Does the PTA Have Any Teeth?
Two years ago, when the school district was about to pilot-test the "old new" curriculum, the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum got PTA directories from the pilot schools and sent lying letters to families there, warning them about the terrible horrible classes that their kids were going to be exposed to.
The PTSA at Tilden Middle School was the first to respond, passing a resolution that, after a bunch of whereases, said:
Yeah, well, that didn't exactly elicit an immediate reaction from the CRC.
The CRC's secretary responded to an article in the Gazette about the situation by sending a letter to the editor that said, in part:
(Remember that a judge issued a temporary restraining order right before the pilot testing was to begin.) In other words, the CRC felt they had the right to break the PTA's rules.
Then in December of that year, the Montgomery Council of PTA Delegates passed a resolution, that -- after the whereases -- said:
But the CRC ignored the resolution, the PTA ignored their ignoring, and that was that.
Fast-forward to 2007. New curriculum, new pilot test, new directories, same old CRC. They took directories again from the six pilot-test schools and this time used them for letters and postcards, plus they used the phone numbers to set up a robo-calling system to call people at home and play a recorded message.
The PTA's response this time? Well, we heard some rumors that some PTA folks were unhappy about it. That's it. There was no attempt to stop them, and as far as I know there was no official response. Seems you can wear these people down.
What this means is that anybody can use the PTA directories for anything. Salesmen can use them to identify prospective customers, any political party or candidate can use them to target families for specially tailored messages ... anybody.
Seems to me two things can happen. One, the PTA can make an actual legal case out of this, filing papers and going to court -- I'm no lawyer, but I think there must be some recourse. Or two, people will just stop allowing the PTA to publish their names in the directories.
Well, I guess, three, they could pass another resolution with some whereases and some resolveds, whoopee, that really works.
I know our house always had a well-worn book next to the phone, we were always looking for numbers for kids and parents for this or that, rides and things; the PTA directories are very useful. If the PTA doesn't defend themselves, those directories will go the way of ... hitchhiking, say, which also depended on people trusting one another, and used to be common and is now extinct. People aren't going to put their address and phone number in the PTA directory any more than they'd let some guy standing alongside the road get into their car.
Sounds expensive, I know, but if the PTA is going to do anything more than organize cookie sales they're going to have to stand up for themselves. Hey, I got nothing against cookie sales.
The PTSA at Tilden Middle School was the first to respond, passing a resolution that, after a bunch of whereases, said:
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Tilden Middle School PTSA objects in the strongest terms to the misuse of the directory by the CRC, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the PTSA demands that the CRC respond promptly and completely to the questions raised by its President about the source and intended use of the directory information, specifically identifying any instances in which this information may have already been sold or otherwise made available to another individual or entity, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the PTSA demands the CRC agree in writing to cease using the information obtained from the directory, and to return to the PTSA all copies of the directory information now in the possession of CRC, in whatever form the information may exist, or certify in writing that this information has been destroyed.
Yeah, well, that didn't exactly elicit an immediate reaction from the CRC.
The CRC's secretary responded to an article in the Gazette about the situation by sending a letter to the editor that said, in part:
... I would like to correct some of the misinformation about what CRC did in mailing letters to parents at the 6 pilot schools. Our primary objective was to inform parents about the content of the pilot since the parent meetings and the permission forms failed in that regard.
Parents in each of those schools offered us their directories in order to communicate with all the affected parents, and even assisted with the mailings. There has been a 10 to 1 ratio of letters thanking us for our actions. We feel that we needed to do what the schools would not do: honestly communicate to the parents what was in the pilot program, and that is what was sent out – salient parts of the curriculum itself.
We make no apologies, and defend our actions as the right thing to do in light of the Judge’s clear ruling on the pilot.
(Remember that a judge issued a temporary restraining order right before the pilot testing was to begin.) In other words, the CRC felt they had the right to break the PTA's rules.
Then in December of that year, the Montgomery Council of PTA Delegates passed a resolution, that -- after the whereases -- said:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the MCCPTA Delegate Assembly strongly believes that the CRC should respond promptly and completely to all questions and concerns raised by local PTA units about the sources and intended uses of their student directory information, specifically identifying any instances in which this information may have already been sold or otherwise made available to another individual or entity, and
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the MCCPTA Delegate Assembly strongly believes that the CRC should agree in writing to cease using information obtained from PTA student directories, and to return to the affected PTAs all copies of their directory information now in the possession of CRC, in whatever form the information may exist, or certifying in writing that this information has been destroyed, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the MCCPTA Delegate strongly believes that the CRC should concede in writing that its use of student directory information was inappropriate and agree that it will refrain from any future use of PTA student directory information.
But the CRC ignored the resolution, the PTA ignored their ignoring, and that was that.
Fast-forward to 2007. New curriculum, new pilot test, new directories, same old CRC. They took directories again from the six pilot-test schools and this time used them for letters and postcards, plus they used the phone numbers to set up a robo-calling system to call people at home and play a recorded message.
The PTA's response this time? Well, we heard some rumors that some PTA folks were unhappy about it. That's it. There was no attempt to stop them, and as far as I know there was no official response. Seems you can wear these people down.
What this means is that anybody can use the PTA directories for anything. Salesmen can use them to identify prospective customers, any political party or candidate can use them to target families for specially tailored messages ... anybody.
Seems to me two things can happen. One, the PTA can make an actual legal case out of this, filing papers and going to court -- I'm no lawyer, but I think there must be some recourse. Or two, people will just stop allowing the PTA to publish their names in the directories.
Well, I guess, three, they could pass another resolution with some whereases and some resolveds, whoopee, that really works.
I know our house always had a well-worn book next to the phone, we were always looking for numbers for kids and parents for this or that, rides and things; the PTA directories are very useful. If the PTA doesn't defend themselves, those directories will go the way of ... hitchhiking, say, which also depended on people trusting one another, and used to be common and is now extinct. People aren't going to put their address and phone number in the PTA directory any more than they'd let some guy standing alongside the road get into their car.
Sounds expensive, I know, but if the PTA is going to do anything more than organize cookie sales they're going to have to stand up for themselves. Hey, I got nothing against cookie sales.
posted by JimK at 10:41 AM
32 Comments:
I hope the PTA does something- not that CRC will care. We know they don't really care about our kids or schools- most of them don't have kids in MCPS.
Love the earlier claim of letters 10 to 1 in support of their earlier action- I bet Susan(don't let your kids read books) Jamison wrote the "support" letter and made lots of copies. CRC and co. counts that as lots of letters.
"but I think there must be some recourse"
but, alas, there is none
parents used them to inform other parents
that's what they're for
free speech survives despite TTF's discomfort with it
If you're correct, Anon, then this is the end of a nice community service that the PTA has performed. Good going, CRC.
JimK
And like the old CRC lies(hundreds of opt out message- bwhahahaha- by people who don't have kids or who don't go to MCPS), "Free speech"- well yes, you can tell lies - nothing in the doctrine of free speech stops that. And despite the misuse of the directories- the letters and stupid phone calls- real MCPS parents ignored or turned against the CRC. CRC hates free speech- that is what this whole thing is about-heck, CRC members have said they don't even answer their own kids(honey, you are too young for that answer).
The curriculum is full of lies like homosexuality is innate!
It is NOT "free speech" to take the product of someone else's work and use it without paying. It's THEFT.
Prove to me that homosexuality is not innate. You can't just say that it is not and expect folks to buy into your position. Don't even think about quoting the Spritzer study since even he says the he does not know whether it is or is not innate; it has never been replicated; it does not have any long term data; and the folks self-selected into the study - not very scientific.
Peter Sprigg said "I do not believe, and I do not know anyone who believes, that same-gender sexual attractions or desires are a 'choice.' "
Warren Throckmorton said "True or false: People choose to be attracted to the same or opposite sex. False."
Using Throckmorton and Sprigg’s statements will prove nothing and is ridiculous. It is pure propaganda by the gay activists. I believe they are speaking about initial choice however having no choice does not mean you are born with the feelings. How may babies have you interviewed? The feelings are not innate. The feelings develop. You are not born loving anybody either. It developes. It also changes. How many times do teenagers fall in love? There are too many former homosexuals living now as a heterosexual life to think it is innate. And yes, Dr. Spitzer’s study shows that the feelings are not innate. Both identical twin studies show that the feeling are not innate.
No reputable study has yet concluded that homosexuality is innate. If you know of one show me.
According to APA, Am. Psychiatric Association , Am. Pediatric Assoc., there are a number of factors that cause homosexuality, including environment and experience. Studies identify genetic factors, such as personality, as a part of the equation. Look at the 8th grade statement from the Am.Psychological Association.
Look at what the Supreme Court said. It specifically said that “sexual orientation” unlike gender or race is not “an immutable characteristic determined solely by the accident of birth”. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals similarly held that “homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic; it is behavioral and hence is fundamentally different from traits as race, gender, or alienage…
And now Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project says that "Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired.
Anon, it isn't really relevant to this discussion, what criteria the Supreme Court decided are appropriate for antidiscrimination laws. Spitzer's study doesn't say squat about innateness. The twin studies that Ruth Jacobs cited in her recent talk showed that it was ten times more likely that a second twin would be gay, if the first one was -- strong evidence in support of a genetic basis.
Finally, if your assertion is correct, that sexual orientation is not innate, then that means nearly everybody ever born has been lying about it. Because everybody's experience is that at some age they are attracted to somebody, and the only people who "choose" are those who "choose" to live a lie.
JimK
It takes a special kind of homophobe to consider Throckmorton and Sprigg to be propagandists for "gay activists" and to rely on the court opinions for medical facts. Throckmorton is a counselor who has attempted to covert gays to straight but who now tries to reconcile religious choice with innate same-sex attraction. Sprigg is a lobbyist for FRC and PFOX, two groups that advocate for conversion therapy for all GLBT people. After decades in the field, both men have publicly stated that the gender of the person one is sexually attracted to is not chosen. They know that there are thousands of studies that taken together indicate a biological factor in sexual attraction.
You are not born loving anybody either.
That's not hate in a babies eyes when it looks up at Mom's face while nursing. There is something you're not born doing and that is believing any particular faith. You have to be taught that loving someone of your own gender is a sin.
According to APA, Am. Psychiatric Association , Am. Pediatric Assoc., there are a number of factors that cause homosexuality, including environment and experience AND BIOLOGY
PTA
The degree of scientific ignorance spewed out by the Anons on this blog is just remarkable. Ok, Anon, you are not born ejaculating -- so I guess it's a choice? You didn't masturbate when you were six weeks old -- again a choice? Had your parents not told you that you were a boy, you wouldn't have known? Maybe you needed a preacher to tell you?
Francis Collins knows as little about sex and gender as he does about most everything else that he hasn't studied. Like most people.
I will say one more thing -- "hardwired" is an inadequate metaphor. "Pre-wired" is more accurate. Hormones, for instance, are "organizational" pre-natally and then for about a year post-natally, before they drop to low levels until puberty. Then they become "activational" before becoming mature signalling agents.
So the science is far more complex than you or Ruth Jacobs can handle. That's too bad for you.
There are too many former homosexuals living now as a heterosexual life...
That's what the ministries' advertising campaigns claim. Yet after more than a year of searching, barely 200 supposed former homosexuals were found to participate in the Spitzer study, 19% of whom "were mental health provessionals or directors of ex-gay ministries." Seventy four percent of the 143 males in the study reported they were still "bothered by homosexual feelings" even after years of therapy.
I've even heard this "hordes of ex-gays" nonsense from a rabbi I know. When I ask for some names, he won't provide them, in support of their anonymity. Please explain to me if being straight is so great, and converting from gay to straight is so great, why are these people hiding? There are tens of millions who would celebrate them, aren't there? Are you trying to tell me that I can easily be out but these happy, straight people don't have the courage to be known for who they are?
Goodness Jim, would you like some Cheese with that Whine? For a group claiming victory, TTF sounds like a group of losers.
Get some sleep, Orin.
Orin, first, lots of people in the school communities are extremely upset at having letters and phone calls directed at them, with information coming out of the PTA documents. The PTA directories are really useful, but people have to volunteer their information, and I guarantee you that this sort of thing will cause people to simply refuse to provide the information to the PTA to publish.
Second, nobody is claiming any victory. The CRC doesn't have a leg to stand on, but that doesn't mean they have stopped their assault on our county. (I am picturing a particular Monty Python character here...)
JimK
"this is the end of a nice community service that the PTA has performed"
"and I guarantee you that this sort of thing will cause people to simply refuse to provide the information to the PTA to publish"
Well, Joe Namath once got away with this but I don't think Jim will. Nobody's going to stop giving their name to the PTA because someone sent a letter to them alerting them to pilot classes that the county, quite frankly, started without notice.
Having been posting the last few weeks but I've read most of it and Orin is right. TTF doesn't act like magnanimous winners. They act like they are nervous that their Pyrrhic victory will collapse at any moment.
The whole objection about the directories goes to the heart of the liberal syndrome. Liberals' favorite argument is that there is no argument. Rather than engage in the free flow of information by countering CRC with their own arguments, instead they prefer the position that their opponents are simply lying and thus they refuse to discuss it. After all, you can't lose an argument you don't participate in.
Why should anyone have their home invaded by CRC pornography via mail or phone?
Folks who received one or both certainly did not.
Maybe CRC should consider brown wrappers for those pornographic mailings.
Purist
Anonymous said:
"Liberals' favorite argument...."
Don't you realize what an outrageous generalization this is? Do you generalize about people other than "liberals?"
Robert
Aunt Bea writes,
Get some sleep, Orin.
Thanks for the advice...what I really need is to get off the graveyard shift.
Jim writes,
Orin, first, lots of people in the school communities are extremely upset at having letters and phone calls directed at them, with information coming out of the PTA documents.
Then *if* that is the case TTF should have an easy time documenting that and presenting it to the MCPS and the PTA. Absent any documentation to substantiate this allegation (that "lots" of people are "extremely" upset), a disinterested observer like myself will reasonably conclude that "lots" and "extremely" are more emotional projections by the activist core of TTF.
The PTA directories are really useful, but people have to volunteer their information, and I guarantee you that this sort of thing will cause people to simply refuse to provide the information to the PTA to publish.
LOL...you "guarantee"? Wow, that is so omniscient of you. As old anon put it, people will still volunteer such information unless they see a compelling reason to not put it out there (and that is as likely to be as a result of a parent attempting to keep a non-custodial parent from having information that could be used to do harm, than any so called menacing phone calls or letters).
Another thing to consider...the only folks that are going to express any opinion about this are those inclined to agree with TTF. If I were a parent in the MCPS I would not only offer my kid's school directory, I would network to find like-minded parents in other schools similarly disposed to help. Most school and church directories include statements that the directories are not to be used for commercial purposes. And if my PTA were to take the position of the MCPS PTA I think I would wonder if they were taking sides in this controversy. That the PTA leadership would get all hot and bothered and make all manner of "whereas" pronouncements would not cause me to lose a wink of sleep.
Second, nobody is claiming any victory. The CRC doesn't have a leg to stand on, but that doesn't mean they have stopped their assault on our county. (I am picturing a particular Monty Python character here...)
Oh, give the rhetoric a rest...like old anon said, even in victory TTF comes across as whiney and pusillanimous.
old anon writes,
Nobody's going to stop giving their name to the PTA because someone sent a letter to them alerting them to pilot classes that the county, quite frankly, started without notice.
Yup...the only ones that will be angry are...well, lol, we know who they are!
Having been posting the last few weeks but I've read most of it and Orin is right. TTF doesn't act like magnanimous winners. They act like they are nervous that their Pyrrhic victory will collapse at any moment.
Hey, thanks for the compliment.
Yes, rather than magnanimous winners, TTF increasingly sounds like pusillanimous whiners. And this is made all the more baffling by the fact that all the socio-cultural and political factors at present heavily weigh in favor of TTF. Odd and strange are two words that come to my mind in trying to understand the complaining...
The whole objection about the directories goes to the heart of the liberal syndrome. Liberals' favorite argument is that there is no argument.
Regrettably this also happens on the extreme conservative side of the political spectrum as I recently learned. A local pro-life activist had a letter to the editor in our paper. I emailed this person with the hope of networking, only to receive a reply that scared even me (this person wanted to ban ALL abortions, an action that I think would be as unwise as the present policy judgment of our judiciary). For this pro-life there is no argument in favor of a prudential judgment call of allowing some, but not all abortions.
Still, this tendency seems to at present afflict contemporary liberalism more severely. Any cloud of doubt about this for me was recently lifted with Ellen Goodman's piece equating those skeptical of the claims of global warming "chicken littles" with Holocaust Deniers or the comments Al Gore made at the Academy Awards.
Rather than engage in the free flow of information by countering CRC with their own arguments, instead they prefer the position that their opponents are simply lying and thus they refuse to discuss it. After all, you can't lose an argument you don't participate in.
Exactly.
digger writes,
"Liberals' favorite argument...."
Don't you realize what an outrageous generalization this is?
How so?
Do you generalize about people other than "liberals?"
Get over it...sorry, I don't like being so blunt but I have learned to live with such comments for years now coming from so called liberals (you know...the oh so tolerant and enlightened ones), "you are so smart, how can you be conservative as well?" or my favorite, expressed to me by a co-worker recently, "oh, so you have alot of books, do you ever read any of them?" Oh, and this has to be my favorite:
"oh, you're conservative...so where do you get your news from, Rush or Fox News?" (when the reality is that with regards to tv and radio about the only thing I listen to on a regular basis is NPR, you know, National Public Radio).
Unlike liberals, who tend to regard conservatives as little more than the spawn of Satan (at worst) or as uneducated boobs and illiterate dupes (at best), as a conservative I regard liberals as well intentioned and good hearted (yes, I know there are some conservatives that also do this, but fewer there are that take this crowd seriously, no matter the number of books now in print warning of an impending threat by a "Theocon Republic), but fundamentally wrong in their understanding of human nature. For example, the TTF answer to sexual promiscuity seems to be a regimen of condoms and birth control pills, not discipline and self-control (LOL! I know, I know...it is all so very "old fashion" to the point of being quaint) as a conservative would properly observe. "Yes, yes...dear Johnny or Suzy, we REALLY want you to remain abstinent, BUT (and here is where the comprehensive sex ed "chaser" comes in) if you positively, absolutely have to have sex, well, here is a condom and here is how to use it" (as if any inquiring teen is not able to look that information up on the internet).
"For example, the TTF answer to sexual promiscuity seems to be a regimen of condoms and birth control pills, not discipline and self-control (LOL! I know, I know...it is all so very "old fashion" to the point of being quaint) as a conservative would properly observe. "Yes, yes...dear Johnny or Suzy, we REALLY want you to remain abstinent, BUT (and here is where the comprehensive sex ed "chaser" comes in) if you positively, absolutely have to have sex, well, here is a condom and here is how to use it" (as if any inquiring teen is not able to look that information up on the internet)."
Nice creative writing, Orin. Please find the part in the MCPS curriculum that says what you have written above and show it to us. You will find that it only exists in your imagination.
From today's Washington Post
Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs
By Laura Sessions Stepp
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 14, 2007; Page A02
A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.
...By the end of the study, when the average child was just shy of 17, half of both groups had remained abstinent. The sexually active teenagers had sex the first time at about age 15. Less than a quarter of them, in both groups, reported using a condom every time they had sex. More than a third of both groups had two or more partners.
"There's not a lot of good news here for people who pin their hopes on abstinence-only education," said Sarah Brown, executive director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, a privately funded organization that monitors sex education programs. "This is the first study with a solid, experimental design, the first with adequate numbers and long-term follow-up, the first to measure behavior and not just intent. On every measure, the effectiveness of the programs was flat."
...Brown said Mathematica's results underscore what other, smaller studies have shown: "The most effective programs are those that say abstinence is the best choice but birth control and protection are also worth knowing about."
An official at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States agreed.
"Comprehensive education means teaching about abstinence and a myriad of other topics," said spokeswoman Martha Kempner. Among them, she said: "contraception, critical thinking, one's own values and the values of your family and your religious community.
"Abstinence-only was an experiment and it failed."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html
MCPS's health program is comprehensive. It includes strong repeated abstinence messages as well as "contraception, critical thinking, one's own values and the values of your family and your religious community."
Specifically, the existing MCPS courses on family life and human development include lessons on:
-disease prevention
-stereotyping
-how culture and family values affect relationships and marriage
-the effects of family stress and divorce on the family and society
-peer pressure
-risks and consequences of sexual activity
-myths and misconceptions about sexuality
-social, emotional, and economic impact of teenage parenting
-how family meets the needs of its members throughout the life cycle
-factors that contribute to sexual identity
-issues that may enhance or threaten relationships, marriage, and family
-how culture, value systems, and the family influence attitudes toward sexual behavior
-how the media and social trends influence relationships, sexual behavior, marriage, and family
-how laws relate to relationships, marriage, and sexual behavior
-demonstrate resistance skills and assertive behaviors which contribute to healthy sexuality
-analyze the responsibilities and psychological impact of marriage, and parenthood
-examine moral, religious views, health and economic considerations that influence family planning decisions
The proposed additions to these lessons include the following information:
-Abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Individuals who engage in sexual activity are responsible for protecting themselves and their partners from unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.
-list in order the proper steps for correctly examining a condom, putting on a condom, and removing/disposing of a condom.
-explain how tolerance and empathy can lead to positive relationships and/or a positive school environment.
-reasons people stereotype or harass others.
-components of a healthy relationship.
-define human sexuality, gender identity, sexual identity, sexual orientation, bisexual, heterosexual, and homosexual.
-learning about differences in human sexuality promotes understanding, tolerance, and respect
-identify challenges related to sexuality and gender identity faced by adolescents
-identify laws schools must follow to prevent harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation
-investigate factors that contribute to sexual identity, including sexual orientation
http://www.teachthefacts.org/resources.html
As we've discussed numerous times here, abstinence programs based on self-esteem aren't effective. The successful programs are based on societal norms.
In short, kids can't be convinced to forgo self-indulgence for the sake of self-esteem but they often can if they are convinced they are part of a larger societal structure.
I apologize, Orin, I didn't realize that was you; I thought it was Anonymous. I didn't mean to be snide.
I disagree with you, though. I think people who identify as liberal and people who identify as conservative are equally likely to unfair, fallacious, sophistric (is that a word?), whiny, and insulting arguments on behalf of their "side". I'll say that I don't think Jim does that, and I think neither do you. This is often an interesting blog with well-thought-out comments, though sometimes folks come on spewing spite (from both sides).
Robert
OK, WTA Time to put up or shut up.
Name the abstinence-only program you keep alluding to that is based on societal norms and be sure to cite the study that proves it's effective.
Back to the blog- and my original point- CRC spent lots of money and annoyed many people and as it was pointed out- got no results. MCPS parents soundly ignored them and kids took the new curriculum in the same numbers as usual. CRc members think gay people are sinners and being gay is immoral- these are (sad)religious judgements and have no place in school. No one is keeping CRC/BPFOX/FOTF from being bigots under the guise of religion- we just won't have it in our schools.
Aunt Bea writes,
Nice creative writing, Orin. Please find the part in the MCPS curriculum that says what you have written above and show it to us. You will find that it only exists in your imagination.
First off, it is all but explicitly stated as an assumption...you know, the one about teenagers are going to have sex and it is our job to "protect them". But, if you need chapter and verse, how about this from the condom lesson for 10th grade...go to the teacher resource sheet, starting on page 22 (of 38).
Are you there?
Ok, now go to page 24...after watching a video about proper condom usage there is a 3 page worksheet to fill out, and all the correct answers are filled out for the teacher except two, on page 24. Questions 10 and 12 are curiously left blank. For a lesson that is so closely and carefully scripted this strikes me as odd. Question 12? "What are three benefits of remaining sexually abstinent?"
Since the teacher resource sheet has this blank, what am I to presume? That abstinence is taught, yes? Though it is clearly taught as an afterthought.
Since the teacher resource sheet has this blank, what am I to presume?
How about this, Orin: there are so many benefits for staying abstinent that they can't list them all, and no reason is wrong.
JimK
"it is all but explicitly stated as an assumption"
In other words, it is in your imagination.
"teenagers are going to have sex and it is our job to "protect them""
The fact is that about half of all teenagers will have sex before high school graduation. I don't know about you, but I consider it my job to see to it that my kids learn how to protect themselves. Like many other parents, I encourage my kids to wear a seatbelt properly when they drive and to wear a condom properly when they have sex unless they intend to become parents.
"Questions 10 and 12 are curiously left blank."
Did you happen to notice the answer given for Question 11? It is "Answers will vary" and you "should presume" that is the same answer for Questions 10 and 12. There are many more correct answers than they could list.
"abstinence is taught, yes? Though it is clearly taught as an afterthought. "
Perhaps you were so busy looking for blanks in the teachers' resources that you missed the section called Enduring Understanding on page 2, which is the main point of the lesson. The Enduring Understanding of the condom lesson is
"Abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Individuals who engage in sexual activity are responsible for protecting themselves and their partners from unwanted
pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections."
The abstinence message is repeated multiple times in the video and is the first part of the Enduring Understanding this lesson is designed to impart. This abstinence message is clearly anything but an "afterthought."
Ok, the "dog" ate what I was going to submit so I am going to keep this short and sweet:
Aunt Bea,
There are two messages in the condom video:
First message is an ABSTINENCE message.
The second message is a CONTRACEPTIVE message.
These are two very different messages...would you agree? (maybe you don't, and if not I would be curious to know why)
Is one message stronger than the other? Is there a possibility that one message weakens the other (which ever message that happens to be)?
Orin, I've responded to your questions on the Abstinence and Abstinence-Only Education thread above.
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2007/04/abstinence-and-abstinence-only.html
Post a Comment
<< Home