The Gazette Reports

Yesterday I got a flurry of calls from reporters, after the Wednesday-night unveiling of the new curriculum, and after MCPS briefed journalists on the new material. I pretty much told them all what I blogged yesterday. The eighth and tenth grade curricula are really good, but I'm afraid the Superintendent's office may have backed down where they should have been firm; they should have included the medical establishment's statements.

Actually, a couple of the reporters, having seen the documentation of what committee proposals were accepted and what was rejected, brought up the topic themselves -- it jumped out at them, you might say, that these were pretty big suggestions that were shot down.

After years of excellent reporting on the Montgomery County sex-ed controversy at The Gazette, we understand that Sean Sedam has been promoted and they have assigned a new reporter to this story, Marcus Moore. Welcome, Marcus. This morning's story was co-authored by the two of them. Excerpts:

The Montgomery County school board will meet Tuesday to vote on a revised sex education curriculum that overhauls a controversial video on condom usage and lessons on sexual orientation.

Some advocates applauded the changes, while others say the revised video and lesson plans are still a little too raunchy for middle and high school students.

"I think they did a nice job, but it still introduces anal and oral sex to the kids," said Michelle Turner, president of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum. Montgomery board to vote on sex ed lessons

This last comment is a little ironic, as the CRC has insisted all along on teaching more about anal sex in the classroom. I guess they figure they can win either way. If there's nothing, they will complain that the classes don't warn about the health risks of being gay, and if there's anything, they will complain, as they do here, that the schools are teaching students about anal sex.

For the record, the only mention of anal sex is during the condom video, which mentions that the condom should be used for vaginal, anal, and oral sex. This is standard government-web-site advice, mainstream medical advice, nothing "raunchy" about it.

School board members were briefed and watched the video before Christmas.

"I think staff did a fabulous job," said board member Patricia B. O’Neill (Dist. 3) of Bethesda. "... I think it is viewpoint-neutral. It’s 21st century health curriculum for 21st century students. ... I think there is consensus and a feeling that we should move forward with this pilot."

Board President Nancy Navarro (Dist. 5) of Silver Spring said she had spoken to four board colleagues.

"Everyone seems pretty much on board," Navarro said.

"I think it is a balanced proposal," she said. "I believe it’s a step in the right direction."

OK, good news, it sounds like the school board will probably vote to adopt the new material.

"The revisions are really good," said James Kennedy, president of TeachtheFacts.org and a member of the advisory panel. "I think they did a good job of pulling it together, but the superintendent’s office was overly cautious."

Members of the 15-member Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Development were briefed Wednesday night on the curriculum revisions.

At the committee’s suggestion, the video now has narrators of both sexes and includes information on how to properly store, open and discard condoms.

The curriculum, however, still does not reference ex-homosexuals.

"As a physician, I’m terribly disappointed in [the lesson] not mentioning ex-gays," said Ruth Jacobs, an infectious disease physician in Rockville who represents CRC on the advisory panel. "I think it’s discrimination. I think it reflects bias. I’ve been concerned about bias on the committee."

Well, first of all, I believe I said "might have been overly cautious." Second, it would have been nice if they'd mentioned what I thought they were overly cautious about, or if they had mentioned that nearly the entire committee felt the same way. Oh well.

And that last thing ... what does being a physician have to do with "ex-gays?" Does Ruth Jacobs, as a physician, see a lot of "ex-gays?" Did she learn about "ex-gays" in medical school?

Or is she trying to link her authority as a physician to her ideological belief that gay people should go back into the closet?

I'm just asking.

I feel I should comment on the use of the word "however" in this sentence: The curriculum, however, still does not reference ex-homosexuals. The citizens committee did not ask for the inclusion of anything about "ex-gays," in fact, when the topic came up is was voted down by a huge majority. There's no "however" necessary there -- the committee had not asked for the topic to be included, that's all.

O’Neill said she did not think the curriculum needed to mention ex-gays.

"I don’t believe it would be appropriate to be in there," she said. "Personally I don’t believe that it is a fact-based position. I think this is a thorough, medically based comprehensive curriculum."

Peter Sprigg, who represents PFOX on the advisory panel, disagreed with the curriculum’s use of the term "homophobia" because it "creates the illusion that it is a scientific term."

PFOX contends homosexuality is a choice people make and can abandon.

The word appears in an excerpt of a textbook that critics say is biased in presenting sexual orientation.

Sprigg had recommended the term be scrapped from the curriculum, but the advisory committee voted against his proposal. If the word is included, it needs clarification.

"I would urge the board of education to reject the staff proposal as it is at this time," Sprigg said.

Well, he's got to say that. That's why he was put on the committee.

In case you haven't been following this story, Peter Sprigg was assigned to the committee to represent PFOX as a consequence of a legal settlement agreement. CRC and PFOX were opposed to everything the majority of the citizens advisory committee (and the majority of the County) wanted; of course they don't think this proposal should be accepted. This was inevitable in the way the committee was set up.

In May 2005, a federal judge ruled that teacher resource materials, which were not to be presented to students, were objectionable because they unfairly singled out specific religious denominations for their condemnation of homosexuality.

A line in an assignment for eighth-graders echoes that finding.

"Just as stereotyping others based on sexuality is not an acceptable behavior, stereotyping others based on personal beliefs also is not acceptable," reads part of an assignment that asks students to reflect on stereotyping based on sexual orientation, appearance and mannerisms.

Yes ... it is not acceptable to stereotype bigots, Mwahahahahoohoohee.

By the way, this being a new reporter and all, let me note something here. The CRC and PFOX represent a nearly-nonexistent tiny minority in Montgomery County. But in this story, I count eleven paragraphs that give voice to CRC and PFOX views on the curriculum. There is one paragraph quoting somebody from TeachTheFacts.org (me), and the rest is history and quotes from officials.

It may be colorful, for instance when people say the schools "introduce anal and oral sex to the kids," but the distorted thinking represented by CRC and PFOX does not reflect the values of our community. It's fine to present both sides of a controversy, but it would seem to make sense if the balance reflected the makeup of the County, not the shrillness of the absurd accusations some people make.

The country has turned a corner. The misconstruals and absurdities have been voted out at the national level, and were soundly drummed out here in Montgomery County, as well. There's no need to pander to the radicals.