Suers Poised to Sue Again
Oh, those guys are getting mad. Somebody sent us an article from Agape Press, a big commercial Christian web site, talking about how CRC's Florida lawyers are getting so mad about the way things are going on the MCPS citizens advisory committee.
Here's Mat Staver, the lawyer for Liberty Counsel, out of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. He's going to make sure his guys win, whether they have a case or not, because God is on their side. See how happy he is? That's how you look when you just know you're right about everything.
When it came time to apply for membership on the committee, the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum decided not to follow the rules. The school board said to submit three nominations: they submitted one. The board said nobody could be on the new committee who'd been on one before: the one name they submitted was a member of the previous committee. Their big point was that they had a legal agreement with the school district, and so they didn't have to follow any other rules. You can read the legal agreement HERE. See what you think. Does it say they can put whoever they want on the committee?
No, in case you're too lazy to follow the link, the legal agreement says the board will select someone.
Anyway, so here they are, whining to the other picked-upon crybabies about how unfair all this is. And the suers are going to sue again, it sounds like:
Ho! They'd better call it "alleged" noncompliance. Because the school district has lived up to every letter of the agreement.
Now, you lazy bum, go back and click on that link I just gave you. Read the entire settlement, and show me where the found the phrase "anyone they choose." They may have thought it was going to say they could "appoint anyone they choose," and maybe they just forgot to write it down. Or maybe they used invisible ink. That would be a pretty funny thing for a lawyer to do, wouldn't it?
The new committee's planning to start without CRC. They've got a seat, just like the settlement agreement says -- there's just nobody sitting in it.
Here's Mat Staver, the lawyer for Liberty Counsel, out of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. He's going to make sure his guys win, whether they have a case or not, because God is on their side. See how happy he is? That's how you look when you just know you're right about everything.When it came time to apply for membership on the committee, the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum decided not to follow the rules. The school board said to submit three nominations: they submitted one. The board said nobody could be on the new committee who'd been on one before: the one name they submitted was a member of the previous committee. Their big point was that they had a legal agreement with the school district, and so they didn't have to follow any other rules. You can read the legal agreement HERE. See what you think. Does it say they can put whoever they want on the committee?
No, in case you're too lazy to follow the link, the legal agreement says the board will select someone.
Anyway, so here they are, whining to the other picked-upon crybabies about how unfair all this is. And the suers are going to sue again, it sounds like:
A parents group is poised to sue the Montgomery County (Maryland) Board of Education for breaking a court-ordered agreement regarding the school system's sex education curriculum.
Saying its nomination guidelines were not followed, the Montgomery County Board of Education recently denied the group Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC) representation on a curriculum advisory committee overseeing changes to the district's sex ed program. The court-ordered agreement -- which allows CRC and another community group to appoint anyone they choose to the advisory committee -- came after Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the district's comprehensive sex education program. Now the Florida-based legal firm is threatening to sue the board for violating the agreement. Alleged Non-Compliance with Sex Ed Agreement May Result in Another Lawsuit
Ho! They'd better call it "alleged" noncompliance. Because the school district has lived up to every letter of the agreement.
Now, you lazy bum, go back and click on that link I just gave you. Read the entire settlement, and show me where the found the phrase "anyone they choose." They may have thought it was going to say they could "appoint anyone they choose," and maybe they just forgot to write it down. Or maybe they used invisible ink. That would be a pretty funny thing for a lawyer to do, wouldn't it?
The new committee's planning to start without CRC. They've got a seat, just like the settlement agreement says -- there's just nobody sitting in it.
posted by JimK at 10:06 PM
22 Comments:
I suspect that their strategy for the time being is to paint this picture of themselves so that they can draw on the larger evangelical movement for support, especially financial support. Filing a lawsuit now will not further their agenda of obstructing a revised health curriculum in Montgomery County.
I'm looking for more whining from them for another few months. The lawsuit will be filed, as the last one was, as the county begins to pilot whatever new revisions are provisionally approved. They don't want to participate in education. They want to prevent it.
Parents, take note. This group of "local parents" (out of Florida) prevented a pilot that had parent review and parent approval built into the system. Then they forced the downsizing of the Citizens Advisory Council, thus depriving a dozen county parents of an opportunity to provide review at the ground level. What else is well-known MCPS dad Matt Staver going to take from us before we send him back to Florida where he belongs?
As anyone who reads the linked story can see, they're not overly rabid in their anger and not "whining" at all. If they were, Jim would have provided a quote. They're simply discussing what do about the fact the the school board didn't comply with the settlement. Absence evidence, it's usually assumed both sides will comply with legal settlements. It will be very sad if the judge has to threaten the board with jail time for contempt of court. Might come to that.
Tish, this is funny:
"a pilot that had parent review and parent approval built into the system."
The board did everything they could to prevent anything more than token parental involvement. Parents are fine with the sex-ed curriculum already in the schools. The board say they sought changes because teachers didn't like the curriculum. Parents have little to do with anything here. Although if any parents would like to tell the board what a good job they're doing, they'll approve of that.
No, Anon, you are funny. The settlement doesn't say "CRC gets a seat on the CAC and all MCPS/MC/MD rules are suspended." Again, I think CRC must be trying to test so they can sue- by putting Retta/Precious/Bianca up for the seat- it can't be that she is their best candidate(can it??). Based on her writing on the CRC website - I am surprised they would offer her for nomination.
I am a parent and you do not speak for me. In order to speak for me, you would have to have the courage and honesty to identify yourself.
I am a parent with children in MCPS and I am not "fine" with the current curriculum. My oldest child is almost twelve years older than my middle child. My oldest child had the current curriculum in 1998 when it was relatively new. The inability of the teacher to answer questions about non-heterosexuality contributed to an atmosphere of shame. The students were left with the impression that homosexuality and bisexuality were un-acceptable to the point that even questions were not acceptable. My daughter's teacher at Blair did not have that homophobic attitude, but was strapped by the inadequacies of the curriculum and teacher resources.
What was a problem then, when the curriculum was relatively new, is a disgrace now. My middle-schooler should not have to be saddled with a curriculum that is as old as he is. These are issues of science and self-care and should be updated on a regular basis. Furthermore, our teachers should not have to be burdened with the responsibility of teaching around a subject about which students are very curious, nor should they be left out to dry with no subject training.
I am a parent with a child who has gone through this curriculum and two more who will go through it. I am not "fine" with the existing curriculum. I blame the BOE for not revising years ago, but I place much greater blame on the Citizens for a Restricted Curriculum for standing in the way of my children's education.
I am a parent and I have always been in communication with my children's teachers and school administrators. I know my children's health educators. I meet with them, email them, talk with them about the materials and resources my children are getting from me and from our church. I attend parent meetings where teachers have tables piled with information and the seats for parents are empty. The "token"-ness of parent involvement does not come from the teachers or the BOE.
I attend church with parents from White Oak Middle School. These parents were very involved, and the BOE did not hinder their involvement in any way. They are livid about the inaccurate and invasive letters they received fromthe CRC and about the cancellation of the pilot, in which they did have a review and approval role.
Parents want our our 11-year-old curriculum updated. Even the CRC must not approve of the current curriculum because Citizens for a Retrograde Curriculum does not approve of condom demonstration videos, such as "Hope is not a Method," which includes the line, "Always use a condom when having oral, vaginal, or anal sex."
I have no reason to believe that you have or have ever had children, much less children in public school in Montgomery County. Do not attempt to speak for parents. Do not go around telling people that parents are "fine" with the existing curriculum.
Letitia
I didn't mean to say I was speaking for you. I meant the reasonable, concerned majority of parents are fine with the curriculum. Obviously, there's always a few rabble-rousing nuts who want to whine.
By the way, there's no new science to update here- only politics. They'll discuss this stuff in history and government class.
I would suggest that people who don't have the guts to name themselves but like to come on this blog to insult people are the problem parents(if you are actually a parent). I am proud to be a rabble rouser-and I do it with my name and in letters, with my address. Calling us nuts- well, you are a coward. I'd rather be nutty than ashamed of who am I and the positions I take -like you.
And if you are looking for odd folks- check out your own side- Sharon Kass( a real sad case), read the strange rambling letter Susan Jamison sent to MCPS parents and get to know Ben Patton.
Andrea
Anon's bias is made perfectly clear with this blatantly false statement about the 11 year old MCPS health education curriculum, "there's no new science to update here."
Aunt Bea
Anonymous said
I meant the reasonable, concerned majority of parents are fine with the curriculum.
**********
Would that include all the CRC'rs who have never let their children participate under "existing" curriculum or would it be those who have no children in the school system???????
The majority of parents supported BOE and changes to sex ed curriculum...the minority did not which would be the folks above.
Anon said, "The board did everything they could to prevent anything more than token parental involvement." It was the settlement agreement that reduced the 27 member citizens advisory committee to 15 members. This illustrates that CRC/PFOX wants to have less parental involvement. They keep saying they "won" the lawsuit so they must have dictated the terms of the settlement agreement.
Anon also said, "Parents have little to do with anything here." It is true that parents are not as involved in our public schools as they could be, however, that sad state of affairs is not due to any lack of opportunities for parental involvement. The BOE and MCPS provide opportunities for parents to become involved in numerous ways.
Last week I attended the Family Life Parent meeting at my daughter's high school to preview the health curriculum material. Three of the four health educators were present (the fourth was ill). Imagine my surprise when I walked over to introduce myself to the *only* other parent in the room and learned he was not an MCPS parent, but a Gazette reporter who had come to see MCPS parents in action. Last spring, around the time of the widely publicized lawsuit against the health curriculum, this high school Family Life Parent group included a whopping six parent volunteers, including the CRC President. She didn't even bother to show up this time. Maybe she was too busy discussing CRC's legal strategy, I don't know.
Since 1988 when my oldest child began school, I have been to literally hundreds of pathetically attended parent meetings regarding MCPS. The Board, MCPS, individual schools, PTSAs, and countless other groups provide hundreds of opportunities for parents to become involved with the public school system.
Sadly, some people, particularly those outvoted members of the now disbanded CAC who refused to even write a minority report but decided to create the CRC and sue, apparently prefer to work outside the system to try to force their minority views on the rest of us.
Christine
"Anon's bias is made perfectly clear with this blatantly false statement about the 11 year old MCPS health education curriculum, "there's no new science to update here."
Aunt Bea"
Facts and bias aren't the same, Jim. Could you provide a couple of new facts that science has established in this area in the last five years?
"Anon said, "The board did everything they could to prevent anything more than token parental involvement." It was the settlement agreement that reduced the 27 member citizens advisory committee to 15 members. This illustrates that CRC/PFOX wants to have less parental involvement. They keep saying they "won" the lawsuit so they must have dictated the terms of the settlement agreement.
Anon also said, "Parents have little to do with anything here." It is true that parents are not as involved in our public schools as they could be, however, that sad state of affairs is not due to any lack of opportunities for parental involvement. The BOE and MCPS provide opportunities for parents to become involved in numerous ways.
Last week I attended the Family Life Parent meeting at my daughter's high school to preview the health curriculum material. Three of the four health educators were present (the fourth was ill). Imagine my surprise when I walked over to introduce myself to the *only* other parent in the room and learned he was not an MCPS parent, but a Gazette reporter who had come to see MCPS parents in action. Last spring, around the time of the widely publicized lawsuit against the health curriculum, this high school Family Life Parent group included a whopping six parent volunteers, including the CRC President. She didn't even bother to show up this time. Maybe she was too busy discussing CRC's legal strategy, I don't know.
Since 1988 when my oldest child began school, I have been to literally hundreds of pathetically attended parent meetings regarding MCPS. The Board, MCPS, individual schools, PTSAs, and countless other groups provide hundreds of opportunities for parents to become involved with the public school system.
Sadly, some people, particularly those outvoted members of the now disbanded CAC who refused to even write a minority report but decided to create the CRC and sue, apparently prefer to work outside the system to try to force their minority views on the rest of us.
Christine"
You silly goose! They don't want parents involved. Parents know it's a show and they won't be listened to.
"Anon's bias is made perfectly clear with this blatantly false statement about the 11 year old MCPS health education curriculum, "there's no new science to update here."
Aunt Bea"
Actually, Jim, could you even provide an few old facts that science has learned about this whole gay thing?
Anon, we have reported a number of recent scientific breakthroughs on this blog. I'm extremely busy today, tring to meet some Novermber first deadlines that I fell behind on, and will not be doing your research for you this morning. Scientists in several fields -- genetics, neurology, psychology, among others -- are actively investigating the factors that affect sexual orientation.
They all agree that being gay is not a choice, and not a disease. How it comes to be is not a simple question to answer, but progress is being made.
JimK
Well, Jim shouldn't have to bear all the burden here. Can someone give, say, three facts that have been discovered in the last five years related to sexual orientation that needs to be taught to kids?
Don't need an elaborate explanation. Just a few bullets listing the facts.
Anon said, "Can someone give, say, three facts that have been discovered in the last five years related to sexual orientation that needs to be taught to kids?"
The curriculum is 11 years old so why are you limiting the time frame to five years? And in fact, the present MCPS health education curriculum contains absolutely NO facts about sexual orientation, whether discovered in the past five years, eleven years, or since the beginning of time.
So here are three facts for you:
1. Gays exist.
2. Gays are members of families.
3. Gays are discriminated against by some individuals and some institutions.
Aunt Bea
I used five years because that what one of you said was a time frame that we needed to upgrade all the scientific data being discovered.
Fact one:
"Gays exist."
Depends how you define this term.
If you mean someone that engages regularly in same sex relations, all kids know that. The curriculum doesn't reveal that, it suggests how to respond to it.
If you mean someone sexually attracted exclusively to someone of their own gender because they are innately constituted this way, then I'd say that this is not a fact.
It shouldn't be any trouble at all finding scientists who acknowledge that there have been no replicated tests revealing any biologocal or genetic basis for homosexual desire.
If you think people should be free to engage in this behavior, fine. That's a political point of view. But don't try to get political gain by corrupting science.
Your other two supposed facts hinge on the first, so the same applies.
By the way, if you're taking the behavior option, they could learn these facts by reading the Bible. Read the first chapter of Romans. It brings up intelligent design, too.
Anon said, "Read the first chapter of Romans. It brings up intelligent design, too."
Yes, we know. Intelligent design is creationism gussied up in a lab coat that doesn't quite fit right.
Aunt Bea
Read the chapter, Jim?
What chapter?
Romans 1
Are you talking to me Anon?
I'm not JimK and have pointed out that fact a couple of times to various Anonymouses.
Aunt Bea
OK, Anonymous I read it. Now what? Was there supposed to be a surprise, or an insight, or some fact in that particular chapter, which I have apparently missed?
JimK
Post a Comment
<< Home