|
CRC Statements to the Montgomery County Public Schools Board of Education, February 8, 2005
Mr. Steve Fisher
Spokesperson for the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum
Tuesday, February 8, 2005
I wish to thank the Board for this opportunity. My name is Steve Fisher and as a taxpayer and former MCPS parent, I would like to ask Dr. Weast to take a more active role in the matter of the proposed changes to the sex-ed curriculum. The interest in this curriculum is undeniable. BOE members’ mailboxes are receiving hundreds of letters, the local and national media are reporting on it, and a non-profit organization, the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, has been formed as a result of growing concern by parents in Montgomery County.
According to the BOE policy on Citizen Review of Curricular and Instructional Materials, “Newly developed curriculum documents shall be presented to the Board of Education for consideration approximately one month prior to the date on which approval will be sought, and the superintendent of schools may extend this period to allow further time for citizen reaction to curriculum documents dealing with sensitive topics.” The scope and content of the proposed new curriculum certainly qualifies as a sensitive topic.
Because no adequate opportunity was provided in November for citizen reaction before or after the Board’s vote, we ask Dr. Weast to follow up as provided in MCPS Policy which states: “At the recommendation of the superintendent of schools, information sessions, public hearings, or other mechanisms shall be instituted to inform citizens about instructional programs and to solicit their reactions to them.”
The curriculum will be piloted at 6 schools in a few weeks. Unfortunately, only those parents in the pilot schools will be given the opportunity to evaluate a major change in the curriculum that will be taught to all students if subsequently approved.
If, the “DESIRED OUTCOME” as indicated in the Policy is “A comprehensive process for reviewing curricular and instructional materials that includes input from parents and citizens.”, then we ask that Dr. Weast utilize the mechanisms recommended to quickly establish public forums and other opportunities to inform as many citizens as possible, especially parents, about this new instructional program, and solicit their reaction to attempts to change what already is a very good curriculum.
The MCPS Policy delineating the Superintendent’s proactive options is attached.
Statement to the MCPS Board Of Education
Ellen Castellano
Mother of MCPS students
February 8, 2005
I’d like to share some numbers and thoughts with you about the language contained in the new curriculum in order to demonstrate that it goes way beyond definitions and does deemphasizes abstinence compared to the current curriculum. Please follow along on your copy. I think these statistics are very telling.
| |
Current Curriculum |
New Curriculum |
| Homosexual/Homosexuality |
0 times |
19 times |
| Sexual identity |
1 time |
20 times |
| Sexual orientation/Orientation |
0 times |
16 times |
| |
---------- |
---------- |
| |
1 time |
55 times |
| Partner |
0 times |
3 times |
| Husband/Wife/Father |
0 times |
0 times |
| Abstinence |
4 times |
2 times |
| Chastity |
2 times |
0 times |
The terms Homosexual/Homosexuality, Sexual identity, Sexual orientation and Orientation, appear 55 times in the revisions compared to only one time in the current curriculum. Partner appears 3 times compared to Husband/Wife and Father which don’t appear at all. Abstinence is mentioned half as many times and Chastity never even made it into the new curriculum. These numbers reflect quite a significant change in emphasis.
Raising the issues of “sexual identity” and “sexual expression” to 13 and 15 year olds in a classroom setting borders on abusive…..Think about it, most parents try to protect their kids from influences and information that contradict their family values. These lessons in the new curriculum will undermine parents’ attempts to encourage their kids to remain sexually inactive. Kids at this age are especially vulnerable regarding their understanding of sexuality. To introduce in a classroom setting the confusing notion that they could even have a “sexual identity” other than the “physiology” they were born with is an outrageous proposition to most parents.
If the curriculum was limited to defining sexual variations like the CAC committee originally set out to do, I wouldn’t be here today. A discussion that begins to sound like a defense of these sexual variations is a problem. The public schools are presenting a particular belief based on debatable information presented as facts. I implore you, about sexual variations in the classroom: Define them, don’t defend them.
|
