Friday, June 22, 2007

Reporting On The Latest Diversion

The Post yesterday had a little paragraph about the CRC's latest appeal to the state. The Gazette had a full story on it this morning.
A coalition of activist groups has filed another appeal with the Maryland State Board of Education to halt Montgomery County's sex-ed curriculum before it is implemented in all middle schools and high schools this fall.

In February, the groups — Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) and Family Leader Network — asked the state board to stop the controversial curriculum before it was piloted. State schools Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick denied the request for a stay and allowed the pilot tests to continue. The state board has yet to make a ruling in that case.

On Wednesday, the groups asked the state board to throw out the curriculum before the start of the school year. If the state board does not stop the curriculum, the critics said they would sue the county school system, claiming it released factually inaccurate information and did not put out material for public review before approving the curriculum.

The groups also claim the lesson plans violate students' constitutional rights, including freedom of speech and the right to freely exercise religion. Activist groups try again to block Montgomery's sex-ed curriculum

You know ... what can you say? They can try, I guess.
"Montgomery County is showing incredible arrogance by voting to adopt the revised health education curriculum before the State Board renders a decision on the legality of this very controversial curriculum," John R. Garza, the groups' attorney, said in a statement. "We don't understand why Montgomery County is ignoring the process in this case, especially given Dr. Grasmick's opinion that both sides have equally matched arguments."

Man, they are trying to get some mileage out of that, aren't they? She didn't say the two sides were equally matched. The CRC's arguments lost, flat out, in two out of the three sections. In the third section, the state Superintendent said the CRC's arguments were matched by the county's. Of course the CRC tries to make that sound like it was really a tie. No, it wasn't: they lost.

And the idea that the schools should have just stopped and waited -- listen, who is he talking to? The school district knows that wasn't what they were supposed to do. The state Superintendent and school board wouldn't have expected them to stop; if they'd wanted that they would have ordered a stay, and they didn't. People in general, the newspaper-reading public, might pause and think that MCPS has done something wrong, but anybody following this story knows better.

So you see that Garza is not addressing the participants in this controversy here, he's talking to people who don't have any idea what's going on. Why would he do that?
Montgomery board member Patricia B. O'Neill (Dist. 3) of Bethesda, who has been involved with the sex-ed discussions for five years, said the board showed "courage in the face of bigots" in adopting the lesson plans.

"It's more of the same," she said. "I'm not surprised. When we adopted the curriculum, I said, 'Bring it on,' because we will fight you tooth-and-nail. I am happy we did what we did and confident it will stand up at the state board, in federal court, or wherever."

Yay, Pat.
"They're going to do everything they can do," said James Kennedy, president of, a group that supports sex education in schools. "There's no reason to think that the state board is going to override the local school board."

Board Vice President Shirley Brandman saw the new effort to stop the lessons coming.

"I still stand behind the curriculum," said Brandman (At-large) of Bethesda. "My further hope is that nothing will derail it at this point. This doesn't shake my confidence as to the appropriateness of the curriculum."

The CRC's plan succeeded. They got their name in the papers. This is just another in an ongoing string of great victories for the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

" released factually inaccurate information and did not put out material for public review before approving the curriculum."

"You know ... what can you say?"

Apparently, you can't say much because CRC is right. The curriculum is inaccurate, misleading and wasn't available for public comment and review. As you remember, they tried their best to keep it confidential and snuck it into the pilot schools without announcing.

If they are so confident they have public support, why did they do that?

Oh, they are so brave? How so, if everyone supports the curriculum as TTF claims?

June 22, 2007 10:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


CRC is... WRONG :-).

You people have nothing to go on so you are trying to make up yet MORE lies and hateful antics.

Nobody likes you, get over it.

June 22, 2007 10:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the thoughtful and specific analysis, youwish.

If no one likes CRC, how do you explain this comment by O'Neill?:

"the board showed "courage in the face of bigots" in adopting the lesson plans"

I mean if nobody supports CRC. No candidate ran against any board member with this issue.

If they weren't in political danger, what is O'Neill saying here?

Even TTF admits the leaders of CRC were all civil at meetings so the board members didn't even have to worry that someone would say something mean to them.

The only thing she could have been talking about is that she was afraid the general public would catch on to what they were up to.

They didn't want public input. In this wonderful democratic county, they deemed themselves wiser than the voters.

Well, statewide, the electorate looks a little different.

June 22, 2007 10:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Anon-
Were you lonely as a child? You know, hating others is not a good way to get friends. :-). Have a fantastic weekend!

June 22, 2007 10:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
Johnny may think he can run the old "razzle- dazzle" but he is not Jerry Ohrbach or Richard Gere.

Anon- you are one funny goofball. In fact,that will be my new name- "goofball anon".

Statewide- we elected Martin O'Malley, Anthony Brown and Ben Cardin. What state do you live in- besides the state of ignorance?

June 22, 2007 11:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, one other thing Anon:

I don't think the State of MD is going to stand for discrimination. I'd like to meet all these "ex-gay" students being harassed in MCPS ad not being 'tolerated'...wait, there aren't any!

June 22, 2007 12:12 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Yeah, if there was a single example of an "exgay" being poorly treated in the schools we'd hear about that example over and over and over. We haven't heard any such examples because there aren't any

June 22, 2007 3:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon June 22, 2007 10:30AM said The curriculum...wasn't available for public comment and review....they tried their best to keep it confidential

Anon June 22, 2007 10:54AM added They didn't want public input.

Oh brother. Anon's comments are just more spin to try to make the MCPS BOE, which governs one of the finest public school systems in the world, look bad. None of it's true.

Here are the facts:

The Citizen's Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Development (CAC) is made up of county residents including members of the public and community organizations. The CAC reviewed, amended and approved the new health education curricula. Every meeting of the CAC was open to the public. The few members of the public who attended CAC meetings received copies of the curricula-in-progress as well as the suggested changes offered by various CAC members. There were plenty of empty seats at these meetings held at the Carver Building in Rockville and the meetings were at publicly announced. Every vote and every suggested addition, deletion, and modification was available to any member of the public who attended those open meetings.

Every month the MCPS BOE holds meetings which have time set aside for 15 Public Comment slots. It is not necessary to get a slot to give the BOE your written Public Comments. The very first items in the upper left hand corner of the MCPS BOE website are links to information about these meetings and just a bit further down, under the heading "Community" is the link for "Public Participation." The public is free to give the BOE comments even when it isn't meeting via telehone, fax, email, USPS mail, and in person.

MCPS doesn't have the funding to send every county resident or non-county resident who might be an interested party personal invitations to attend these meetings. Any member of the public who is concerned about the revisions can easily find out how to make their opinions known to the BOE.

Stop spinning and face the truth. The public has always been free to contact the BOE with their input and to attend CAC meetings as the curricula developed.

June 24, 2007 4:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home