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 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:
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.
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.
posted by JimK at 10:29 AM
29 Comments:
"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."
Feelings are tricky and I think you're wrong. Look at the things the panel considered:
"medical and scientific accuracy, clarity of information, appropriateness of age and developmental level, alignment with Maryland state curriculuar requirements, sensitivity, and balance"
Seems they had some of the same concerns CRC and Judge Williams and CWA and FRC had.
Did the judge have the same concerns you put in quotes???????
You wrote...."medical and scientific accuracy, clarity of information, appropriateness of age and developmental level, alignment with Maryland state curriculuar requirements, sensitivity, and balance"
I do not remember seeing that in that temp order the judge did.Is this misconstrual you are attempting?
freebird
Wyatt,
I expect you're going to be very disappointed next month when the framework is presented. My sense is that they believe there was nowhere near enough discussion of the issues you so very hate to discuss rationally.
But, we'll see.
A couple of comments.
1. The People's Community Baptist Church should not be lumped with conservative groups. Indeed, the representative from PCBC was an active member of the CAC who voted IN FAVOR of all the curriculum revisions proposed by the CAC.
2. The panel of experts consulting with MCPS (all pediatricians, I understand) stated that discussion of sexual orientation should begin NO LATER than 8th grade. I also note, for those following this thread, that the handful of statements made in the old CAC revisions are consistent with the policy positions of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Anyone who is interested may find those positions in the attachment to my July 27, 2005, BOE testimony, which may be located at the TTF Resources Page.
Q: is the People's Community Baptist Church like some weird kind of relgion, or are they really Baptists?
PB
Feelings are tricky
Yeah, Anon, I'm just guessing -- I could totally be wrong. We'll see.
JimK
"Yeah, Anon, I'm just guessing -- I could totally be wrong. We'll see."
I know, Jim. I was just pointing it out because your post was so long that the speculative nature of it had been obscured.
"is the People's Community Baptist Church like some weird kind of relgion, or are they really Baptists?"
I don't think they're necessarily weird but they're not Southern Baptists which is the large conservative denomination that most people are familiar with. Some other Baptist denominations tend to be more liberal.
speculative nature of it...
Of course, most of the post was not speculative; most of it was background.
We don't know what these doctors are going to come up with, but I will be extremely surprised if it is more conservative than what was proposed previously.
JimK
I believe from what I have heard, the Medical consultants are finished and now MCPS is doing the putting together of the curriculum.
From one of the proposed resources it states: "What causes sexual orientation? Almost certainly there is no single reason why some people are homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. According to the Amercan Psychological Association, sexual orientation results from an interaction of cognitive, environmental and biological factors."
Can you agree with that statement?
Good question, Precious. Here's an APA site that explains what this means: Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.
Some quotes:
What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation? There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.
Is Sexual Orientation a Choice? No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience.
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation? No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.
What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"? ... The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination.
Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem? No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems.
So ... yes, I'm OK with this. How about you?
JimK
PS, Precious, can you tell us what resource your statement comes from?
JimK
Come on CRC Precious..tell us do you agree with what Jim posted or not...yawn...yawn...
freebird
Jim
I appreciate your candid opinion.
As you know, you have added information from the GLB committee of the American Psychological Association on other topics-therapy, etc. that was not included in the original quote I gave you. That additional information is irrelevant since it is not included in the resource. Let’s focus.
From my experience of knowing both people that have same sex attraction and ones that changed their same sex attractions to heterosexual attractions, I think this definition is probably O.K. on what science knows now. It might be interesting to talk about each of the three items that APA gives as the factors [“interaction of cognitive, environmental and biological factors] that causes sexual orientations [heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual]. How did they come to that conclusion?
Remember the statement from the Am. Psychiatric Association; “However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.” Do you think the statement from the Am. Psychological Association supports the one from the Am. Psychiatric Association?
Retta,
I've pointed out, time and time again, that there is zero evidence supporting any kind of "cognitive" or psychoanalytic or family dynamic cause of homosexuality or heterosexuality. Those theories were based on assumptions which have never been borne out by any evidence. Analysts and others have tried for decades to discover something, anything, to defend the thesis that orientation is a childhood developmental phenomenon. They came up empty. If you've performed such research, or have any to show us, please do.
On the contrary, there is more and more evidence, with Chandler Burr's review a good place to start, to show that orientation is biological. Now, biological does NOT mean just genetic, nor hormonal, nor anatomic, but includes all those plus more, as well as environmental inputs such as drugs, toxins, stress. We know it is multigenic, and we know it's complex, unlike eye color, or pea size.
But it certainly not determined by a father's interaction with his infant son or daughter. You had a century of such beliefs, they came up empty, and it's sad how your side latches on to shreds of pseudo-scientific beliefs in support of a purely religious point of view. You've given up the theory that the devil causes epilepsy, and "refrigerator moms" cause autism and schizophrenia. It's time you gave this up as well.
I agree with Dana that there is a growing body of evidence pointing to biological bases for sexual orientation, and none for a cognitive bases. The psychodynamic reasons postulated by groups such as NARTH are entirely speculative, and amount to psychobable. The differences demonstrated be straight and gay people (body odor, brain structure, etc.) point to biological differences, not cognitive.
Is precious the person who said such unkind things about me on the CRC website?
Robert
Again, language plays a role. What exactly does "cognitive" mean? Dictionary definitions say cognitive means "based on empirircal factual knowledge," or "experience rather than emotions." Now we know how highly the CRC thinks of "empirircal factual knowledge" in general.
Yet neither definition relates to the use of the term today, even if Retta grasps at straws to imagine that it implies choice (just as she grasped at straws to imply that "insufficient" meant "unacceptable."
When scientists speak of cognitive science today they are referring to studies of brain function, trying to understand how the brain works.
We're a very long way, still, from understanding issues such as free will, for instance. Cognitive science is now a subset of biology in many universities, as it should be.
Pretty funny that CRCers think the doctors will support their ideas. The doctors were not Ruth Jacobs, Ruth Jacobs and Ruth Jacobs.
"Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors."
Is this really saying anything? Doesn't the APA think the same about every desire? Why is sexual preference singled out?
"There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
Biological phenomena may be associated but none invariably and there is no reason to conclude whether they are the cause or the result.
"some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so."
This is a biased view. Why can't a person make this moral decision without it being attributed to coercion?
"The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness."
Depends on your definition of dysfunction and that's a value judgment beyond the scope of scientists.
"It does not require treatment and is not changeable."
How can one say that without knowing what causes it? If there is indeed a biological cause, why can't it be potentially remedied?
Furthermore, even it weren't cureable, that still wouldn't indicate that it is not a disease. The truth of the matter is that the mental health profession has never been all that successful at producing cures of mental illness.
""What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"? ... The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination."
A violation, in itself, of client's right to self-determination. Why can't they decide to change and seek whatever help is available? Why can't they decide for themselves if the risk is worth it?
"Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem? No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems."
Interesting that they made this determination before this thirty-five years of research. Would we trust any other institution that decided what result they wanted before they did the research?
Also significant that at the time the determination was made, the majority of practitioners disagreed with the association's position.
Wyatt,
The determination was made not as a result of the revolution in the neurosciences, but as a result of the FAILURE of research over the previous 40 years to prove anything or to manage the outcome you so desire. The profession realized it was wrong, it challenged its own assumptions and found them lacking, and then took the rational response, while encouraging research when the tools became available.
As for self-determination -- I'll make you a deal. I will support conversion therapy for any adult who asks for it, while you will agree to ban conversion therapy for anyone under 18.
Also, the mental health profession has a remarkable track record at curing or treating mental illnesses -- epilepsy, depression, bipolar illness, schizophrenia. It has even cured transsexualism though that isn't even a mental illness.
The issue, once again, gets down to your bias. Why do you care? If you don't want to be gay, then you're free to udnergo whatever treatment you like. Just stop hating others and discriminating against them. Who are you to impose your morality on others?
Dr. Beyer
You are on the executive committee of TTF, are you not?
Oh wow like that negates anything Dr. Beyer says...
Pres. of CRC has never had any of her own kids in sex ed. The rest of CRC exec board all have kids in private schools.
freebird
Well, we know while all CRCers and their supporters are right, all TTFers are wrong. I. on the other hand, figure any anon is just a coward and wrong to boot.
or could be Wyatt
I believe we actually have a thoughtful Anon or two among us now, though I wish they would out themselves as well.
And, Wyatt, yes, I'm on the board of ttf. I was almost ttf's candidate for the CAC, but we wanted Jim's trenchant wit to liven up the proceedings.
I haven't disclosed who I am and I'm not confirming or denying that I am the person you're specifying.
This web log has an anonymous option and an attempt by an officer of TTF to publicly disclose the identity of someone who has posted under the option of anonymity is a breach of trust.
Let me explain that to you, Anon.
You have the option to sign on here and comment with the name "Anonymous." That's a Blogger option that we decided to turn on. The public, reading this, has no idea who you are. This gives you cover to say anything you want, no matter how rude or wrong it is.
The web administrators have logs that show everything that happens. I can see the domain you're blogging from (middle name "B" same as a TV guy whose father it is), I can see that you're using IE 6.0 under Windows XP, I see your ISP and every time you refresh any page, I see what page it is. So you may be anonymous to "them" out there, but it's not hard for us, especially when you blog from work, to figure out who you are.
Now, let me tell you something else. As you comment you leave a trail of clues, homeschooling and other details. And a couple of weeks ago we got an email from somebody who has no access to the web logs who had figured out who you were. We didn't confirm or deny, but let's just say it's not really much of a secret.
I kind of think, personally, that it's uncool to call you by your name on the Internet when you're trying to hide, and I would probably delete a comment where somebody gave your full name. But if somebody does call you by your name, well, I can only protect you so much. Especially after the things you've said to Dana and your repeated and pointed misspelling of her name, I can't be too extremely sympathetic.
If you look back, Anon, you will see that we have been very good about protecting your little secret, even while you were insulting us, misrepresenting our point of view, and being rude and sarcastic. I have deleted a few of your comments over the months, but we have humored you, like, really a whole bunch. Nobody else would've let somebody come into their house and poop all over the living room floor like you have done here at times. As I have said a few times, you make a better straw man than we could ever invent -- it's one thing for us to say that the looney rightwingers believe such-and-such, but you do us a service by actually seeming to believe that stuff, and providing a foil. So we have been nicer than maybe we should have.
Anyway, I don't intend to reveal your identity, but you and other Anonymi must know that we could if we wanted to.
JimK
I read somewhere that the world changed on 9/11. This is now the NSA state. There is NO privacy.
I don't like that situation, however, and I'd work to pass a constitutional amendment protecting privacy. That could even include anonymous bloggers. Care to join me, Anon?
every Safeway checker knows my name but then we rarely have political differences
Post a Comment
<< Home