A Meta-Point
Last night after the citizens advisory committee meeting I blogged a little piece about the video we had just seen. There was a little discussion in the comments about it -- two CRC members had come to the meeting, one Teach the Facts person, and a couple of others, so I know nobody has seen this thing.
I was a little negative about the video, and I want to make a small point, actually, about that. A kind of meta-point, a point about the point.
I don't think the video showed enough. I'm on a committee with fourteen other people, and they all saw it, and none of us took more than a couple of minutes to say good-night and get back to our families, so I don't know what they think.
Let's imagine that the rest of them loved it. Or that twelve of them loved it, and three of us didn't. Let's say we voted, and it was 14-1, or 12-3, and I lost.
Let me tell you what I wouldn't do.
I'm probably not making my point very eloquently here. Here's the deal. You have a school board of elected professionals, with a vast and competent bureaucracy surrounding them. You have a county with some of the best schools in the country. You carefully choose a wide range of citizens to evaluate a new curriculum. They are presented with some materials, say, a video.
The way this should go is:
That's not how it went last time. When there was disagreement, some people couldn't handle it. They had to throw a big, public temper tantrum. When the curriculum came down to a vote, they lost, and they refused to accept it.
They weren't trying to fix anything, they were trying to interrupt it.
The rest is history. One big tantrum, culminating in a lawsuit that led to a settlement agreement and starting over.
To those that are worried about my complaining about the video, let me say: relax. It could be better, come on, you know that, or you will when you see it. While I appreciate the district staff's hard work, I would like to see some things improved. But I'm not going to get all Recall-y about it.
I was a little negative about the video, and I want to make a small point, actually, about that. A kind of meta-point, a point about the point.
I don't think the video showed enough. I'm on a committee with fourteen other people, and they all saw it, and none of us took more than a couple of minutes to say good-night and get back to our families, so I don't know what they think.
Let's imagine that the rest of them loved it. Or that twelve of them loved it, and three of us didn't. Let's say we voted, and it was 14-1, or 12-3, and I lost.
Let me tell you what I wouldn't do.
- I would not send a letter to the school board complaining that the majority was not playing fair, that they wouldn't consider my opinion, that they were picking on me.
- I would not start a web site demanding the committee be disbanded, and the school board who appointed them be recalled.
- I would not accuse the committee of promoting homosexuality, encouraging sexual experimentation among children, undermining parents, or violating my religious beliefs. (Or, if you don't like it that way, I wouldn't accuse them of being fascist puritans, insensitive movie critics, or of violating my sense of secular autonomy.)
- I would not file a lawsuit.
- I would not buy up domain names similar to the school district's and link them to my own site.
I'm probably not making my point very eloquently here. Here's the deal. You have a school board of elected professionals, with a vast and competent bureaucracy surrounding them. You have a county with some of the best schools in the country. You carefully choose a wide range of citizens to evaluate a new curriculum. They are presented with some materials, say, a video.
The way this should go is:
- people will have differing opinions
- they will discuss their differences
- compromises will be negotiated
- they will vote
- nobody will get exactly what they wanted in the short run
- everybody will get a lot of what they wanted in the long run
That's not how it went last time. When there was disagreement, some people couldn't handle it. They had to throw a big, public temper tantrum. When the curriculum came down to a vote, they lost, and they refused to accept it.
They weren't trying to fix anything, they were trying to interrupt it.
The rest is history. One big tantrum, culminating in a lawsuit that led to a settlement agreement and starting over.
To those that are worried about my complaining about the video, let me say: relax. It could be better, come on, you know that, or you will when you see it. While I appreciate the district staff's hard work, I would like to see some things improved. But I'm not going to get all Recall-y about it.
posted by JimK at 4:20 PM
21 Comments:
It is important that everyone
remember it is was the radical
religious right who went seeking
an activist judge to try to force
their narrow religious views into
our public schools.
Thank God this is America where we
are free of state-sanctioned
religion and free to worship as we
choose.
Let freedom ring!
"Let me tell you what I wouldn't do."
How about if they decided to go with a class on biblically-based views on sexual morality? Would you do any of those things then?
We do know what you'll do, no matter what happens- you'll keep whining about CRC until the twelth of never.
Anon, I may have still failed to make myself clear.
I have never had any interest in sex-education, and would have been perfectly willing to ignore a school district decision to implement a conservative curriculum, if that was what the elected school board and a qualified citizens advisory committee approved. I am perfectly comfortable letting other people be idiots, and am not hesitant to talk to my own kids about sex. I personally have no need for some schoolteacher to explain to them how it works.
The reason I am involved in this has all to do with the process, and especially the process in its historical context. We live in a world where a certain loudmouth minority has determined that they should override everyone else's viewpoints on many topics, that they should do everything they can, hook or crook, to get their way. They think their views are supported by God Almighty Himself, and it is their duty to impose them on everyone. And I'm not talking about sex-ed, I'm talking about the whole "A" section of the newspaper. (My goal is to keep it out of the Metro section.)
The former CAC was packed with conservatives, but if you look back at the votes on curriculum materials and content, they were mostly not close. The committee was strongly in favor of that curriculum, and the school board was unanimous in adopting it.
But a small minority of noisemakers did everything they could, name-calling, tantrum-throwing, lying, distorting, misconstruing, and finally drive-by-suing, to get the curriculum thrown out.
That's where I come in.
If the community elects board members who support a conservative curriculum, and if they appoint a citizens committee that approves it, then fine, I wouldn't think twice about it. But that wouldn't happen here, and it didn't happen here. And now the threat of legal action by this same noisy bunch of nuts seems to have affected the school district's decision about what to include in their condom video. I'm on the citizens committee, and I think they need to add some information in order to attain the goal of teaching proper condom use. I may or may not get my way, but I expect the committee to consider my view, and they will. The committee can consider my points on their merits, and make a decision, but I will not tolerate attempts by the radicals to threaten the committee or the school board into accepting a video that does not accomplish its objective.
I am just not in the mood any more to see my country, and my community, run into the ground by a bunch of loudmouths who try to get their insane way through intimidation and threats. No, not in the mood. In a bad mood, actually ... for about the past five years...
JimK
"You have a school board of elected professionals, with a vast and competent bureaucracy surrounding them."
If they're so friggin' competent, why did they approve a constitutionally flawed sex ed curriculum last time? Did they just get so arrogant from lack of opposition that they thought they could violate students' CONSTITUTIONAL rights with impunity?
Truth is, we don't have some of the best schools in the country here. We have an uncommonly large number of students from highly educated and economically stable families who do well regardless of the bumbling school board.
Amazing how despite their "vast" bureaucracy, they were playing the beleaugered victim of powerful outside lawyers.
Actually, they've got money and the best students in the country. But, competence?
It's up in the air.
Anon, please feel free to vote for somebody else in the upcoming elections if you don't like the way things are going now. Cool country we got, huh? We elect our leaders.
JimK
"I have never had any interest in sex-education, and would have been perfectly willing to ignore a school district decision to implement a conservative curriculum, if that was what the elected school board and a qualified citizens advisory committee approved. I am perfectly comfortable letting other people be idiots, and am not hesitant to talk to my own kids about sex. I personally have no need for some schoolteacher to explain to them how it works."
I guess you haven't made yourself clear. Because that last sentence is a good statement of the CRC position. Why don't you join together with them and get the schools out of the business of telling the kids what to think?
Well, every kid doesn't have a father with a PhD and a mother who's a nurse, for one thing...
JimK
"Anon, please feel free to vote for somebody else in the upcoming elections if you don't like the way things are going now. Cool country we got, huh? We elect our leaders."
"I am just not in the mood any more to see my country, and my community, run into the ground by a bunch of loudmouths who try to get their insane way through intimidation and threats. No, not in the mood. In a bad mood, actually ... for about the past five years..."
Bush won. Your side is the one with trouble accepting election results. If the elected looneys in Montgomery County violate students' constitutional rights again, the judiciary will again be involved.
Nationally, the Democrats are busy at this very moment squandering an advantage they looked to have not long ago. Connecticut will show the way. Lieberman was thrown by an increasingly lunatic fringe Democratic party. He'll win as an Independent and will have time to form a new party with Republican moderates before the next presidential election.
It won't matter what type of fit is pitched by the left-wing blogosphere.
The Democrats are campaigning, which is what we do here when an election comes near. It's all legitimate, alternative viewpoints are expressed and the people choose. This was an experiment that the people thought was worth trying, and it didn't work.
Hopefully we can return to a two-party system of government this mid-term. Maybe not.
JimK
"Hopefully we can return to a two-party system of government this mid-term. Maybe not."
We eventually will. If the Dems want to be the second one, they need to return to the pre-1980 version. Otherwise, we'll see a new party emerge.
I felt the video was a step in the right direction.
The fact that the lawsuit was settled rather than continued by the suers should tell everyone how bogus Anon's claim that the curriciulum revision was constitutionally flawed. Judge William's opinion was that there was a "potential loss of Plaintiff's First Amendment freedoms" so he granted a Temporary Restraining Order. There was a problem with a couple of teacher resources that had been approved by the majority of former CAC members, resources which were later removed.
Had there been an actual loss of the Plaintiff's First Amendment rights, does anyone honestly believe the Liberty Counsel would have advised CRC/PFOX to settle for their expenses and reduced community input into the process?
Readers may be interested in reviewing Jim's analysis of the letter that was sent by leaders of the CRC to the school board. You will find it here:
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2005/02/warning-facts-ahead.html
Christine
Anonymous said...
The fact that the lawsuit was settled rather than continued by the suers should tell everyone how bogus Anon's claim that the curriciulum revision was constitutionally flawed. Judge William's opinion was that there was a "potential loss of Plaintiff's First Amendment freedoms" so he granted a Temporary Restraining Order. There was a problem with a couple of teacher resources that had been approved by the majority of former CAC members, resources which were later removed.
Had there been an actual loss of the Plaintiff's First Amendment rights, does anyone honestly believe the Liberty Counsel would have advised CRC/PFOX to settle for their expenses and reduced community input into the process?
You are not an attorney are you? There was a potential loss if the curriculum had been used then there would be a real loss. The school board dropped the curriculum to avoid real loss.
JimK said...
Hopefully we can return to a two-party system of government this mid-term. Maybe not.
yes It is time for Maryland to become a two party state. montgomery county a two party county vote republican!!!
Feel free to campaign just as hard as you can.
JimK
Jim what are the chances a black man can win a state wide election in a southern democrat state like maryland?
Why would I know that?
JimK
"The fact that the lawsuit was settled rather than continued by the suers should tell everyone how bogus Anon's claim that the curriciulum revision was constitutionally flawed. Judge William's opinion was that there was a "potential loss of Plaintiff's First Amendment freedoms" so he granted a Temporary Restraining Order."
The lawsuit was settled because the relief sought by CRC was unilaterally granted by the school board who was so frightened by the language in the judge's ruling that they discarded not only the part that the judge found unconstitutional (the section endorsing mainline liberal protestant churches) but the condom demonstration section also. The judge said a lot more than what is quoted above, much to the chagrin of TTF.
As the Washington Post states today in its story on Dr Beyer, TTF LOST a battle with religious conservatives. We know you want to teach the fiction in sex ed class. Don't do it with local history too!!
"You are not an attorney are you? There was a potential loss if the curriculum had been used then there would be a real loss. The school board dropped the curriculum to avoid real loss."
How about you? Why should readers take your word for your legal opinions?
The curriculum was stopped because of the judge's order, the TRO, and was dropped by the BOE and Dr. Weast who ensured that "MCPS retains the sole right and responsibility for determining the content of all curriculum, instructional materials, and associated resource materials under the direction and supervision of the Board of Education and the superintendent."
The terms of the settlement agreement left the suers with the best they could hope for, a year or two delay before a revised sex ed curriculum could be implemented. It was a baby step toward their goal of eliminating all sex education from schools. It was also a step in their drive toward eliminating public schools and replacing them with private schools, preferably those that are religious in nature like madrassas.
The biggest losers are our teens who are stuck for another year or two with an outdated and inaccurate health education curriculum, leaving them at higher risk for unplanned pregnancy and STDs.
"the school board who was so frightened by the language in the judge's ruling that they" settled for a the right to revise the health education curriculum with "professional educators within MCPS and consultants appointed by the superintendent and provided to the Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development (CACFLHD) for review and consultation, to the degree deemed appropriate by the superintendent..."
"As the Washington Post states today in its story..."
Who's got the "verbatim fetish" now, citing the Washington Post no less!
"The curriculum was stopped because of the judge's order, the TRO, and was dropped by the BOE and Dr. Weast who ensured that "MCPS retains the sole right and responsibility for determining the content of all curriculum, instructional materials, and associated resource materials under the direction and supervision of the Board of Education and the superintendent.""
Exactly. They knew from the judge's wording that they would lose out if they didn't do this. They had to change it. They lost. The Post said this verbatim and every other way.
Post a Comment
<< Home