn't take the pilot program. And believe it or not, our, our, we'd be happy to share this with you, we found that the kids who did not take the pilot program were better educated about sex than the ones who did.
We did wonder what that was about.
Now the CRC has posted the results of that "study."
Mmm, you won't really be surprised.
They sent a questionnaire to students at Watkins Mill High School, one of the 10th-grade pilot schools, using addresses taken from the PTA student directories, and got back 61 responses. 32 were from students who had taken the classes, and 29 from students who had not.
Uh, this is not a hundred, like he said on TV. OK, faulty memory, happens to all of us.
But wait. According to school data, 12 students opted out at Watkins Mill, and 13 forgot to return permission slips. That's only 25. And yet, CRC is reporting data from 29 students who did not attend the classes -- a spectacular 116 percent response rate!
And only 32 of the 123 students who did take the classes returned the questionnaires. We would call that "sampling bias." Whatever, let's keep going.
Oddly, the CRC's report starts with Question 6. They say that before Question 6 they explained the term "reliable protection" as meaning highly effective protection - it does not mean absolute 100% protection, nor does it mean a reduction in risk where there is still the danger of a substantial risk of infection.
OK, so then ... man, this is a hoot.
Question 6. “When put on correctly and used consistently, do condoms provide reliable protection in preventing infection from most STDs?” The correct answer is “NO”.
PILOT GROUP: 84% answered “YES”, 16% answered “NO”.
Non-Pilot Students: 55% answered “YES”, 31% answered “NO”, and 14% answered “Unknown”. .
Uh, so the correct answer, to the CRC is "No." In this they oppose every government agency and medical organization, they refute all the published data that do show that condoms do provide reliable protection in preventing infection from most STDs.
By turning the correct answer into the incorrect one, they can show that, as Mr. Garza said, "the kids who did not take the pilot program were better educated about sex than the ones who did."
Let us be clear about this. Granted, given the response rate these data have no credibility anyway, but ... the fact is, the students who took the classes, according to this report, were more accurate by nearly thirty percent, than those who didn't take them.
Next:
Question 7 When asked: “When put on correctly and used consistently, do condoms provide reliable protection in preventing infection from “HIV” (the AIDSs virus)?” The correct answer is NO. (See discussion below)
PILOT GROUP: 72% answered “YES”, 25% answered “No”, and 3% said “Unknown”.
Non-Pilot Students: 62% answered “YES”, 21% answered “No”, and 17% said “Unknown”.
Now I'm going to do something nasty. I am going to go to a piece of literature that the CRC loves, that they have fought to have quoted in the curriculum. This is a report from an NIH Consensus Conference on the effectiveness of condoms for preventing STDs. The report says:
The published data documenting effectiveness of the male condom were strongest for HIV. The Panel concluded that, based on a meta-analysis of published studies “always” users of the male condom significantly reduced the risk of HIV infection in men and women.
Is that unclear?
This is unbelievable. By saying that up is down, they can draw the conclusions that they want.
And the good news is, students who took the classes were ten percent more likely to know this fact. The other good news is, even 62 percent of those who didn't take the classes knew this fact.
The humorous news is, the CRC says up is down. By defining the consensus of the scientific and medical establishments as "false," they are able to align themselves with "truth," under their new definition.
Does anybody buy this? Apparently they mailed these results to a lot of homes, I can't tell who received it. What do you think when something like this comes in the mail?
Next, a tricky one:
Question 8. “When put on correctly and used consistently, do condoms provide reliable protection in preventing infection from HPV?” The correct answer is “NO”.
PILOT GROUP: 44% answered “YES”, ” 28% answered “NO”, and 28% answered “Unknown”.
Non-Pilot Students: 38% answered “YES”, 21% answered “NO” and 3% answered “Unknown”. .
This one is tricky because the correct answer is "Unknown." HPV only requires skin-to-skin contact, you can catch it from shaking hands with somebody, and well over half of Americans have contacted this virus at some time in their lives. The condom probably does protect against genital transmission, but it is hard to demonstrate using the usual research techniques because it spreads so many ways; generally it is not useful to think of HPV as a sexually transmitted infection.
More good news: the correct answer is "Unknown," and kids who took the classes got it right 25 percent more than kids who didn't.
These results are very impressive. Somebody needs to teach the CRC how to make up numbers that support their position.
That's all the give for "survey" results. The letter goes on for six pages of incoherent distortions of data and scary descriptions of sexually transmitted diseases, which you've heard before and I'm not going to repeat any more.
I have to say, fresh back from my trip to Europe, with a new perspective, a fresh point of view, and jet lag, that these guys -- the CRC -- never cease to amaze me.
Can you believe that this person, John Garza, who is a lawyer and should know that the truth will eventually come out, would sit in front of a TV camera and tell this to the world?
... we found that the kids who did not take the pilot program were better educated about sex than the ones who did.
This isn't even sleight of hand, they don't try to make you think they're making sense -- they simply turn the truth around backwards and then try to tell you that the results of their "survey" mean what they want them to mean.
It may be that they really did get a 116 percent response rate for non-attenders and a 26 percent rate from students who took the class. Uh, no, that can't be. Well, let's say, it could be that they didn't make up these numbers totally out of their heads, but maybe some pranksters sent in some questionnaires, and these data roughly correspond with reality.
If that's true, then we can say happily that the curriculum worked -- the students who took the pilot test classes got the correct answers, by what appear to be significant amounts, more frequently on all three of these questions.
On the other hand, the indication is that they made up these data, just looking at the response rates. In which case, we have to ask, why didn't they make up data that really supported their point of view, instead of relying on an inversion of reality to make their case?
posted by JimK at 12:39 PM
26 Comments:
"using addresses taken from the PTA student directories"
Oh, no, Mr Bill!!
In small print, they said in their survey that "effective" meant more than 90% effective with occasional usage, then decided the answer was "no" since the lessons said condoms in those instances were 85% effective. They were testing how accurately students remembered the exact percentages within a margin of 6%, and seeing whether they had read the directions.
In education, we call this a "trick question," where the apparently correct answere is technically incorrect.
The Rev. Jerry Falwell — founder of the Moral Majority and the face of the religious right in the 1980s — died Tuesday after being found unconscious in his office, a Liberty University executive said.
Anonymous,
Thank you for the news bulletin. I suspect you are trying to goad people into saying negative things about the recently deceased.
There will be time for discussion of the man's life and impact on our society. I, for one, will forego such discussion during what is a time of mourning for his family and friends.
Who peer reviewed the CRC study?
who peer reviewed Jim's analysis of it?
To Jim: There is something to be said for clarifying the curriculum so that students know that condoms don't always protect against HPV. I'm not sure that I knew that information until I heard it in CAC meetings. Additionally, we should encourage girls to take the new vaccine. As usual, thanks for the highly informative post.
To Anon re: directories: The use of the PTA directories is misuse and abuse. The PTA has twice condemned CRC for abusing these directories. I wonder why CRC cannot follow Christian values and do what their neighbor asks of them.
To Anon re: Falwell: Apparently you missed my last comment on the Mother's Day piece. Rev. Falwell's death is irrelevant to this post. Please do not post irrelevant comments. If you want to write about such topics, please do so on your own blog.
"To Anon re: directories: The use of the PTA directories is misuse and abuse. The PTA has twice condemned CRC for abusing these directories. I wonder why CRC cannot follow Christian values and do what their neighbor asks of them."
What Christian value would that be?
"To Anon re: Falwell: Apparently you missed my last comment on the Mother's Day piece. Rev. Falwell's death is irrelevant to this post. Please do not post irrelevant comments. If you want to write about such topics, please do so on your own blog."
I thought you were gently rebuked by your own peeps on that.
Falwell is a major player in the religious and social interplay that Jim makes regular topics out of here. His passing is a milestone.
Yesterday, I saw taped on the hallway wall at my school a flyer with the title "Bama of the Week" and a picture of a woman in a head scarf. My students tell me that these posters have been appearing all week, and that the woman is someone who works in the cafeteria. "Bama" is a derogatory word current among youth, at least at my school, meaning "uncultured, unsophisticated, tacky (it derives from "Alabama"). Today, whichever student or group of students developed these flyers distributed them under windshield wipers in the parking lot. Someone has made and distributed hundreds or perhaps thousands of these (and in color, which is considerably more expensive).
Who can explain this? It saddens my heart.
Robert
And the CRC wants to be taken seriously? (head shaking) This does not appear to be a distortion, but an attempt to willfully distort for partisan political advantage what are the facts on the ground.
Sigh...
The permission slips have a place to indicate you are giving permission to take the class and a place to indicate you are giving permission to take the class AND giving permission to participate in the survey. There is no place to indicate you are opting out, and refusing permission. If you want to indicate that, you have to write it in.
Therefore, according to what is written on the permission slip, the only way to opt out is to NOT RETURN the permission slip - or write in your own option.
Interpreting an opt out only as permission slips where people deliberately wrote in OPT-OUT, is disingenous at best, and the county is quite guilty of that. Not returning the slip is opting out, according to the text of the permission slip. People didn't "forget" to return the slips, the county deliberately set the slips up that way, so that they could fake the numbers if necessary (which they then proceeded to do). The opt-out rate was 10x higher than last year, which is how the story should have been reported.
Anon, the burden of proof is on you. Hey, I've got it: why don't you send us a scan of the permission slip. I'll post it somewhere and link to it so everybody can see what you say, that the school district is lying and that you can't really opt out.
... Let's just say, I'm not holding my breath.
At any rate, the numbers add up to 25, not 29 as CRC says.
And finally, nobody's surprised if the opt-out rate was 10x higher than last year (though a leap from one to five percent is not a 10x increase), after the CRC wrote people and called them at home and stood outside the schools picketing. The real story is that less than five percent of families were fooled by that.
JimK
Andrea said
"newspeak" although I bet Johnny hasn't read 1984 recently.
Ha, ha, kids didn't forget the slips! Gee, I guess my kids were the exception in MCPS because I was constantly looking for things that were supposed to come home in backpacks-and which my kids left in lockers. trashed or used as a wrapper for some food item. As someone intensely involved in PTSA during elementary years and somewhat less later on- I can say that response rates from parents also decreased significantly on everything. That is why the same parents are seen over and over again at school activities, PTSA meetings and on school listserves.
So sorry anon- but I am quite as sure as you are that most permission slips not turned in were lost by kids or forgotten by parents. Or let's split the difference -some were parents who didn't want to bother to write something in and some were lost- but all! - to bolster CRC's repeated numerical "errors"- Theresa on this blog and Johnny almost everywhere=- puhleeze!
Andrea- a mom who definitively gave permission
Hey Anon. Here is the permission form from the 2004 pilot testing. There is nothing ambiguous about this.
JimK
** START ********
FAMILY LIFE AND HUMAN SEXUALITY AND HIV/AIDS PREVENTION
PERMISSION FORM
____________________________________ ______________________________________
Student Name Daytime Phone Number of Parent/Guardian
Please check YES or NO for each of the three questions below.
I give permission for my student to receive instruction on human sexuality. YES _____ NO _____
I give permission for my student to receive instruction on sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. YES _____ NO _____
I give my permission for my student to view the video and receive instruction on proper use of a condom for sexually transmitted disease prevention. YES_____ NO______
If you did not give permission for either of the above units, please circle the title of one of the alternative units of instruction listed below that you would like your student to be assigned as independent study.
1. Abstinence only. Student assigned this unit will receive information about sexual abstinence and no information about methods of contraception.
2. Self-esteem, personal and family relationships, and environmental health. Students assigned this unit will receive no information about human sexuality.
3. Independent study project. Students assigned this project will be required to select and complete an independent study project on a health-related topic.
_______________________________________________ _______________________
If you do not give permission for your student to receive instruction on proper uses of a condom for sexually transmitted disease prevention, your student will be excused to the Media Center for that 20 minute lesson.
______________________________ _______________
Signature of Parent/Guardian Date Date
Please complete and return this form to school by ___________________________.
"Here is the permission form from the 2004 pilot testing."
"permission form from the 2004 pilot testing"
"from the 2004 pilot testing"
"2004 pilot testing"
"2004"
irrelevant
Ok, just sent it to info@teachthefacts.org
Post it.
Theresa
OK, all, see what you think. Theresa from the CRC just sent us a scan of the form that she says was used at Watkins Mill. I have put it on the server HERE.
We notice that it's not an MCPS form, but one produced by the school.
OK, I've got to go out and give a talk, will check back later this afternoon.
JimK
Also, she gave us a copy of the letter that went out. It is HERE
See what you think.
JimK
"Interpreting an opt out only as permission slips where people deliberately wrote in OPT-OUT, is disingenous at best, and the county is quite guilty of that. Not returning the slip is opting out, according to the text of the permission slip. People didn't "forget" to return the slips, the county deliberately set the slips up that way, so that they could fake the numbers if necessary (which they then proceeded to do). The opt-out rate was 10x higher than last year, which is how the story should have been reported."
We think, after looking at the material Theresa provided, that this "anonymous" was right. That tricky gay agenda MCPS.
One other thing that is not acknowledged is what the schools do when these slips aren't returned. When I didn't return it for one of my kids for the old curriculum, the school hounded me, calling repeatedly, demanding to know why, trying to lobby for the classes, telling me that they don't know of anyone else who ever opted out and implying that my kid would be ostracized.
WARSAW, Poland – A primary message at The World Congress of Families (WCF) over the weekend was "marriage is good for society." It may be a simple and obvious statement, but in today’s world it needs repeating and defending.
The best way to show the importance of marriage to society is to point out what’s happened since the institution's global decline. Brad Wilcox, a sociologist from the University of Virginia, said it isn’t hard to prove that marriage is in trouble in the West.
"In the last 40 years, marriage rates have plummeted, illegitimacy and divorce have surged and cohabitation has become fashionable," he said. "Poverty, crime, depression, suicide, et cetera are just some of the consequences that follow when marriage is weakened.”
In fact, children from single-parent homes and those with unmarried parents are more than twice as likely to suffer such problems. But Bruce Hafen, a family law attorney, said Western society is ignoring the problem and rushing headlong toward the death of marriage.
“Over 80 percent of all Europeans now agree (with the statement) 'It's OK for a couple to live together without intending to get married,' " he said. "In the United States, 46 percent now agree with that statement.”
In Scandinavia, four out of five first children are born to unmarried couples. Hafen said people now fly the flag of individual rights and shrug their shoulders at what’s best for society.
"In the last 40 years, many people, perhaps most, have stopped believing that marriage is a public, long-term social institution," he said. "Now they tend to see it as a purely private, temporary source of personal fulfillment."
The grandparents of a 12-year-old student who says she was forced to watch the R-rated, gay-themed movie Brokeback Mountain at school have filed a lawsuit against the Chicago Board of Education, The Chicago Sun-Times reported.
Kenneth and LaVerne Richardson, the grandparents of Jessica Turner, are seeking close to $500,000 in damages for psychological distress and false imprisonment.
According to court documents, a substitute teacher told students at Ashburn Community Elementary School, “What happens in Ms. Buford’s class stays in Ms. Buford’s class.” The suit claims Buford then shut the classroom door and showed the film about two cowboys involved in a homosexual affair.
“It is very important to me that my children not be exposed to this,” Kenneth Richardson said. “The teacher knew she was not supposed to do this.”
"marriage is good for society."
I absolutely agree, marriage is good for society and it's good for all segments of society. Keeping same sex couples who wish to do so from marrying one another is bad for society.
"...filed a lawsuit against the Chicago Board of Education..." because "...a substitute teacher...showed the film about two cowboys..."
Call the newspaper!! I agree with Anon about something!! Those at the top should be held accountable for the actions of those they supervise, even if they profess they know nothing about it.
Anon said "Therefore, according to what is written on the permission slip, the only way to opt out is to NOT RETURN the permission slip - or write in your own option."
That's only true for the permission slip. There was also a cover letter explaining the pilot testing dated February 12, 2007, which said:
"...Students who do not participate in the field test of these lessons will be provided alternate health lessons on another topic, under supervision of a professional school staff member in an instructional setting.
All materials used in the lesson will be available for your review at an informational meeting scheduled on Tuesday, February 27, 2007, at 7:00 PM, in the Media Center. If you are not able to attend the meeting, you may contact Mrs. Tyler for the alternate review session date and time.
Please complete and return the enclosed permission form. The form may be given to your student's health teacher or may be submitted at the meeting.
Thank you for your continued involvement in your student's education and your support of staff in our efforts to deliver quality instruction to all students. Please call Mrs. Tyler at 301-840-3977, or email jody_d_tyler@mcpsmd.org should you have any questions about the field test."
So parents were notified 15 days in advance of the informational meeting and were given a total of four different options (meeting, alternate meeting, phone number, email address) to contact the health teacher to discuss their questions, such as "How do I notify you if I do not want my student to take the class?"
andrea- not anon
So the letter says the student must have written permission to attend the sessions and then must send in a permission slip to attend the sessions. How is that unclear?
And of those not returned- I still say you cannot say they were all opt-out by choice. Sorry but kids (and adults) lose things For those who do not find this so important, this is just one more of myriad of things that come home(if your kids bring them) and in the mail from school
I got a call once during health class to ask if my daughter could cross Colesville Road to go to Subway for a nutrition lesson. Opting in for human sexuality wasn't enough- I had not received the opting in note for crossing the street by a 17 year old.
Sorry, anon- gosh hate to say it -but I find it odd that someone from the school repeatedly called you to the point of "hounding" when many of us find it hard to get an answer about anything from MCPS when we have initiated the calls. Since CRC likes to multiply numbers- I will believe you got called once.
Andrea
It's important to note that while CRC et.al. seem concerned with the permission slips sent by Watkins Mills, but hasn't shared their cover lette sent with their "survey". I would like to see that. My guess is that most of the parents and students who mailed the survey back to CRC thought that it was from MCPS. I wonder how clear CRC made in their cover letter to the "survey" that they are in no way connected with MCPS.
I certainly would not complete and return a survey sent to me by some random group in my county. I would be unable to predict how the information would be used.
rrjr
Post a Comment
<< Home