The MCPS Board of Education's Sex-Ed Committee Chairmen, Past and Present

Mr. Lawrence Jacobs, a gay professional lawyer, was Chairman of the MCPS Sex-Ed Committee until January, 2003. He had served on the Committee for 6 years, while 4 years is suppose to be the limit (?!?). As stated in the Birth of the Curriculum:

In the 2001-2002 Annual Report of the Citizen's Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development (CAC) Annual report, the then Committee Chairman (an openly gay professional lawyer) recommended that the curriculum teach sexual variations since this subject matter is listed in the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) and the schools had never done this [wonder why]. However, there is no listing of a vote on this recommendation by the committee in the report.

The current Chairman, Mr. David Fishback, was appointed to the MCPS Sex-Ed Committee in June, 2002 and began his term in September, 2002. Mr. Fishback was elected Chairman in January, 2003 after serving just 4 months. Since appointments to the Committee are for a 2 year term he was reappointed in June, 2004 for another 2 years. He had not served as a member before coming to the Sex-Ed Committee in September, 2002.

Mr. Fishback has told reporters that he joined the Sex-Ed Committee in part because his two grown sons are homosexuals. One of his sons is involved with the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in Maryland whose story of coming out to his seventh grade students appeared in two national publications, according to the GLSEN Metro-Baltimore website (see “"The Language of Gender" for more on GLSEN and the new Sex-Ed Curriculum) .

Mr. Fishback is on the Board of Directors of the North Eastern Montgomery Political Action Committee (NEMPAC), according to their website. NEMPAC supported and backed Mrs. Pat O’'Neil, a two time and current MCPS Board of Education President. Mrs. O’'Neil voted in favor of the new Sex-Ed Curriculum in November, 2004 and recently alluded to something like ‘if your children aren’'t in the Montgomery County Public School system you have less say in the matter’.

Mr. Fishback is also listed as the point of contact for the Temple Emanuel's Kulanu Group (supporting Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual and Transgender inclusion), that also participated at the Capital [Gay] Pride Festival on June 13, 2004 in downtown Washington, D.C., according to their website.

These are the backgrounds of the former and current Chairmen of Montgomery County'’s Sex-Ed Committee, whose new curriculum:

• encourages students to “develop their individual sexual identity, i.e. to identify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual
• links the ability to like oneself to one's sexual identity, suggesting to adolescents as young as 13 that a sex life is necessary for a good self-image
• defines family as “two or more people who are joined together by emotional feelings or who are related to one another,” arbitrarily changing the meaning of family as it has been understood throughout human history
• draws strongly on pro-gay advocacy groups for Approved Teacher Resources
• approved the new sex-ed curriculum by voting from October, 2003 to June, 2004 with only 14 to 20 members present (out of the total 29 voting committee members) because, presumably, the other 9-14 members were not present, even though MCPS Policy states that if member were absent more than 25% of the time they would be 'considered resigned' and therefore replaced, and while all this was happening new Committee applicants were being turned away

Is all this a coincidence?
- posted by Bob @ 6:20 PM  

 
recallmontgomeryschoolboard.com goes its own way

In case you missed it over the weekend---

Announcement:
The Administrator over at the http://www.recallmontgomeryschoolboard.com website has decided to take a different approach on just how to correct the injustice done by the Montgomery County Board of Education on November 9th.

According to the Site Administrator, the message board has been reopened "so that citizens who are truly outraged can communicate with like minded residents of Montgomery county"

Because the CRC does not advocate the recall of any member of the Board of Education, that site no longer represents Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum.

The only site representing the views of the CRC is http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/.
- posted by bianca m @ 5:40 PM  

 
Parents Beware!
February 11, 2005

Parents, does the school your children attend feature a sex-education program that’s billed as “abstinence-based” or “abstinence-plus”? If so, you may be under the understandable impression that it tells teens, in clear-cut language, that they’re not ready for sex. That they should wait. That it focuses on … well, abstinence.

But a major study from The Heritage Foundation, “Comprehensive Sex Education vs. Authentic Abstinence: A Study of Competing Curricula,” shows that isn’t the case. Like “People for the American Way” or “Planned Parenthood,” the label “abstinence-plus” is a flat-out lie. There’s a lot of “plus” and precious little “abstinence.”

Contraception is discussed ad nauseam. “Condoms are available at any drugstore or family planning clinic,” teens are told in one program, absurdly titled Reducing the Risk. “They may also be available in outdoor or all-night condom vending machines. Anyone can buy condoms, regardless of age, and no prescription is needed.” Not exactly the message most parents want presented to their judgment-impaired teens. Yet, as the Heritage study shows, such messages are commonplace in “comprehensive” sex-ed programs.

Worse, the programs often rely on role-playing games that are plainly designed to reinforce immoral behavior and break down the natural modesty that might otherwise keep many teens from engaging in pre-marital sex. In Becoming a Responsible Teen (another eye-rolling misnomer), students are given the following scenario: “My partner and I are alone. We’ve been leading up to sex for a couple of weeks. The only thing we haven’t discussed is protection. My partner needs to persuade me to use a latex condom.”

Well, this parent has a different suggestion: Things shouldn’t even get this far, but if they do, one of the kids needs to say a firm no. When will that be taught?

Not surprisingly, some of these programs also present homosexuality as just another “lifestyle choice” that’s above reproach. In Be Proud! Be Responsible!, teens are told, “You can accept your bisexuality.” In Reducing the Risk, we find this role-playing exercise: “Tony and Dylan have been to a party and then go to Tony’s home to be alone. They start to kiss and undress each other. Dylan reaches into his jacket pocket and realizes that he doesn’t have the condom he planned to use. … What can Tony and Dylan do to avoid unprotected sex?”

And that’s the tame stuff. From condom “races” (seeing which team of students can be the first to successfully unroll one onto a banana or a cucumber) to graphic descriptions of how teens can perform oral sex on each other “safely,” these programs are frequently lewd and disgusting. I lack the space (and the stomach, quite frankly) to cite every example, so I’ll refer the terminally curious to the Heritage report mentioned earlier.

The underlying message is unmistakable: Teen sex is normal, so let’s just tell the kids how to avoid pregnancy and disease. There’s a token nod or two to abstinence, but as Heritage’s Robert Rector notes, it often amounts to a sentence or two amid pages and pages of explicit, pro-condom propaganda. Teens get the impression that abstinence is some unattainable ideal -- not the only option that’s fail safe (not to mention moral).

You probably need little proof that parents want such pornography kept far from their kids, but a Zogby International poll of more than 1,000 parents of school-age children provides some: 91 percent said they want teens taught that “sex should be linked to love, intimacy, and commitment, and that these qualities are most likely to occur in marriage.” In overwhelming numbers, they rejected the morally objectionable content and approach of “abstinence-plus” programs.

Asked when sexual activity should begin, more than three out of every four parents said teens should wait until they’re married or close to marriage. Another 12 percent said to wait until they’ve at least finished high school. Only 7 percent said “protected sex” in high school is OK. Yet that’s almost exclusively what these programs teach our teens.

Which means that we’re setting them up for failure. A host of social-science research shows that early sexual activity is dangerous not just because of STDs, but because it hampers the ability to form stable marriages later in life (making the additional $38 million President Bush has proposed for abstinence-only programs a sound investment).

Parents, your teens deserve an unambiguous abstinence message. If your school isn’t providing one, you need to equip yourself with reliable research, network with other parents and make a change. It’s time to subtract the “plus” from “abstinence-plus.”

Rebecca Hagelin is a vice president of the Heritage Foundation.
First appeared on WorldNetDaily.com
(emphasis added)


Sound familiar Montgomery County? Wait until you see that new condom video!

If you want to make your voice heard, email the Montgomery County Board of Education at BOE@fc.mcps.k12.md.us


- posted by bianca m @ 7:25 PM  

 
"Communism For Kids"

Any parent with a child in a public school has likely discovered our education system is little more than a means by which liberals indoctrinate children with socialist ideology.

If this seems a radical assertion, I assure you it is not. In fact, examples abound indicating its accuracy.

Take the "community box," for instance. How many elementary school kids across the country show up the first day of school, only to have their brand-new supplies pilfered by their teacher and thrown into one big box, to be distributed henceforth as said teacher sees fit? (Karl Marx also had very little regard for private property rights.)

Or how about "cooperative learning" methods of instruction? I use quotation marks to point out how impossible it usually is to get kids to cooperate or learn when they sit in groups a pencil length from their neighbors. But if a teacher is blessed with darling little angels who would never think of misbehaving, students who have "more" knowledge are regularly expected to help those with "less." (How's that saying go again? "From each according to his ability.")

Ever heard of social promotion? This egalitarian concept is standard procedure at most public schools, where students are promoted from one grade to the next regardless of academic aptitude. It practically takes an act of Congress to retain failing students these days, lest we give them the impression they are responsible for their accomplishments.

These are not isolated examples, nor is this short list exhaustive. This is business-as-usual in many American public schools. But as ridiculous as these concepts are, one would think some ideas would be beyond the pale. Not anymore.

According to a WorldNetDaily report, California schools have been barred from informing parents if their children leave school grounds "to receive certain confidential medical services that include abortion, AIDS treatment and psychological analysis, according to an opinion issued by the office of state Attorney General Bill Lockyer."

It may come as a surprise, but it's not altogether uncommon for high schools to allow students -- namely, seniors -- to leave campus for various reasons during the normal schoolday without informing the front office -- say, at lunch time or to attend local college courses. But I would bet my lunch money parents are made aware of any such policies.

Make no mistake, this decree handed down by Attorney General Lockyer is not some unambiguous legal maneuver to protect the public school if it loses track of a student, or to safeguard a student's doctor-patient privilege.

To the contrary,Mr. Lockyer is announcing his intent to protect organizations like teachers' unions and Planned Parenthood, who have resisted efforts to require parental notification policies for medical procedures like abortions.

Think about this for a second. If California's attorney general gets away with this absurd policy, your kid's geometry teacher essentially has more right to know your child is pregnant -- or has contracted HIV, or is potentially suicidal -- than you do. And how is a "medical service" still confidential if someone other than a doctor and patient is aware of it?

In plain English, it isn't. But this hasn't stopped school officials and liberal lawyers from assuming they know better than parents what's best for their own kids.

It is irrefutable there are many outstanding teachers, and still more who are appalled by the actions of people like Bill Lockyer. But alas, this has not prevented public school districts from believing they have the right to act tyrannically, even if usurping authority from abusive or irresponsible parents generates policies that apply equally to the vast majority who are not abusive or irresponsible.

In the "perfect" society, there is no private property because everything belongs to the state (or the "village," in Hillary Clinton's mind) -- even your children.

It is a sad day in public education when teachers and administrators -- who so adamantly proclaim their love for "the children" -- would even consider actively deceiving parents by concealing matters that pose such clear emotional burdens to youngsters.

What's worse, we're not even talking about forcing schools to report such distressing information, as we do if they suspect child abuse. We're talking about encouraging, even requiring, schools to intentionally withhold vital student health information from parents even if the parents ask for it.

Public schools can't even take students on field trips or hand out Tylenol without consent of a parent or guardian, but if they want to toss out condoms and, apparently, schedule abortions for teenagers, why, that's just not our business.

If this doesn't convince you that parents practically forfeit all control over their kids upon subjecting them to the draconian fancies of today's state "education" facilities, nothing will.

TREVOR BOTHWELL
Trevor Bothwell is editor of TheRightReport.com.
He can be contacted at bothwelltj@yahoo.com.

Commentary originally published in the Sunday February 27, 2005 edition of the Washington Times


- posted by DoctorJ @ 3:30 PM  

 
The MCPS Sex-Ed Committee Admires 'Advocates for Youth'
In footnote 2, on page 4, of the 2003–2004 Annual Report of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development and Staff Response (the same MCPS Sex-Ed Committee that in June, 2004 appointed an 11 year old child as a full voting member) it states:

Advocates for Youth was established in 1980 as the Center for Population Options, and "champions efforts to help young people make informed and responsible decisions about their reproductive and sexual health." See http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/about/vision.htm. Advocates for Youth is funded by the federal government (through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and a wide range of private organizations, including the Ford, Henry J. Kaiser Family, Andrew Mellon, and David and Lucille Packard Foundations. [emphasis added]

Earlier on page 4, Advocates for Youth is described as a,

reputable, mainstream organization

and the Committee cites them as a resource no less than seven times.

MAINSTREAM? RESPONSIBLE?

You be the judge.

------------

LESSON PLANS

The Advocates for Youth webiste includes very many Lesson Plans for the following stated purpose:

These lesson plans help educators provide the skills and support that young people need to protect themselves and their partners from unintended pregnancy and infection with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including HIV.

Here are a couple of those Lesson Plans:

---

LINK http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/ec2.htm

-Included within this fact sheet are the following Q&A points-

*Emergency contraceptive pills can cause abortion.

A: False. Emergency contraceptive pills work by preventing pregnancy, not by causing abortion.

*A teenager has the legal right to obtain emergency contraception without her parent's permission.

A: True. Teens in every state have the right to obtain emergency contraception without parental consent or notification. Most Planned Parenthood and health department clinics offer confidential services to teens. Nevertheless, some private physicians' offices and health clinics require parental consent.

*ECs can only be obtained from a doctor.

A: False. There are numerous ways to obtain a prescription. Call the National EC Hotline at 1-800-NOT-2-LATE to locate the nearest doctor or health clinic; call 1-800-230-PLAN to find the nearest Planned Parenthood health center. To find a nearby clinic, visit http://www.not-2-late.com/ or to get a prescription online visit http://www.virtualmedicalgroup.com/.

---

LINK http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/sexdevelop.htm

Sexuality in preadolescent youth ages eight to 12

Masturbation increases during these years. Preadolescent boys and girls do not usually have much sexual experience, but they often have many questions. They usually have heard about sexual intercourse, petting, oral sex, and anal sex, homosexuality, rape and incest, and they want to know more about all these things. The idea of actually having sexual intercourse, however, is unpleasant to most preadolescent boys and girls.

Same-gender sexual behavior is common at this age. Boys and girls tend to play with friends of the same gender and are likely to explore sexuality with them. Masturbating together and looking at or caressing each other's genitals is common among preadolescent boys and girls. Such same-gender sexual behavior is unrelated to a child's sexual orientation.

------------

So let me get this straight,

>>Telling minors to obtain drugs online without consulting a physician, and,

>>Saying that mutual masturbation among 8 - 12 year old children is common and therefore advocating it

IS...MAINSTREAM??...and...RESPONSIBLE??

Wake up Montgomery County.

- posted by melissa @ 8:30 AM  

 
“The Language of Gender", or, 'Someone Will Talk You Into The Most Preposterous Things If You Let Them'

It was once said that; "Humanity obviously has limits on intelligence, but not stupidity".

You can murder your conscience by abusing it. For that matter, if you abuse any faculty of your being, you can kill it. Politicians have known this forever. Fact is, the more you abuse your conscience the duller it becomes, and one day, you actually find yourself believing stuff like this...

------------------

The sophists at the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), an influencer of the new MCPS sex-ed curriculum(1), and the politics of education in our country, have produced a pamphlet entitled The Language of Gender to discuss the "proper vocabulary list for educators on gender identity". This is from the introduction:

“The following resource will provide educators with a set of definitions to help expand their understanding of gender, enabling them to speak effectively and respectfully about gender with peers, parents, and students. Although people have exhibited behaviors outside of traditionally assigned masculine and feminine gender roles throughout recorded history, we are just beginning to explore the idea that gender is not intrinsically tied to a person’s biological sex, that gender is not so much natural as it is cultural and historical, and that gender is not fixed at two points, but rather exists along a continuum.”

“When discussing gender identity and expression, it is important to first recognize that sexual orientation is distinct from and independent of gender.”

Do the citizens of Montgomery County REALLY understand what the MCPS Board of Education and their Sex-ed Committee is trying to do to our children?

Same sex attraction does exist, and people have a choice as to whether or not they act out on those attractions or not, but there are only two genders, male and female.

Oh and by the way, here's a hint: if you have a question about your gender, look in the mirror after getting out of the shower next time.

(1) - GLSEN infludened material was included in the new curriculum. Page 38 of the new sex-ed curriculum lists the Teacher Resource, 'Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel', with no author, just a URL (http://mirror.apa.org/pi-OLD/lgbc/publication/justthefacts.html). This easily leads a reader to believe that this document was origninated by the American Psychological Asscociation. However, this is not correct, further the link provided in the curriculum is out of date and leads to a password protected page (??). The correct link for the document on the APA website is http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/facts.pdf and publically displays the Teacher Resource as indeed the same GLSEN influenced document that is posted on the GLSEN website (see "What is the 'Just the Facts Collation' and how did this document come about?" at the end of this document/Teacher Resource for more information).

- posted by DoctorJ @ 12:00 PM  

 
Parent Reacts to Appointment of 11 year old Child to MCPS Sex-ed Committee

Recently, a parent of a MCPS Middle School student (who is not affiliated with the CRC) wrote to the MCPS Board of Education and the Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Development Staff Liaison about the BOE's appointment of an 11 year old child to MCPS's sex-ed committee.

A you will read, this parent is not alone in their opinion…

---------

Dear Mrs. O'Neill and other Board members,

I recently learned through a WMAL radio report that an 11-year-old girl is one of the members of the MCPS Family Life and Human Development Advisory Committee. The report stated her age and that she was indeed a student at a MCPS Middle School. This report is also in print form and is easily found in a computer search, which is how I first learned about it last week. The minutes of the June 8th BOE meeting give the last appointments to this committee, and mentions her appointment. She was appointed when she was in the 6th grade!

I am writing to you because I, and many others, are very concerned that a student of this age would be appointed to this committee. While it's great to get input from the public on many issues affecting our schools, surely a committee whose charge is to review subject matter that is quite mature is inappropriate for a 7th grader to observe, much less to give any meaningful insight. I can imagine that the presence of this girl at the table also could impede the task that this committee has.

Mrs. O'Neill and Mr. Romero, you both have daughters currently attending county schools, and you both voted for this appointment in June. Would you feel comfortable if your daughters were on this committee at the very impressionable age of 11? This committee is reviewing not only the middle school health curriculum, but the high school curriculum as well.

FYI, my son is also in a MCPS Middle School, and I simply cannot fathom how any 7th grader could contribute to this committee, or more importantly, should contribute to this committee.

If the regulations for committee appointments do not give specific age guidelines regarding student membership, I feel that these guidelines need to be changed for this particular committee. If four students are to be on this committee, surely these students should be high school students.

Thanks for considering my input.

- posted by DoctorJ @ 8:00 PM  

 
A Frank Discussion on the Dangers of Gay Sex --on the Washington Post opinion page!
Washington Post
February 17, 2005
A Warning, From Gays to Gays
by Richard Cohen
(Read the full text here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30956-2005Feb16.html)

According to Richard Cohen, liberal Washington Post columnist, "it is the determination of some gays -- a minority, but a substantial one -- to disregard all the rules for safe sex because being gay, they think, means you don't have to follow any rules at all. That's just plain dumb."

Mr. Cohen goes on to paraphrase Charles Kaiser, author of The Gay Metropolis who has "been pleading with his fellow gays to... grow up."

Although Mr. Cohen says that for "too long now heterosexuals have kept out of this debate" because they have seen gays "primarily as victims of discrimination" he cannot restrain himself from blaming and disparaging "several Republican administrations", the new secretary of education, Margaret Spellings or even people who he claims want "to keep people as ignorant as possible about sex and, especially, contraception" as the reasons why heterosexuals keep their mouths shut.

" The fact remains that a portion of the gay population -- maybe 20 percent, Kaiser estimates -- conducts itself in ways that are not only reckless but just plain disgusting. Unprotected, promiscuous sex in bathhouses and at parties and using drugs such as crystal meth to prolong both desire and performance are practices that should be no more acceptable for gays than for heterosexuals. Gays don't get some sort of pass just because they're gay. "

He goes on, "About 40,000 Americans a year continue to be infected with the AIDS virus. While their lives can be prolonged, it can be only at considerable cost -- and not forever, either. An increasing number of AIDS victims are heterosexual black women, but most are gay men. Whatever they are, they are first and foremost human beings. They are entitled to their own sexuality, but not to behavior that endangers others, costs us all plenty and, too often, entails a determined self-destruction that too many heterosexuals overlook. "

The CRC agrees with Mr. Cohen that homosexuals are "first and foremost human beings" who deserve respect, dignity and tolerance. Where we draw the line is when a sex-ed and mental health curriculum promotes homosexuality as just another type of sexual identity, and suggests to children as young as 13 (for now) that a sex life is necessary for a good self-image. Going on to tell them that 'sex play with friends of the same gender is not uncommon' in early adolesence is an open invitation to sexual experimentation.

Furthermore, instead of just defining homosexuality, this curriculum promotes homosexual behavior as healthy, with no currect statistics given from the CDC to point out the health risks associated with anal sex and other risky homosexual behaviors.

Contrary to how some in the media want to portray us, Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum supports unbiased, responsible sexual education of children in MCPS.

They say they want to protect our children. A question: Then why does the Montgomery County BOE want to promote homosexual behavior, encouraging early sexual experimentation without giving these children all the facts about the risks involved? And why in the world do they want to promote ANY KIND of sexual behavior in children at all? (Why do we feed into the attitude that people (children included) are slaves to their desires? -- alas THAT is the question for another blog...)

Could it be that whether they realize it or not, they have bought into the agenda of the homosexual left? Why, even the largest teachers' union in the country, the National Education Association, is "enthusiastically developing programs to incorporate the gay agenda into public school curricula for children of all ages." (read The New MCPS Sex-ed Curriculum - Innocent Coincidence? Or All Part of the Agenda? below)

Hey BOE, you want kids to have the facts? Well, that's what we want too. Let's teach all the real facts, and leave out the ones that support social liberalism and a certain agenda.

- posted by bianca m @ 2:14 PM  

 
The New MCPS Sex-ed Curriculum - Innocent Coincidence? Or All Part of the Agenda?

The motives of the Montgomery County Public School Board of Education may appear very honorable in their desire to protect gay youth. But considering all that has been learned about the way in which it was created and the bureaucratic layers that now keep it from the public view, questions are arising concerning the innocence of the Board's motives after reading expositions like the one below.

The Education Establishment And The Homosexual Agenda

By William R. Alford

With an eye for the future, the battleground for gay activists is in the schools and children are the targets, a new book, The Homosexual Agenda reveals. Developments in at least one state capitol seem to bear the authors out.

Quoted is a rallying point from a 1999 Gay Lesbian Straight Educational Network (GLSEN) conference:

The fear of the religious right is that the schools of today will be the governments of tomorrow. And you know, they're right. If we do our jobs right, we're going to raise a generation of kids who don't believe the claims of the religious right.

Authors Alan Sears and Craig Osten describe a phenomenon that does more than threaten religious freedom. The 'sexual orientation community' is actively working to impose its value system upon the rest of society. The chapter entitled "Stupid Parents, 'Enlightened Kids"' is of particular interest to those who are concerned about childhood indoctrination.

Quoting homosexual activist Chuck Jones: "This is war, so act accordingly." How is this war waged in the classroom? Gay orthodoxy is being imposed upon minor children in class as undisputable fact, rather then even the subject of controversy or debate.

A high school boy found himself made fodder for ridicule when he questioned a biology teacher's assertion that homosexuality is genetic: "What's the matter, Kyle? Are you unsure of your sexuality?" As the other students laughed, the teacher went on, "did you know that the people who scream the loudest turn out to be gay themselves?" [This incident is absolutely SHAMEFUL]

Before his historic loss, California Governor Gray Davis signed a sex education law that compels students to "adopt a healthy attitude towards homosexuality." According to Amy Koons at the Capitol Resource Institute in Sacramento, Calif., schools are themselves embracing the law on which the ink has scarcely dried.

"I had a distraught mother tell me that her twin sons came home thinking that 70 percent of the population is homosexual," Koons told AIA. An openly lesbian legislator, State Senator Sheila Kuehl, introduced California's new sex education law, which the state teachers union supported. Kuehl, a former child star, appeared in the television series Dobie Gillis.

In The Homosexual Agenda, Sears and Osten report that America's largest teachers union, the National Education Association, is enthusiastically developing programs to incorporate the gay agenda into public school curricula for children of all ages. Many of them are in place today and have been for some years now.

"GLSEN regularly collaborates with other national education organizations to broaden the reach of our message and materials," the lobbying group's executive director, Kevin Jennings writes in a recent fundraising letter.

"For example, last year we helped the NEA -- boasting 2.7 million members -- pass sweeping new policies directing its members to address lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues in their work."

Agendized educators are exploiting the confusion that characterizes normal adolescence, according to Sears and Osten in The Homosexual Agenda. "As bodies change and hormones rage," the authors explain, youths are told that their feelings may indicate that they are bisexual. [SOUND FAMILIAR MONTGOMERY COUNTY???] Further, heterosexuality is portrayed as being passé, while 'alternative' sexuality is promoted as chic and more likely to result in peer acceptance.

Children as young as kindergarteners are to be taught, according to quoted recommendations, that a "family is a 'unit of two or more persons, related either by birth or by choice, who may or may not live together.'" Further, from a very young age, children must be taught that "all families should be validated" - even those "with no dads, three dads or a 14-year-old mom."

The authors also warn that removing children from public schools is not necessarily a definitive escape from such indoctrination. The NEA is currently trying to have state governments force private schools and even home-schoolers to teach pro-gay and lesbian material if their diplomas are to be recognized as valid.

Organizations such as the aforementioned GLSEN are targeting children for gay advocacy participation, write Sears and Osten. The Homosexual Agenda describes an annual Day of Silence that GLSEN orchestrates, wherein students are not to speak. Instead they are to present a card explaining that they will not speak that day in support of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people.

Children are told that friends and family members who hold that homosexuality is wrong should be considered enemies and treated as such [HOW DARE THEY!! THIS GOES WAY BEYOND TOLERANCE!!], according to cited research. Alienating children from their family and indoctrinating them in school is a small price to pay to attain the ultimate objective, the authors conclude. Sears and Osten head the Alliance Defense Fund.

William R. Alford is a Government & International Politics/Electronic Journalism student at George Mason University in Fairfax VA.

AIA Executive Director Mal Kline contributed to this report.

[originally published in 2003, emphasis added]

- posted by Bob @ 7:00 AM  

 
NARAL Wants the New Curriculum
The Maryland Chapter of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) is encouraging its followers to write the MCPS Board of Education because:

Right-wing fundamentalists from outside our community are targeting the Montgomery County School Board's decision to include comprehensive sex education in 8th and 10th grade health education courses.

[and, therefore they should...]

...applaud the Montgomery County School Board's efforts toward responsible sex education in our schools. Send a message of support to school board President Patricia O'Neill today by clicking here! [emphasis added]

The above could be seen as: 'When you have no legitimate argument to make, start calling people names. Then use friendly sounding words like 'responsible', and, 'comprehensive', to try to get the public to think you are acting approriately.'

Well it may sadden NARAL to know that the CRC is not a bunch of "Right-wing fundamentalists from outside our community...". The CRC represents the MAINSTREAM, from INSIDE our COMMUNITY.

WHY? Because as more and more citizens of Montgomery County hear about what's going on, they are SHOCKED. The fact is, most people who live in Montgomery County still DON'T KNOW what the BOE has done (I wonder why?).

The CRC is right here inside Montgomery County, people who live downcounty (yes downcounty!), upcounty, and midcounty. And the CRC is THE organization that stands for "...responsible sex education in our schools".
- posted by DoctorJ @ 7:05 AM  

 
APPROVED!!! - Part 4 of 4
(Download the entire series)

In the two previous posts, APPROVED!!! - Part 2 & Part 3, it was shown that members of the Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Development (CAC) had raised three areas of concern to the MCPS Superintendent and Board of Education regarding the process of the development, review, and approval of the new Montgomery County Sex-ed Curriculum.

In this last post we will ask: Did the Committee ignore specific policy statements and procedures of the Montgomery County Board Of Education?

Read on...

1) The Policy of the Board Of Education on Child Abuse and Neglect (JHC) is:

"To require the establishment of procedures and programs which promote staff awareness and recognition of the indicators of child abuse and neglect...".

In the Child Abuse section in the 8th Grade Family Life Human Sexuality curriculum (p.35), the committee refused to include up-to-date government resources and other professional information on pedophilia, which is a form of child abuse. Many of the committee members did not think pedophilia was a form of child abuse and insisted that "child abuse" was not in the Unit (which it is). [1]

2) Ignored the Policy of Board Of Education Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS/HTLV-III Infection) (JPE) which is to:

"Provide employees, students and parents with the virus and accurate information about its mode of transmission".

The committee refused to include up-to-date government resources and professional, peer reviewed papers that support the Sexually transmitted diseases section of the Family Life and Human Sexuality Unit[2], while at the same time approving factually incorrect information about AIDS/HIV in homosexuals from only opinionated unprofessional sources.[3]

3) Is the Maryland Code 13A.04.18.03 is being violated by not including relevant additional resources? [4]

4) The Maryland Code at 120-40 requires that (iii) Sexual variations be included as a subject to be taught.

The code does not specify only certain variations are to be taught. Not all the sexual variations are included in the curriculum or instructional materials, only heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and transgender. Transgender is a gender identity disorder, but there are about twenty more sexual variations that are mental disorders including pedophilia.[5]

5) The Code at 120-37 requires in #7 "that the students will examine factors that influence the development of interpersonal relationships and sexual behavior". There is no mention in the approved resources of the factors that we know of today that influence the development of sexual behavior as written by scientific personal.[6]

6) The Code at 120-37 requires in #8 that:

"the students will learn to develop and use skills for making responsible decisions about sexual behavior based on its consequences for [the] individual and others".

There is no mention of the risky sexual behaviors, such as sodomy, which contribute to the higher rate of diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, which is more prevalent among homosexuals than heterosexuals [7]. (see also Let's Talk About Risky - Part 2)

7) The Committee repeatedly and consistently twisted procedures and controlled meetings, essentially to have the effect of suppressing discussion and consideration of materials and ideas felt to be contrary to its point of view.

The following are but a few of the more egregious examples of the procedural bias of the Committee and an alleged violation of the basic guidelines and mandates which the Committee is supposed to follow.

With reference to providing a variety of opinions:

8) The Policy of the Board Of Education for the Advisory Committees (BMA) states that a requirement of the committee is:

"to ensure that local school boards will be informed by a variety of opinions [emphasis added] from citizens and staff when considering specific issues, activities and programs.(p.1)"

And,

With reference to responsibilities of the staff liaison and chairman:

"the superintendent will be asked to designate a staff member as liaison to facilitate information-gathering for the committee, to ensure good communication between committee and Board (p.3)"

and,

"All advisory committee chairpersons, with the assistance of staff liaisons upon request, are responsible for preparing the agenda of meetings and sending these together with supplementary materials to committee members, staff liaison person, and the Board of Education Office not later then 5 days prior to the meetings.(p.4)"

The staff liaison and chairman are responsible for the distribution of materials. Iindividual members of the committee are not themselves responsible, as set force in Policy, Board of Education Advisory Committees (BMA).

Clearly, the Board of Education Policy (BMA) for the Committee contemplates consideration, at least, of a "variety of opinions" (and, presumably materials reflecting those opinions) especially when they come from recognized governmental agencies.

Board policy further contemplates that the staff liaison and Committee chair will facilitate distribution of those materials. That this was the intent of the BOE is further reflected by the response from the staff liaison, in November, 2003, when asked if Committee members could submit additional materials as proposed teacher resources. The BOE staff liaison responded affirmatively and that their office would distribute such materials to all Committee members, as had been done in the past.

This, in fact, was done, by e-mail for the December, 2003 meeting.

A second group of materials was sent by e-mail for the January, 2004 meeting. At the January, 2004 meeting, when the materials listed above were proposed for consideration by the Committee, it was noted that new members, who were appointed in January, had not received from the staff liaison the December materials because they failed to send them to the new members. Some members also objected that they were unable to download the January materials. The staff liaison had received the January materials by Fax but refused to make hard copies and mail them out in the January meeting mailings.

Clearly, all members of the Committee needed to have these materials so that they could consider them. However, when it was proposed that BOE Staff copy and mail out these materials so they could be considered at the February 2004 meeting, those who had all the materials objected and called for the Committee to require, for the first time, that the committee members proposing additional material, now be required to themselves copy, index and mail to the other 28 members all the December and January materials. In other words, the new rule would be applied retroactively and just to the proposed materials. Did the Committee not want to include these as teacher resources?

This was clearly an impossible and costly burden on individual members that had never before been required and which had the effect of denying meaningful consideration to the materials.

Did the Committee violate both the spirit and the letter of the Montgomery County Public School's policy and the Maryland Code regarding facilitating distribution and consideration of diverse materials?

Because of the changed procedures for submitting additional information, it was difficult and/or impossible to submit additional information to inform the school board of a "variety of opinions" as mandated by the Policy from the Board Of Education.[8] Besides not being able to include health related information, no additional information on debatable and controversial social, political, legal, and religious issues such as materials on former homosexuals, marriage, adoption, discrimination and tolerance and scientific papers on reorientation therapy were allowed. The approved teacher resources have only the homosexual side of these issues, and thus the teachers can only teach this one side. This proposed additional information would have supplied the Board of Education with opinions which differ from the information in the recommended teacher resources provided.[9]

The Committee procedure was changed by voting to accept 15 of the 8th Grade Curriculum Teacher Resources while discussing only six. There was no opportunity to point out incorrect information or biased opinions from non-professional sources. This failure to consider each resource was a deviation from the protocol of the past where the individual resources were always discussed before being voted on.

Did the partisans of the homosexual curriculum draft it, approve it, and hoped to implement it with the utmost discretionary quiet, distribute it very selectively, and wrap it in a labyrinth of bureaucratic procedures so that it would not see the light of day until so entrenched it would be?



------------------------------------------


[1] The resources rejected were: U.S. Centers for Disease Control-Need for Sustained HIV Prevention Among Men who Have Sex with Men, " In 2000, 59% of reported HIV infections among adolescent males aged 13-19...were attributed to male to male sexual contact", Am. Psychiatric Assn. Pedophilia Fact Sheet, and Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, Dr. T.J. Dailey.

[2] Six fact sheets from Centers for Disease Control-HIV Diagnoses Climbing Among Gay and Bisexual Men; New CDC Studies Shed Light on Factors Underlying High HIV Infection Rates Among Gay and Bisexual; Young People at Risk; HIV/AIDS Among America's Youth; A Glance at the HIV Epidemic; U.S. Syphilis Rate Climbs for Second Consecutive Year; Need for Sustained HIV Prevention Among Men who Have Sex with Men

[3] Teacher Resources (#6 Journal of Health Education) (#9 Advocates for Youth), (#11 Planned Parenthood Association of Edmonton, Canada), (#13-Recognizing Sexual Myths-National Network for Family Resiliency)

[4] The 8th grade curriculum and the 8th grade teacher resource are in direct conflict with the MCPS Administrative Regulation (IGP-RA) and the Maryland Code 13A.04.18.02 120-40

[5] Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders from the American Psychiatric Association

[6] Attempts to Modify Sexual Orientation: A Review of Outcome Literature and Ethical Issues, Dr. W. Throckmorton; Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation, Dr. R. Spitzer; Coming Out Straight, R. Cohen

[7] U.S. Centers for Disease Control information.

[8] The Policy of the Board Of Education for the Advisory Committees (BMA) states that the committee, "to ensure that local school boards will be informed by a variety of opinions from citizens and staff when considering specific issues, activities and programs."

[9] What is Reparative Therapy? and Attempts to Modify Sexual Orientation: A Review of Outcome Literature and Ethical Issues, Dr. W. Throckmorton; Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation, Dr. R. Spitzer; Some Causes of Homosexuality-R. Cohen; Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders, Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study, Drs. Sanford et al. Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol.58, No 1, January 2001, 85-91.

- posted by Bob @ 7:00 AM  

 
APPROVED!!! - Part 3 of 4

(Download the entire document)

Prior to the release of the new curriculum, members of the Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Development (CAC) had raised three areas of concern to the MCPS Superintendent and Board of Education regarding the process of development, review, and approval of the new Montgomery County Public School's Sex-ed Curriculum (see APPROVED - Part 1 of 4). Part 2 in this series addressed the first of their concerns.

Here are the details of their second concern:

The following is a list of professional government and medical resources entirely relevant to providing all the FACTs to students, as required by law and regulation, that were rejected by the Committee after discussion:

• U.S. Centers for Disease Control-( 3/11/2002 ) Need for Sustained HIV Prevention Among Men who Have Sex with Men


• U.S. Centers for Disease Control-(7/2003) Women Who Have Sex With Women


• U.S. Centers for Disease Control (11/20/03) U.S. Syphilis Rates Climbs for Second Consecutive Year


• U.S. Centers for Disease Control (May, 2002) Young People at Risk: (HIV/AIDS Among America 's Youth)


• U.S. Centers for Disease Control- (7/28/03) HIV Diagnoses Climbing Among Gay and Bisexual Men


• U.S. Centers for Disease Control (7/9/02) New CDC Studies Shed Light on Factors Underlying High HIV Infection Rates Among Gay and Bisexual


• U.S. Centers for Disease Control - A Glance at the HIV Epidemic


• U.S. Surgeon General, 1999, Call to Action to Prevent Suicide -At a Glance: Suicide Among the Young


• U.S. Dept. of Justice- Fact Sheet for Hate Crime Statistics, 2002 News Release (11/12/03)


• National Institute of Mental Health 1/3/2000 - Frequently Asked Questions about Suicide


• American Psychiatric Association –Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders -IV definition for Transvestite Fetishism


• American Psychiatric Association - Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV definition for Gender Identity Disorder


• American Psychiatric Association News Release (8/1/2003)c- Suicide Attempts In Adults Influence Suicidal Tendencies in Their Children-Study


• American Psychiatric Association.- Fact Sheet of Pedophilia

And the Committee refused to even consider the following:

• National Adolescent Health Information Center, 2000- Fact Sheet on Suicide


• Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse -Dr. T.J. Dailey, Family Research Council [has 76 references]


• Listing of the Sexual Variations from the American Psychiatric Association DSM-IV


• The Health Risk of Gay Sex; John Diggs, M.D.- Corporate Research Council 2002 [has 129 references]


• Attempts to Modify Sexual Orientation : A Review of Outcome Literature and Ethical Issues; Warren Throckmorton, PhD, Journal of Mental Health, vol.20, October, 1998, pp 283-304


• Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation ? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation ; Robert L. Spitzer, M.D., Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No 5, October 2003 pp 403-417


• Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders, T. Sandfort, PhD et al, Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol.58, No 1, January 2001, 85-91.


• Some Causes of Homosexuality - Coming Out Straight, Understanding and Healing Homosexuality , Richard Cohen, p.29, Oakhill Press, 1999.


• Percentage of General Population acknowledged to be homosexual - Statement from the 2003 amicus curiae brief filed with on behalf of a coalition of 31 pro-homosexual activist groups for the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 16(2003).


• Homosexual Teens at Risk, How Sexual Experiences Can Become Addictions. Reality Check on Homeless Gay Teens, Frank York and Robert H Knight- Family Research Council

The mind of the Committee majority was already made up, regardless of what the resources were about.

Even pointing out incorrect information in the ones that were discussed did not seem to matter to this group. When asked the explanation given was that, 'the teachers could figure out if it was correct', and so it was included anyway!!!

Is this really an excuse for including incorrect non-factual information in the new sex-ed curriculum?

-continued-

- posted by Bob @ 7:00 AM  

 
If it’s good enough for blue blooded Hillary, it’s good enough for blue blooded Montgomery County!

In a January 24, 2005 speech in New York, Senator Hillary Clinton, stated:

“Research shows that the primary reason that teen-aged girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this – and support programs that reinforce the idea the abstinence at a young age is not just the smart thing to do; it is the right thing to do.”

I guess these aren’t just crazy right wing conservative ideas, if Senator Clinton, hardly a “Right Wing Traditionalist”, agrees with the CRC position that abstinence needs to be encouraged.

Do the right thing Montgomery County!! Don’t abandon the current clear message of abstinence or the concept of chastity for teens. (See From One to Fifty-eight)

- posted by Andy @ 10:24 PM  

 
“You are doing…the work of the Devil…”
Last fall, a concerned parent in Montgomery County sent, at their own expense, a letter and two suggested flyers to the Montgomery County Public School Parent Teacher Associations alerting them about the new sex ed curriculum that the MCPS Board of Education had just voted to approve and suggested to the PTAs that they may want to inform parents.

It was an attempt to distribute information to the PTAs, in case they were not aware of the November 9, 2004 vote by the Board of Education approving the new sex-ed curriculum. The parent acted independently, and not as a member of any organization.

The parent’s letter to the PTAs stated, in part:

I greatly urge you to help keep the parents at your school informed about the drastic changes to the Family Life and Human Sexuality Curriculum in Montgomery County Public Schools. Unfortunately, many parents are uninformed or under-informed about this very important issue.

I have enclosed two informational sheets that could be used as handouts, one that could be handed directly to parents, and one that could possibly be sent with students to bring home. [emphasis in bold added]

The parent’s attached informational sheets described the BOE’s action in approving the new curriculum, and suggested that parents learn move for themselves. It offered http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/ as a potential resource. But, of course, it would be entirely up to the individual PTA to take whatever action they choose.

Having done this, the parent received back a letter from an official Montgomery County Public School Parent Teacher Association Cluster Coordinator, stating, in part:

RE: Your Improper Solicitation and Use of MCCPTA Resources

Having read all that you asked me to read, I find that the ideas you and your group share [editor’s note: this parent did not represent a ‘group’, but themselves and only encouraged other parents to learn more] and the cause you advance to be abhorrent. The MCPS curriculum revision is made as part of a routine revision and update, and has been going on for more that a year. It is based on the best available educational research [editor’s note: see APPROVED!!! - Part 1] and led by highly qualified educators and parents who have made persistent invitations to all members of the public to join the advisory panel [editors note: see Spin City and Missing in Action]. Your written materials, predictably, practice contorted demagoguery in furtherance of an unpleasant agenda. You smear together out-of-context and/or untrue assertions with bigotry.

You are doing what I think is the work of the devil in our world…. You are a strand of a long thread that runs through human history, one that says we must loath and strike out against those who, some fearmonger says, are different - - the ‘other.’ I don’t have to list history’s tyrants who are the ancestors of your cause. It’s all of them. And they cause all the damn trouble.

…you have really screwed up big time right of the bat here. For you to be soliciting…[the]…PTA for your ignorant cause is improper. For you to then admonish…to further consume the good offices of the MCCPTA (and its credibility) by leafleting your religious material [editor’s note: there is no reference to religion in the parent’s suggested flyers, the http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/ website, as a listed resource for documents, etc., does provide as additional information the ‘faith positions’ of the majority of those who live in Montgomery County] to parents and inserting it in the student backpacks is solicitation to illegal conduct. You cannot use the MCCPTA resources for your religious proselytizing! You cannot ask all PTA presidents to use MCCPTA resources to advance the cause of your religious proselytizing. [emphasis in bold added]

Wow.

You be the judge.

- posted by DoctorJ @ 7:15 AM  

 
APPROVED!!! - Part 2 of 4

(Download the entire series)

Members of the Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Development (CAC) had raised three areas of concern to the MCPS Superintendent and Board of Education regarding the process of development, review, and approval of the new Montgomery County Sex-ed Curriculum.

Here are the details of the first concern:

A listing of the 15 materials approved by the Committee as teacher resources for the 8^th grade and the approved 8^th grade curriculum, with specific reference to the inadequacies and inaccuracies found therein.

With reference to factual content of the curriculum and teacher resources:

The Maryland State Board of Education, Maryland Code Title 13A, Subtitle 04, Specific Subjects, 120-41 states: "The local school system shall use its existing procedures for evaluation of reading levels, factual content [emphasis added] and general suitability of material for different level of instruction."

And

The Comprehensive Health Education Grade 8 Instructional Outline, p. vi, states, "It is essential that information provided to students be factually accurate and current. [emphasis added]...As a general rule, resources that are more than five years old should be carefully scrutinized, and if at all possible should be replaced."

Where these laws and regulations really followed???

Let's see...

The majority of the Committee considered eighteen materials and approved, as teacher resources, fifteen. Of these approved materials, each contains either factually incorrect or outdated information (i.e. refuted by subsequent findings). These considered materials are listed below and follow the Committee's numbering:

1. NOT APPROVED-Sexual Stereotypes and Sexual Orientation- American Academy of Pediatrics, This is a chapter from a book written in 1999.

2. NOT APPROVED-When Gender Identities Become Confused- American Academy of Pediatrics not approved by this committee.

3. APPROVED: Support for Instruction About Homosexuality in South Carolina Public Schools, Lindley, L & Reininger, B., Journal of School Health, January 2001, Vol. 71, No 1.

This reference relies in part on a 1989 paper by Paul Gibson which incorrectly refers to suicide rates of homosexuals versus heterosexuals. Gibson's paper was later refuted by the Surgeon General in 1999.[1] Lindley and Reininger themselves subsequently admitted to inaccuracies in the paper and cautioned against interpreting the results, particularly with respect to homosexuals.

4. APPROVED: A Silent Crisis: Creating Safe Schools for Sexual Minority Youth.

This notebook (2002), from The Education Materials Center, Central Michigan University, has a chapter that includes a compendium of the following materials:

1. What is Heterosexual Privilege? [Los Angeles chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PLFAG) April/May, 92] PFLAG is a non-professional, non-medical homosexual advocacy group. The paper essentially presents arguments regarding alleged homosexual societal grievances.
2. Stereotypes [no source] - List stereotypes of homosexuals. No author is given
3. The Facts about Pedophilia and Homosexuality-. This paper consists of 2 statements (1991) from unknown sources and quotes from an unknown Chief Deputy, Benton County Sheriffs Department, an unknown Attorney from Multnomah County, a PhD and a M.D. that emphasizes that the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual rather than homosexual. Note, however, that it is omitted that a disproportionate number of pedophiles are homosexual considering their small percentage of the population.[2]
4. Gay Lesbians Bisexual Transgender Issues at a Glance: Terminology [Triangle Foundation Michigan's statewide Civil Rights, Advocacy and Anti-violence organization for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender persons]. This paper, from a non-medical, non-professional group lists definitions of various terms associated with homosexuality. It derides the medically accepted term 'Gender Identity Disorder' as being 'offensive' to transgender persons and 'given to children who don't obey expected gender expression.'
5. Gay Lesbians Bisexual Transgender Issues at a Glance: Discrimination [Triangle Foundation Michigan's statewide Civil Rights, Advocacy and Anti-violence organization for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender persons] This paper deals with legal issues, such as civil rights, sexual harassment, gays in the military, gay exclusion from the Boy Scouts and alleged discrimination by the American Red Cross against gays by refusing to accept their blood donations out of concern for HIV contaminates.
6. Qualities of an Ally is a paper from the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Programs Office of The University of Michigan. According to their website, this is an advocacy group promoting "social justice" and advocating the homosexual agenda.
7. What does it really mean to "Affirm" versus "Promote"? This paper is written by Evonne Hedgepeth, PhD, who owns, Lifespan Education Company. She proposes that the paper be used in training of teachers.

5. APPROVED: American Academy of Pediatrics, "Homosexuality and Adolescence", (Medical Library) (1993).

This paper was written in 1993 and contains outdated and factual incorrect information. This paper relies, in part, on above referenced 1989 paper by Paul Gibson which incorrectly refers to suicide rates of homosexuals versus heterosexuals and which was refuted by the U.S. Surgeon General [see # 3 above] It also recommends Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)[3], a non medical, partisan, homosexual advocacy group for counseling and information.

6. APPROVED: Journal of Health Education, Health Issues of gay and Lesbian Youth: Implications for Schools, by Cyndi Giorgis, Kyle Higgins and Warren L. McNab, January/February 2000, Volume 31, No.1.

This resource contains a number of factually incorrect or outdated references. For instance, this paper relies also in part on the 1989 paper by Paul Gibson which incorrectly refers to suicide rates of homosexuals versus heterosexuals. [see # 3 above]. The resource also relies on a 1987 U.S. Dept. of Justice study that stated, "gays and lesbians are the most frequent victims of hate crimes in the United States." This information is outdated and no longer correct according to the 2002 Hate Crime Statistics.[4] The resource also recommends non-medical, homosexual advocacy groups such as Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) and Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) for counseling and information. This resource recommends specific homosexual affirming religious organizations. It is stated a characteristic of a successful program is, "Teachers are encouraged to use gay or lesbian topics in their instruction. Methods include children's and adolescent literature books that deal with gay and lesbian issues, discussion of famous people who were gay or lesbian (e.g. Alexander Hamilton, Eleanor Roosevelt) and discussion of people who are gay or lesbian as a legitimate minority group etc." Historical people are listed as gay with no reference as to where the information came from or support. Note that in the recommended, Books for Adolescents, one book, Baby Be- Bop, contains descriptions of explicit risky sexual acts. [The critique of this book in this paper states, "This...novel will assist teenagers to begin their adult journey toward love and the realization that 'Any love that is love is right'."]

7. APPROVED: "Homosexual and Bisexual Issues", February, 2000. American Psychiatric Association.

This reference contains one-sided discussions of controversial social issues such as civil rights for homosexuality, discrimination based on gender, Homosexuality in the Armed services, and Homosexuality in the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

8. APPROVED: "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality"(1998) American Psychological Association (On Line).

As stated in the document, it- "was created in 1998 with editorial assistance from the APA [American Psychological Association] Committee on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns and produced by the APA Office of Public Communications." Nowhere does it have the approval of the entire American Psychological Association nor is it stated that the entire organization voted to approve the information contained in it. It contains many factual incorrect statements such as "There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children." Note, as referred to in # 3, 4, above, however, it is omitted that a disproportionate number of pedophiles are homosexual considering their percentage of the population.[5] It also recommends Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), among others that are non-medical, partisan, homosexual advocacy groups to provide information.

9. APPROVED: Questions and Answers About Homosexuality, Life Planning Education, Chapter 5: p.162, written by Advocates for Youth, Washington, DC.

Advocates for Youth is a non-medical homosexual advocacy group that offers a brochure "By and for Young People" on its website, that advises kids to meet homosexuals by finding Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered newspapers at gay bars. There are no authors and no sources to back up of the statements given. The information contains many factual incorrect statements such as, 10% of the population is gay (less than 3% are gay [6]) and "Biological differences between male heterosexuals and gay men have been found to exist in certain areas of the brain." (Dr. Simon LeVay, whose work was incorrectly the basis for 'the Gay-gene theory' stated, "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. . . Since I looked at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth or if they appeared later." Dr. Simon LeVay's paper, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Man,'). Another quote from this teacher resource states, "The social and emotional problems that homosexuals experience, such as high rates of alcohol and drug abuse, dropping out of school, HIV infection and suicide, are caused by the hatred and prejudice in our society, not by being lesbian or gay". This approved 'resource' clearly is replete with factual inaccuracies and non-professional advice in furtherance of an agenda.

10. APPROVED: Issues and News: Myths and Facts, Family Pride Coalition.

This information comes from a non-medical, nonprofessional advocacy group that presents one side of debatable social issues with respect to homosexuality and presents them as fact. It states that myths can be answered by common sense. No author is given.

11. APPROVED: Lesson Plan: Sexual Orientation Myths- Planned Parenthood Association of Edmonton.

This information comes from a non-medical, non-professional group from Edmonton, Canada. The information contained has many factual incorrect statements and unsupported, such as, "one out of four families has a lesbian, gay or bisexual in the immediate family" (however less than 3% of the population is gay[7]) and that...heterosexual women (17-30) are the fastest growing population who are infected. (with HIV). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control refutes this statement.[8] No author is given.

12. APPROVED: Fact Sheet; Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues American Psychiatric Association.

This fact sheet written in 2000, contains a number of incorrect statements. "Hate crimes are prevalent." [among gays and lesbians] This statement is refuted in 2002, FBI Fact Sheet for Hate Crime Statistics. This resource relies on outdated information with regard to sexual reorientation.[9] Resource # 12 also recommends Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) a non medical, partisan, homosexual advocacy group for information.

13. APPROVED: Recognizing Sexual Myths: National Network for Family Resiliency.

This information, written by Gary L. Hansen, PhD in Sociology, comes from a non-medical advocacy group with no references. This is listed as a fact: "Infection with HIV, the virus that causes Aids, is increasing more rapidly among heterosexuals than among homosexuals." Many resources from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control refute this statement.[10]

14. APPROVED: Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School.

This booklet, written in 1999, promotes a belief and value system and was developed by a number of organizations, including religious organizations and discusses sexual orientation development without any references. This resource endorses faith organizations that condone the homosexual lifestyle and at the same time criticizes transformational ministry for believing that freedom from homosexuality is possible through faith.[11] This resource relies on outdated information with regard to sexual reorientation.[12] This booklet promotes intolerance toward former homosexuals (page 3) by stating, "The promotion of 'reparative therapy' and 'transformational ministry' is likely to exacerbate the risk of harassment, harm and fear" and states that ..."being lesbians, gay or bisexual is not unhealthy." (page 9), and relies in part on the 1989 paper by Paul Gibson, refuted by the U.S. Surgeon General, [see # 3 above], and recommends Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).

15. APPROVED: Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum Framework- October 1999.

There are no references in this resource. The paper recommends that children consider the legal issues on sexual orientation, reproductive rights, and societal issues. Under the heading, Interdisciplinary Objectives: Reproduction/Sexuality, It is stated, "Explain the laws and relevant court rulings concerning rights about consensual sexual relationships and reproduction) e.g., Roe v. Wade, Bowers v. Hardwick)". Is this age appropriate?

16. (Removed from list because a duplicate of #8 above)

17. APPROVED: Myths About Getting Pregnant Teen Pregnancy Information Center.

This 'resource', with no references, comes from a website that is written by a former 15 year old mom who is a non-medical and non-professional person, with the statements, "Teen moms are successful, good, beautiful..." and, "Teen parents are good parents."

18. APPROVED: Myths and Facts.

This 'resource' comes from the website of Maricopa Jr. College and no author or references are given. It contains opinions by non-professional or non-medical person(s) and contains biased religious views such as: "Myth: Homosexuality is a sin" and one side of social issues, and incorrect information with respect to the suicide issue. [see # 3 above]. This 'resource', lists historical people [Plato, Leonardo da Vinci, Julius Caesar etc] as gay with no reference as to where the information came from or support.

And now...

With respect to the curriculum approved by the Committee to be taught as fact to 8^th grade students, at page 39, IX, B, under the heading, "Myths regarding sexual orientation"

A number of unsupported and inaccurate statements and critical omissions are found, which, reflect the doctrinal bias of the Committee. For example, under "Myths":

Myth # 2 states: "f you are 'straight', you can become homosexual. As a "fact" it is stated: "Most experts in the field have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice."

According to the American Psychiatric Association, "sexual orientation falls along a continuum" and "sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime" and "However to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."[13] Sexual orientation may not be a choice but it develops. Further, there are numerous examples of individuals who have left the homosexual life-style and become heterosexual. Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry and Chief of Biometrics at Columbia University, in his 2003 peer reviewed published study[14] states, "I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted--but that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that's untrue--some people can and do change." "No one is born a homosexual", states Richard Cohen, MA, a former homosexual from his book, (2000) Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality, (Oakhill Press, Winchester, Va., 1999.

At best, there is legitimate professional controversy on al these points. One side of that controversy cannot be identified to students as a "fact".

-continued-

---

- posted by Bob @ 7:01 AM  

 
Just the 'Facts' or Social Advocacy?
Let's take yet another look at that gem of a 'recommended resource' entitled:
Lesson Plan: Sexual Orientation Myths by Planned Parenthood Association of Edmonton, Canada"

(This can be found easily on the web at:
http://www.ppae.ab.ca/index.php?m=1&s=11)

There is so much that is innapropriate with this resource, not the least of which is the entire thing could be used as a whole lesson plan complete with work sheet because it is in the form of a quiz, to which our children would have to answer, "myth or fact".

Ready? Here we go:
myth or fact?

11. Lesbians, gay men and bisexuals have the same constitutional rights and opportunities as everyone else.

Answer?

"In Canada in 2002, bisexuals, gays and lesbians are denied the spousal benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals. There are many more examples of special rights (emphasis added) for heterosexuals. "

Well, what do you know? Those darned heterosexuals get everything, all those 'special' rights including the right to marry! Why that's not fair! I can just imagine the next line in the class discussion, "well now, its funny you mention that because in 2003 a very special and courageous group of people called the Massachussetts Supreme Court decided that..."

Is this type of blatant social advocacy appropriate in a classroom setting? Why is it that neither the Montgomery County BOE nor Dr. Weast made any effort to remove some of these egregious examples from the curriculum when they had the chance?

I wonder...

- posted by bianca m @ 3:25 PM  

 
Refuting Fishback
In today's Washington Examiner, David Fishback, chairman of the Montgomery County Board of Education's Citizen's Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development, has a letter full of entertainment to those of us who know what the curriculum actually holds.

He corrects the Examiner story from a week before and then launches into some doublespeak:

The condom video that was approved is separate from the proposed health curriculum revisions, which mention some basic facts on sexual orientation for the first time. Neither video was "published by gay activist groups."

True enough, as far as it goes. However, Fishback fails to mention that many of the materials other than the video are, in fact, publications by homosexual and/or liberal activist organizations like Advocacy for Youth, Planned Parenthood, the Family Pride Coalition, etc. Somehow, that's defensible to Fishback, just so long as it's not the video.

Fishback goes on to toss out another ridiculous assertion:

Another underlying premise of "ex-gay" groups is that all homosexual activity is sinful, even among committed adult couples. Some religious denominations accept this view; others vigorously reject it. But such theological debates have no place in a public school health curriculum.

Really? Then why is it that the CAC itself listed the Anglican Church in Canada as an example of a denomination that accepts homosexuality? In fact, that is the only religious institution mentioned by name in the curriculum. The advisory committee completed omitted the views of any other religion--notably the two largest, the Roman Catholic Church and the Baptists. No, they're not looking for a theological debate. A debate would require the other side to be invited. They're just looking for a theology that will support their bias.
- posted by Admin J @ 9:26 AM  

 
Steve Fisher on WAVA
To hear CRC media spokesman Steve Fisher on The Don Kroah Show on WAVA, click on the Wednesday, Feb. 8 show. It's about 1:14 into the program.
- posted by Admin J @ 8:56 AM  

 
APPROVED!!! - Part 1 of 4

(Download the entire series)

In this series of posts, FACTS will be revealed about how the Montgomery County Public School Board of Education's Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Development, or CAC, (by the way, some have dubbed 'CAC' to mean Cucumber And Condom committee, but that's not the point here) majority and leader membership chose to reject some, and not even consider other, factual information representing opposing points of view, in preparing the new sex-ed curriculum.

Does the non-inclusive nature of these actions, lead one to assume a pre-determined agenda was being followed by the Committee and the Board of Education?

One might think so, because the MCPS Superintendent, and Board of Education, did NOTHING to intervene after being informed. And specifically, the Superintendent stated: "I’m sure you realize that I cannot dictate to the committee how they choose to operate or what their decisions should be". Dictate? No! Question? Yes! Investigate? Yes! Personally attend to a matter to make sure all rules were followed? Yes! That's why he is paid $300,000 a year! (Don't believe it?) That's MORE than the President of the United States. Now leading the Montgomery County School System is a big job. But bigger than leading the free world? Especially, when the person in charge says in effect, who am I to question a BOE Committee?
…

Many times members of the CAC expressed concerns regarding the recommendations for teacher resources for the new eighth grade sex-ed curriculum that have been approved by the Committee, and now as of November 8, 2004, the BOA.

The principle concerns in this regard were manifest in the materials approved by the Committee, and now the BOA, that contain factually incorrect, incomplete, and biased material which now has the very real potential of putting the children of Montgomery County's health and safety at risk.

These members also expressed concerns that the Committee had compounded this hazard to our children by systematically (and deliberately?) excluding materials from recognized professional sources, including the U Centers for Disease Control, that the Committee majority considered (one can reason) might convey a message counter to the one it sought to promote.

Reluctantly, these CAC members concluded that the Committee was driven more by an intolerance of differing viewpoints, and a desire to promote a specific agenda, rather than a reasonable concern for the presentation of a balanced health and safety children's program in our school system.

And when the MCPS Superintendent and Board of Education were made aware of this, they did, NOTHING.

The CAC members who raised these concerns outlined three major areas to the Superintendent and Board of Education:

1. The 15 materials approved by the Committee as teacher resources for the 8th grade, and the approved 8th grade curriculum, with specific reference to the inadequacies and inaccuracies found therein.
2. A listing of materials from recognized governmental and professional organizations that had either been rejected, or refused even for consideration, by the Committee.
3. A description of what could be termed; biased, improper (or possibly worse?), procedures by the Committee to suppress any non-conforming, or diverse, points of view, even those that were intended to present all factual material available and therefore establish a balance in the new curriculum.

Subsequent posts will examine each of these three areas.

While these CAC members acknowledged that the positions taken by the majority of the Committee reflected sincere and strongly held feelings, those feelings should not have compelled that majority to act in ways contrary to the express purposes for which the Committee was created, and certainly not to even create the appearance of a violation of any of the guidelines established by the BOA governing Committee protocols.

And so a question could be asked; Did the actions and recommendations of the CAC majority in the approval and development of the new sex-ed curriculum, place advancement of a social agenda before the health and welfare of our children, by refusing the inclusion of information considered contrary to that agenda, even when such information directly addressed the children’s welfare?

- continued -

- posted by Bob @ 7:00 AM  

 
The 'Birth' of the New Sex-Ed Curriculum

How did this curriculum hatch?

In the 2001-2002 Annual Report of the Citizen's Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development (CAC) Annual report, the then Committee Chairman (an openly gay professional lawyer) recommended that the curriculum teach sexual variations since this subject matter is listed in the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) and the schools had never done this (wonder why). However, there is no listing of a vote on this recommendation by the committee in the report. Since there is no listing of a vote on this topic, was this just his view?

But, the Board of Education said 'O.K.' anyway.

During a three week period in July, 2003, the BOE provided funding to pay school personnel plus 2 volunteers from the CAC, to draft the curriculum.

The curriculum that was drafted was 'reviewed and evaluated' by a committee of MCPS Staff and at this time the teacher resources were added.

This curriculum package was 'reviewed and evaluated' by the committee and included in the Annual report (2003-2004) that was sent to superintendent Weast's office.

The curriculum was then 'reviewed and evaluated' by staff in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction.

The curriculum was then 'reviewed' by the MCPS administrative Leadership Team.

The curriculum was then unanimously approved by the BOE on November 9, 2004.

At none of the above steps was the curriculum ever changed. Everyone just passed it on.

- posted by Bob @ 5:30 PM  

 
New Strain of HIV Makes its Debut

Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18410-2005Feb12.html

Rare Drug-Resistant HIV Found in N.Y.

By VERENA DOBNIK The Associated Press Saturday, February 12, 2005; 8:26 AM
NEW YORK (AP)

City health officials are working to track down sex partners of a man diagnosed with a rare strain of highly drug-resistant HIV that progressed rapidly to AIDS.

The virus was found in a man in his mid-40s who had unprotected sex with other men, often while using crystal methamphetamine, an addictive stimulant, health officials said Friday.

"We are not aware of another case like this in the United States, or elsewhere," said Dr. Ron Valdiserri, deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention. Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Frieden said the rare HIV strain is "difficult or impossible to treat."

The New York Times, citing a person familiar with the case whom it did not identify, reported Saturday that the man was believed to have had unprotected sex with hundreds of people.

The man -- who had not previously undergone antiviral drug treatment -- was diagnosed with the rare strain in December 2004. He apparently had been infected recently after years of having unprotected anal intercourse.

The city has not released his name, but health officials are trying to locate his sex partners to offer them testing.

The onset of AIDS appears to have occurred within two to three months, and at most 20 months, after infection. Frieden said HIV can take 10 years to develop into AIDS.

Drug resistance is increasingly common among HIV-positive people, including some who had never been treated before, but not with such a fast progression to AIDS, Valdiserri said. The man's HIV did not respond to three of four types of antiviral drugs most commonly prescribed; he is now receiving a fourth regimen, health officials said.

Typically, drug resistance occurs after a patient is treated with the drugs, often because the patient veers from the prescribed course. In this case, resistance occurred from the start of treatment, and was combined with a rapid progression to AIDS. Valdiserri said that "double whammy" of resistance and rapid progression made the case alarming.

"The message to the American public is that HIV remains a very formidable adversary. We can't let down our vigilance," Valdiserri said.

Some AIDS experts were skeptical about the announcement. Dr. Robert C. Gallo, a co-discoverer of the AIDS virus and director of the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland, said some patients progress more rapidly to AIDS because they are highly susceptible, not because their strain of the virus is more deadly. "My guess is that this is much ado about nothing," he told The New York Times.

But Dr. James Braun, president of the Physicians Research Network, a New York-based not-for-profit organization of clinicians serving HIV patients, said doctors have been worried for some time about a more resistant strain of the drug.

"We believe that the transmission of treatment-resistant HIV was a disaster waiting to happen, particularly in communities where safer sex is not practiced regularly and in light of people using drugs like crystal meth," he said.
- posted by bianca m @ 7:23 PM  

 
“Spin City” Premiers!!! (Written, Directed, and Produced by the MCPS Board of Education)

A search at the Board of Education website for the name of the report containing the new curriculum links to a 2-page Fact Sheet (instead of a long document with an outline). (See also, The Long and Winding Road to the New Curriculum)

With this fact sheet, citizens are saved the trouble of reading what the curriculum actually says and instead are given a “spin sheet” from the BOE. Why does the search produce this result and not the new curriculum; aren’t they proud of all their hard work? Maybe they are fearful that people will read the new curriculum and see what’s really in there.

Let’s look at the “spin”:

“The action of the Board follows a three-year study that provided numerous opportunities for parent input.” (From Fact Sheet)

Let’s talk about these “numerous opportunities.”

There are 3 committees that had input to the new sex-ed curriculum, they are:

1. Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Development
2. Curriculum Advisory Committee
3. School Health Council

Now, all committee appointments are approved by the BOE. There isn’t anyone on a committee that the BOE didn’t want there. (I believe this is called “stacking the deck”.)

If a parent didn’t sit on one of these committees, and uh, I guess that is the majority of us, then we didn’t have “numerous opportunities” to have input, did we? The new curriculum was made public on November 9, 2004. Prior to that date, there was no peeking allowed, since it was being drafted “in committee.” It’s impossible to comment on something we can’t see.

In reality, the “numerous opportunities for parent input” belonged to those who were selected by the BOE to sit on those 3 committees. Actually, some of those parents and citizens who DID take the time to tell the Board of Education that they disagreed with what was happening in committee were ignored.

Yes, there were “numerous opportunities” for a select few. The BOE wants people to believe that these opportunities were for everyone. Sounds like spin…..

Stay Tuned for the Next episode of “Spin City”!

- posted by Andy @ 1:33 PM  

 
Hey, we're taxpayers Mrs. O'Neill!
Seems our Montgomery County Board of Education president, Patricia O'Neill is not averse to using information obtained in a questionable way to imply that parents who have children in Catholic schools have no business opposing the new sex-ed curriculum.

At Tuesday's BOE meeting, Mrs. O'Neill did something out of the ordinary when she addressed CRC spokesman Steve Fisher directly, after the conclusion of the statements of taxpayers in favor of the recision of the new sex-ed curriculum. Although her comments were given in a very pleasant and friendly manner, Mrs. O'Neill made a point of the fact that Steve Fisher is a former MCPS parent, having children in Catholic schools. The implication was that residents of the County who have children in private schools have no business being concerned about the curriculum taught in MCPS.

Why is this such a big deal, Mrs. O'Neill? Aren't parents of children in Catholic or other private schools here in the County taxpaying citizens? As I recall, even these citizens have just been the recipient of a substantial property tax increase of late. Their stake in the curriculum taught in MCPS is sizable as well, because this sex-ed and mental health curriculum change will go a long way in changing the culture of the County that we all live and pay taxes in.

In fact, many of the members of the CRC do not have children in MCPS -- yet. Many are hard working parents of infants or pre-schoolers and they are thinking ahead to the elementary and middle and high school years.

Many members of the CRC are single people who are concerned about what they see as an abuse of power and the government infringing on citizens' rights.

Still others are retired people who may have paid taxes in this County for 40 or even 50 years, who raised their own children and saw them through a wonderful education here in Montgomery County and now are watching their own grandchildren coming up through the school system. They have a huge stake in this as well.

Don't they have a right to have a say in this matter?

We all have a voice Mrs. O'Neill.

We deserved to be heard on this before you and other members of the Board abused the power of your office by adopting this curriculum without following your own procedures to properly inform the public.

We insist on being heard today.
- posted by bianca m @ 4:40 PM  

 
Faulty logic 101
If the goal of Health Education is to inform and educate students so that they can live healthier lives, then, in a world where:

1. AIDS is on the rise,
2. new sexually transmitted diseases are being discovered,
3. and teenage girls are still getting pregnant despite all they’ve learned about contraception,

Is it logical to have schools encouraging kids (who have raging hormones anyway) to question their own “sexual expression and orientation” in the classroom setting?

The logical conclusion here is that schools should present a position on premarital sex similar to their position on drugs and alcohol – “Just Say No!!!”

- posted by Andy @ 4:32 PM  

 
From One .......to Fifty-eight: That's Acceleration!
Look at these stats about word usage in the new curriculum compared to the current curriculum. The speed at which the schools are embracing the opportunity to teach about sexual variations in the classroom is amazing and needs to be reported so that everyone can appreciate how quick they are to leave traditional values in the dust! Varoom...

Current Curriculum/New Curriculum

Homosexual and Homosexuality (0 times/19 times)
Sexual identity (1 time/20 times)
Sexual orientation and Orientation (0 times/16 times)
Partner (0 times/3 times)
SUMTOTAL: That's 1 time in the current curriculum compared to 58 times in the new!!

But wait there's more:

Husband/Wife/Father (0 times/0 times)
Abstinence (4 times/2 times)
Chastity (2 times/0 times)

Compared to the current curriculum, this is quite a change, and clearly this is more than a definition of the terms. It’s an in-depth discussion that the kids will receive. The key element here is the notion of “sexual identity”, about which they go into much detail for the 13 and 15 year olds. Sorry, but this isn’t an appropriate lesson for kids who are being encouraged by good parents not to be sexually active.

Why do the schools feel that they need to “teach” this in a classroom? If that’s not bad enough, the curriculum will get them actively questioning their sexual orientation.

From the curriculum:

Components of personal identity
a. Self-concept: Who am I?
1) Socially
2) Emotionally
3) Cognitively
4) Physically (both physical features and health)
5) Sexually (both expression and orientation)

If you don’t believe that a school would really try to do this in a classroom, just read it (the new curriculum). And this is only the tip of the iceberg......

- posted by Andy @ 10:07 PM  

 
MCPS Board of Education Appoints 11 Year Old Child as Member of Controversial Sex-ed Committee

UPDATE: The Committee appointment of this child was verified by MCPS, as reported on WMAL's Michael Graham radio show, Wednesday February 9, 2005.

In September, 2004, the Montgomery County Public Schools Board of Education appointed an 11 year old 7th grade student to the Family Life and Human Development Advisory Committee.

This is the same Committee that developed the new controversial sexual education curriculum that:

• Presents sexual variations and behaviors to 8th Graders
• Encourages students to explore their sexual preferences and identity
• Advocates sexual experimentation

One assumes that in order to fully carry out the Committee's charge of: "examining all printed and audiovisual materials proposed to be used in the schools and recommending those materials which are appropriate at the different educational levels", Committee members must first fully examine the sexually explicit materials. Candid discussions would then follow, because only then could they determine what 'different educational levels' the sexual material is appropriate for. Therefore, by definition, the BOE is exposing an 11 year old child to inappropriate, perhaps even adult oriented sexual material.

Why is the BOE so obdurate in bringing sexual variation into the lives of young children?

As of January, 2005, the student still serves as a full voting member.

Update by AdminJ: CRC media spokesman Steve Fisher was a guest on two local radio shows that were discussing this issue. Coverage on the WMAL show is here.

- posted by DoctorJ @ 7:14 PM  

 
More Risky Business
The below is a letter to the Editor, as published, in the Washington Times, February 8, 2005.


Risky business

With reference to the article "Sex-ed courses called flawed" (Metropolitan, Jan. 26), we agree with Warren Throckmorton's criticism of the Montgomery County Public Schools' new sex-education curriculum. One only has to look at the curriculum and the resources used to support it to come to that view.

David Fishback, who heads the citizens advisory committee that reviewed the curriculum changes, says Mr. Throckmorton's view "that people can change their sexual orientation and sexual desires if they really, really want to and really, really try is risky, risky, business" and he "rejects the claim by Michelle Turner and other committee members who say their evidence on homosexuality was ignored." .

Well, what is more risky: Telling young people that there is a possibility of changing their sexual orientation or playing Russian roulette with sexual practices that dramatically increase the likelihood of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases?

Further, the advisory committee and the Board of Education rejected all the proposed, relevant information from federal government agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Education and National Institute of Mental Health, and peer-reviewed published scientific information that was contrary to the advisory committee's biased message. Instead, much of the approved material comes from non-mainstream, nonmedical, nonprofessional sources with factually incorrect information — advocacy resources such as the Triangle Foundation — and from a teen mom's Web site.

With this new curriculum, the children will never be taught that, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Among young men aged 13-24 years, 49 percent of all AIDS cases reported in 2000 were among men who have sex with men" and "9 percent were among young men infected heterosexually." They will never be taught tolerance for the thousands of heterosexuals who previously lived as homosexuals for five to more than 40 years. They will never be taught that transgenderism is a treatable gender identity disorder. Our children deserve to know the whole truth.

RETTA BROWN
Rockville

JERLEAN EADER
Poolesville

JACKIE RICE
Rockville

ROSA URQUHART
Silver Spring

Members and former members of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development, Montgomery County


- posted by DoctorJ @ 8:05 AM  

 
Missing in Action

Looking at the 2003-2004 Annual Report of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development (an Advisory Committee to the Montgomery County Public Schools Board of Education) one finds the list of 2003-2004 members. The list totals 30 Committee members (with one 'terminated' in January, 2004).

So, for such an important subject you would expect full attendance, participation, and even replacement if the member didn't show up and do what they signed up to do. Yes, only active, committed, citizenry representing the diversity of views in the community for such an important Advisory Committee. And if that was not the case? Well that's really serious!! Why? Because the MCPS BOE Advisory Committee Policy 3.c.3. says so:

Any standing advisory committee member who is absent from 25 percent or more of the scheduled meetings during any one-year period will be considered resigned from membership 30 days after the committee notifies the Board of Education. The Board may, upon request, waive resignation for good cause; i.e., illness, emergency situation, or other extenuating circumstances. The individual shall be notified in writing by the Board whether or not a waiver has been granted.

So the actual committee members MUST have been in good standing, because well, the rules in place at the time (and today) say they will be 'considered resigned' if they weren't. And we know from reading the Report that there were 29 members.

So you ask, 'what's the point?'

Let's look at the votes on the new curriculum, shall we?

As stated in the Report, here's a list of dates when votes were taken, and the number of people who voted:

October, 2, 2003 (15)
December, 4, 2003 (14)
January 8, 2004 (19)
March 4, 2004 (20)
April 1, 2004 (16)
May 6, 2004 (17)
June 3, 2004 (19)

The Report states that among these dates anywhere from 9-14 committee members did not vote because, presumably, they were not present otherwise an abstention would have been noted for the legal record. That's almost twice as many people not there and not voting, than those who actually voted.

How could that be? If a member were absent more than 25% of the time they would be 'considered resigned' and therefore, replaced with someone else to work on such a matter of importance.

Well, why not? Maybe because there was a lack of volunteers. Can't be. The Committee turned away volunteers!

Did you catch that? The Committee turned away volunteers!! And logically, one must surmise that they knew some folks weren't showing up.

Now, why is that?

- posted by DoctorJ @ 8:34 PM  

 
Just following the logic
One of the defenses that the Board of Education has used in their explicit and one-sided sex-ed program is that "if you don't like it, you can opt out."

Hmmm. Well, since this is Black History month, let's look at a parallel to prohibiting discrimination against our African-American families to illustrate why opting out is just another way to teach controversial topics over the objections of some parents and civic leaders:

For the sake of discussion, would it be ok if a duly designated citizens’ advisory committee revised the history curriculum to include a section on the virtues of the Confederacy and the economic boon provided by slavery? Proponents of such a recommendation would argue that there are peer reviews by scholars and historians that would justify the factual basis for teaching this controversial topic. Others might even argue that it would promote "tolerance" of students who feel their Southern culture is not given equal respect on campus. Would the powers to be then say, "Hey, if you're offended you can opt out"?

No, indeed. And rightly so. Because "opting out or in" would permit the majority of students to still be taught controversial subject matter that would be termed offensive by many, the BOE and most if not all Montgomery County parents would never permit this view point to be taught to middle and high school students. And doubly no if, as they have with the sex-ed curriculum changes, they had adopted the new curriculum in contravention of their own guidelines. Thus, the majority of parents and taxpayers would never know until it’s too late.
- posted by Admin J @ 2:50 PM  

 
Another gem of a 'resource'
Another 'recommended resource' for teachers trying to construct a lesson plan for our eighth graders comes from a publication entitled Creating Inclusive Programs, from the gay and lesbian advocacy group, Advocates for Youth.

(This resource can be found on the web at:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/
transitions/transitions1404_5.htm)

The goal? "Whether or not youth-serving professionals know of any openly GLBTQ youth in programs, it is essential to create a safe space for young people who are, who believe that they might be, or who have friends or family members who are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, or transgender. "

Among the many suggestions for creating programs that are inclusive of and sensitive to GLBTQ youth (thats gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgendered or questioning youth for all you newbies) is the following:

"Discuss sexual behaviors explicitly rather than assuming that everyone defines sexual intercourse in the same way. Also, avoid terms that make unwarranted assumptions or are disrespectful in nature. For example, the term 'gay sex' is inaccurate and helps no one; heterosexual, bisexual, and lesbian youth may engage in anal intercourse while gay males may not. "

Try to remain calm. The BOE says its just another sexual variation folks.

"Use inclusive language. Discuss 'partners' instead of always assuming a youth's prospective date or sexual partner is of the opposite gender."

Never say husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend as this may alienate a boy or girl in class. 'Partners' is the preferred word here people. Oh, and let's not assume that this person is not your child's sexual partner.

"Incorporate comprehensive sex education. Sex education programs should include information about both contraception and abstinence. When discussing abstinence, do not talk about "abstinence-until-marriage." Like heterosexual youth, GLBTQ youth search for intimacy and emotional closeness and may long for a committed relationship. In a society where same-gender marriages are often illegal and where same-gender committed relationships are ignored or frowned upon, the concept of "abstinence until marriage" completely ignores the emotional and physical needs of GLBTQ youth."

Ok, let's see if I have that right. Never say 'abstinance until marriage" as this may offend someone who may not be able to marry their 'partner' someday. Talk about minority rights! What about the majority of heterosexual youth who need to hear the abstinence message? Seems their needs are being overlooked here.

So I suppose the message we can take from this lesson is that:

The Montgomery County Board of Education advocates teaching our children that:

1. not everyone defines sexual intercourse in the same way, and in fact anal intercourse should be discussed explicitly
2. the term 'partner' is preferred because we should not assume that their prospective dates or sexual partners would be someone of the opposite sex and in fact, we should just assume that they have sexual partners and
3. the message 'abstinance until marriage' is offensive.

Is this for real? How in the world did we get to this point?

Just ask the Montgomery County Board of Education ... they think they know what is best for our children.


to be continued...
- posted by bianca m @ 4:00 PM  

 
To where will the Pilot fly? And who will watch the landing?
The new sex-ed curriculum will be piloted at 3 MCPS middle schools, and 3 MCPS high schools this spring. But in which schools it will finally land is unknown.

Psssstt – wanna be let in on something? If you are a parent of a child who doesn’t attend one of these six schools, and statistically that is most probable since there are 25 high schools and 37 middle schools in Montgomery County, you will NOT particpate in evaluating the new curriculum and nor provide feedback to the BOE.

W-H-A-T! Why??

Because the BOE has no intention to offer information to the non-pilot school parents about the new curriculum in the form of mailings or informational meetings. That’s why.

Yes, it does seem astoundingly unfair, doesn’t it? Only those parents in the pilot schools will have input into the evaluation. All the other parents in the 56 other schools get to say, nothing.

The BOE is putting the majority of parents in the non-evaluation category, and in effect, limiting the ability of parents from their right to know and therefore make a critical informed decision for themselves that effects the lives of their own children, on how this new material will effect their youngsters, or not.

Someone needs to remind the BOE that the children in MCPS belong to their parents, not the school system. MCPS serves the citizenry, not the other way around. That’s why they call people who work for the government, ‘civil servants’.

- posted by DoctorJ @ 4:20 PM  

 
How the BOE defines 'promiscuous', part 2
Another tidbit from the recommended resource known as:
Lesson Plan: Sexual Orientation Myths by Planned Parenthood Association of Edmonton, Canada" (http://www.ppae.ab.ca/index.php?m=1&s=11) has this to say:

True or false? "Loving people of the same sex is immoral (sinful)."


Answer: "Many religious denominations do not believe this. For example, in 2002 the Anglican Church of Canada began ritual blessings of same-sex unions. What is universally understood is that intolerance and hatred is wrong."

Well, we of course agree that hatred is WRONG, in fact the CRC advocates teaching tolerance and respect for every human being, regardless. But what this resource implies is that religious denominations that DO NOT bless same sex unions or teach that homosexual behavior is wrong advocate intolerance and hatred. And that is completely outrageous.

For a school system that claims to have developed a 'balanced' sex-ed curriculum and wants to keep discussion about differing religious beliefs OUT of the curriculum, don't you think referencing the Anglican Church of Canada as its only example is innapropriate?

The Montgomery County Board of Education advocates teaching (by implication) that religious institutions that do not bless same-sex unions or teach that homosexual behavior is wrong, in effect promote intolerance and hatred.

Is this a lesson suitable for health class, for any class -- in MCPS?

- posted by bianca m @ 1:04 PM  

 
Let’s talk about 'risky', Part II - A new “outbreak” of “a bad disease”

New York City health officials held a news conference February 2nd after the laboratory diagnosis of Lymphogranuloma venereum, or LGV. LGV is a form of chlamydia that also can damage the bowels and scar the anus, the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Thomas Frieden said.

"We know LGV increases the risk of the spread of HIV because it causes ulcers and bleeding," Frieden said. He said LGV appears to primarily have affected bisexual and gay men.

The recent two cases in New York, now laboratory-confirmed as LGV, are consistent with the pattern of LGV being found in men who had sex with other men, health officials said. Frieden said the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have also confirmed three LGV cases in San Francisco and one in Atlanta, all among gay or bisexual men.

Susan Blank, New York's assistant commissioner for sexually transmitted disease control, said the health department is treating the two cases as an "outbreak" in an aggressive effort to prevent the spread of what she called "a bad disease."

"We are notifying New Yorkers that we have identified two cases of a new form of a sexually transmitted disease that has affected gay men in New York City," Frieden said. Unprotected anal intercourse is the key risk factor for the spread of LGV, Frieden said, adding that it is difficult to diagnose.

Georgia Division of Public Health officials were working on Wednesday on the LGV case in Atlanta, said Dr. Luke Shouse, chief of the division's HIV and STD surveillance branch.

Shouse warned doctors that the recent outbreak involved symptoms different from traditional LGV symptoms of swelling of lymph nodes in the groin area.

Instead, symptoms have included painful rectal bleeding, pus from the rectum or pain upon defecation. Further, symptons may be confused with inflammatory bowel disease.

The first symptom may be a painless pimple or lesion on the genitals, and the onset of symptoms varies widely, health officials said. The initial lesion may appear from three to 30 days after exposure. An individual remains infectious as long as there are active lesions.

If identified early, Frieden said LGV can be treated with antibiotics. Untreated, it can cause permanent damage to the bowels and swelling and scarring of the genitals, he said.

Sources:
AP News
advocate.com
uk.gay.com
elitestv.com
accessnorthga.com

- posted by DoctorJ @ 11:38 AM  

 
Let's see how the BOE defines 'promiscuous'
One of the teacher resources recommended by the Montgomery County Board of Education is:

Sexual Orientation Myths by Planned Parenthood Association of Edmonton, Canada

(here is a link to the suggested lesson plan: http://www.ppae.ab.ca/index.php?m=1&s=11)

The CRC reviewed this and other 'Recommended Resouces' and found that in response to a question about homosexual promiscuity, the answer is that “we may question our definition of ‘promiscuous’" because “there is nothing inherent in heterosexuality that maintains strong, long-term relationships.”

Is that right?

"...there is nothing inherent in heterosexuality that maintains strong, long-term relationships".

Wow. Clearly we are missing something here. Why would the Board of Education or any group want to promote such an idea?

Let's put it another way:

The Montgomery County Board of Education advocates teaching our children that "we may question our definition of 'promiscuous'" because "there is nothing inherent in heterosexuality that maintains strong, long-term relationships."

Bring on that condom video!



- posted by bianca m @ 7:47 AM  

 
The Long and Winding Road…to the new curriculum (continued)
OK, let’s cut to the chase. You are at the MCPS BOE web site and want to locate the new sex-ed curriculum that the BOE approved last November. This time you think you’ll be smart and use technology. 'I'll do a search!' you say to yourself. After all, why would the government put up a search button if it didn’t respond with accurate to the point useful information? And like, display the link to the document that you are searching for?

So you enter:
“sex-ed curriculum” – no link to the new currciulum
“new health ed curriculum” - not here either

Maybe even:
“condom video” – nope

But wait - some of the results take you to a two page summary that MCPS wrote about the new sex-ed curriculum! Ok, now we're heading somewhere, and you say 'surely they put a link to the new sex-ed curriculum amongst all those, "FACTs" '? Not a chance. Oh bother. Another dead end on the Long and Winding Road...to the new curriculum.

Well now, let's step back and look at where we are. Imagine you are a parent who wants to read the new curriculum for yourself straight from 'the source', and you can’t find it from reviewing the November 9, 2004 meeting minutes, and still can't find the actual document from doing a search on the BOE site. What shall you try next?

Agendas!

"Agendas"?

Yes Montgomery County, Agendas!!

So off to the BOE Agendas page. By clicking on the Agendas link you find:

Next Meeting:
Future Meetings:
Past Meetings: Agendas with supporting materials

‘Supporting materials’? Ooooo now that sounds promising. And with a click on the November 9, 2004 meeting Agenda, you just happen to scroll down to item 7 and find...this entry, in blue text:

2003–2004 Annual Report of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development and Staff Response

A 'Report', and a 'Response'. 'Doesn’t sound like a potential title that would contain the new sex-ed curriculum, to me', you say to yourself. But since you're tired by now (and perhaps...frustrated?), you mouse over to the blue text and find that, it's a link! A link within the agenda pdf (hey didn’t know you could do that! I mean I might have missed it or something). And there it is, waayyyyyy dooowwnnnnn on page..........................27 of yet another new pdf that opens.

And get this, after again reviewing the search results you earlier received, you even find the same agenda pdf is listed there too!

The Long and Winding Road ends with...Agendas.

Easy access to the new curriculum? Don’t think so.


- posted by DoctorJ @ 5:45 AM  

 
Which is it, gay by choice or no choice?
http://washtimes.com/metro/20050201-110413-8926r.htm

Today's Washington Times Metropolitan section has an article about the PFOX billboard recently put up on Rockville Pike, that proclaims "Ex-gays prove that change is possible". What a shocker! Gay rights activists say that a billboard of this type is offensive. "It's an ugly destructive message that persecutes gay people," according to Wayne Besen, a homosexual activist and author of "Anything But Straight."

Look, I don't claim to know if indeed everyone is capable of change, but for goodness sakes, couldn't change be possible for at least some people? And if that message helps some people who are unhappy in their choices, then isn't that a good thing?

What is that you say? Homosexuality is never a choice?
Tell that to the people at www.queerbychoice.com.

- posted by bianca m @ 4:51 PM  

 
The Long and Winding Road…to the new curriculum

Yes Montgomery County! The new sex-ed curriculum is on the BOE website! And you’re a parent who just happens to know to look for it at http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/boe/meetings/
agenda/2004-05/2004-1109/CACFLHD%202003-04%20STAFF%20.pdf (and like who wouldn’t?).

But IF you didn’t know to look there, and may it be suggested that many would not, all you need to do is follow the long and winding road...

First, you say to yourself, ‘I heard that this new curriculum was voted on at the November 9^th 2004 BOE meeting. So, lets go to the meeting minutes, after all, an issue of such importance must be attached to minutes because, well, they approved it at that meeting as a matter of public record, right?’

Ok, click the link to the BOE minutes and, this is what you get:

Approved minutes for the most recent Board of Education business meetings may not be readily available on the website due to the time involved in their preparation. Media summaries of actions taken at the most recent meetings are available under MCPS Media Announcements.

To obtain minutes of recent meetings, please call Glenda Rose, Administrative Assistant to the Board of Education, at (301) 279-3301, or e-mail your request to Glenda_Rose@fc.mcps.k12.md.us.

Approved Board of Education minutes are available in Adobe Acrobat PDF format (4K-300K). You may access minutes in several ways: Most Recent Available, Archives by Year, Search

Hmmm, the most recent available is not likely to work, and do you really need to call someone to get the November minutes? Shouldn't they be online? So you decide to look at Archives by Year. Do this and you find a resulting stark white web index page (user friendly huh?). Here's where the unsuspecting parent might ask, ‘What’s this directory for parents stuff up at the top?’ [check it out at www.mcps.k12.md.us/boe/meetings/minutes/]

Anyway, you deduce, ‘I know that the BOE didn’t all meet on January 16, 2003 (it lists this date 21 times) or those other dates that are listed too, so I probably need to click on the underlined year after that "dir" thing. That’s a link! And I know I want to follow a link because that’s the way my government communicates with me, with easy to find links!' So you click on the 2004 link.

This time you again get a plain white index page but decide to ignore the directory for parents, and click on the link on line that says Wednesday November 10, 2004 (the day after the November 9^th BOE meeting – make sense?). That shows the September 27^th meeting. No dice. If you click the link on the line with the second entry that says Wednesday November 10^th, that displays the October 12^th BOE meeting. Rats, no dice again.

Maybe, they titled the file name with a numerical representation of the date of the meeting. Ahhh, so let’s go to 110904.pdf. Alright, now we’re getting somewhere!

Finally, you see some very comprehensive meeting minutes. YES!!

But, but, no curriculum?!?

Nuts, dead end again.

Back to the Long and Winding road…

-Continued-

- posted by DoctorJ @ 11:06 PM  

 
Let’s talk about 'risky'

Mr. Fishback said in a recent Washington Times article that Dr. Throckmorton's view "that people can change their sexual orientation and sexual desires if they really, really want to and really, really try is risky, risky business."

What about the risks those teenagers will be exposed to if they listen to the new curriculum and start to explore sexual variations for themselves? What about the risk of AIDS and all the other STD’s they may contract? What about the emotional damage they experience from premature sexual activity outside the protection of marriage? The documented risks the new curriculum will expose every teenager to are real and deadly, not just conjecture.

To read about the risks of gay sex, visit

htt://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/

white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf

Warning, this is very graphic in nature.

- posted by Andy @ 10:15 PM  

 
MSNBC - Brain immaturity can be deadly
A new study by the National Institutes of Health suggests that the part of the brain "that regulates risky behavior is not fully formed until age 25."

Anyone who has raised them -- actually, anyone who has been one -- knows that adolescents are more likely to engage in dangerous behavior even if they know the risks.

Yet another reason for the public schools not to teach them that the homosexual lifestyle -- with its attendant risks of disease, domestic abuse, etc. -- is just another legitimate "sexual variation."
- posted by Admin J @ 4:04 PM