The County Responds to the State

Yesterday MCPS filed a brief in response to the CRC/PFOX/FLN request for a stay of the new curriculum. That sounds boring, I know, but it's actually a pretty good piece of writing that, in my opinion, hits the nail on the head.

To review: on February 7th, the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and two other groups filed a complaint with the Maryland state school board, trying to get the state Superintendent to overrule the county's decision to implement a new sex-ed curriculum. The Superintendent, as I understand it, had five days to issue a stay without approval by the state school board, and didn't. But the state board can still stop the curriculum, and they gave the county a deadline to get a response back to them, so they can consider whether the complaint warrants interference by the state in county affairs. I would think that would be pretty serious, in fact ... that would be serious, if the state decided the county was incompetent to do its job.

You can read the appeal document at the CRC's web site, whatever. We broke it down in a post HERE. That post is too long, sometimes we put stuff here, not for the reading enjoyment of it necessarily, but just to get it on the record and out in the open.

So the county had to respond to the complaints in the appeal, and yesterday they did.

[Update: the MCPS legal brief is HERE.]

I was a little surprised at how directly and bluntly MCPS countered the complaint -- the gloves are off. The gist of this response is summarized in this paragraph from Page One:

When stripped of incendiary language and unsupported assertions presented as "fact," it is evident that Appellants simply disagree with the curriculum and want it rewritten to include their views on sexual orientation. They base their objection primarily on religious grounds and on a fundamentally flawed view of the applicable law. Appellants do not raise any valid legal basis for concluding that the Revised Lessons violate either federal or state law.

OK, that's good.

You might remember that the school district's response to last year's CRC/PFOX lawsuit was underwhelming. The district seemed to be taken completely by surprise, and had no comeback for the cleverly obfuscating complaint filed by Liberty Counsel. I talked to people who were in the courtroom, who described a kind of cold wave of realization that swept through observers as they realized that MCPS was actually going to lose, even though there was essentially no substance to the complaint. It simply met no resistance.

So I am glad to see the school district jumping down their throats this time.

This document goes through numerous gripes listed in the CRC appeal, and then reveals what is actually in the curriculum. A lot of the complaints were about "covert politically correct code talk" (the CRC's term), where the suers tried to read between the lines, whining about stuff that literally didn't exist. Some of the complaint was based on word-twisting. Some of it was ... it just didn't matter. Some facts are taught in class -- that's a complaint?

After addressing particular grievances, the school district's brief goes through the legal arguments. It has sections on:

• First Amendment - Free Speech
  
• First Amendment - Free Exercise
  
• First Amendment - Establishment Clause
  
• Equal Protection
  
• Article 36 of the Maryland Bill of Rights, and
  
• COMAR,

addressing in turn the Constitutional and regulatory issues implied or expressed by the suers' appeal.

Here's the Conclusion section:

Appellants are not likely to succeed on the merits of their Appeal. The Appellants simply disagree with the contents of the Revised Lessons and want them re-written to include their views on sexual orientation. The fact that Appellants believe that the revised lessons should contain additional information is not a reason to stay field testing of the revised lessons.

It is important to note that CRC and PFOX were actively involved in review of the revised lessons and video as members of the CAC [citizens advisory committee]. Representatives of both groups offered numerous changes to the lessons which were rejected by the CAC as not being appropriate for the curriculum.

The lessons provide definitions and information; they permit discussion; they encourage students to think; and, hopefully, they promote tolerance and respect for individuals regardless of their sexual orientation. There is no reason, factually or legally, to stay these revised lessons.

OK, I'm happy with that. The school district did a great job developing the new curriculum. A team of pediatricians started it off, MCPS staff added their pedagogical touch to it, a gang of lawyers went over it with a fine-tooth comb, a committee of citizens reviewed it and suggested changes, the Superintendent recommended it and the school board accepted it unanimously.

Then the usual whiners did the usual whining.

There is nothing here for the state to overturn.