But let's look at what was being taught. The following is a quote from the Myths vs. Facts portion of the curriculum.
The Bible contains six passages which condemn homosexual behavior. The Bible also contains numerous passages condemning heterosexual behavior. Theologians and Biblical scholars continue to differ on many Biblical interpretations. They agree on one thing, however. Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality.So, apparently it is permissible to talk about the Bible in public schools, but only if advocating revisionist interpretations justifying homosexuality and only if you also slam Baptists in the process. Note that this curriculum was approved by the school board.
Among the many things deemed an abomination are adultery, incest, wearing clothing made from more than one kind of fiber, and eating shellfish, like shrimp and lobster.
Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression. Less than a half a century ago, Baptist churches (among others) in this country defended racial segregation on the basis that it was condoned by the Bible. Early Christians were not hostile to homosexuals. Intolerance became the dominant attitude only after the Twelfth Century.
Today, many people no longer tolerate generalizations about homosexuality as pathology or sin. Few would condemn heterosexuality as immoral--despite the high incidence of rape, incest, child abuse, adultery, family violence, promiscuity, and venereal disease among heterosexuals. Fortunately, many within organized religions are beginning to address the homophobia of the church.
The judge's memorandum on the case can be found here . It has more interesting Myths and Facts.
8 comments:
No, this was not from any section of the curriculum at all. This came from a resource that only teachers saw. The teachers resources give them background information so they can understand various aspects of this complex subject, and are not to be shared with students.
This was not taught to the students, was not part of the classroom curriculum, which you can see at http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/curriculum/health/ . Look at the 8th and 10th grade teachers editions" to see what was in the actual curriculum -- you won't find any of this stuff.
This material was a part of the supplemental resources referred to as Teacher Resources in the curriculum. The curriculum really is in the form of an outline. However, the judge's memorandum fleshes it out for us, "On November 9, 2004, the MCPS Board voted to approve the Revised Curriculum submitted by the CAC. ... Each Revised Curriculum consists of a detailed course outline and supplemental brochures, worksheets, and the like, which teachers are to rely upon in creating their lesson plans" (p. 3). "Specifically, students are asked to discuss in small groups and fill out a "Myths and Facts" worksheet concerning sexual orientation. The Myths and Facts worksheet, ... asks the student to answer whether a given statement is true or false, and then provides them with the answer" (p. 4). "The Revised Curriculum also incorporates a 'Myths and Facts' handout, which MCPS appears to have pulled off of the website of the Family Pride Coalition" (p. 6) "The Revised Curriculum contains a second handout also entitled 'Myths and Facts,' which states ... Myth: Homosexuality is a sin. Facts: The Bible contains six passages ..."
The judge was confused by the lawyers' arguments, there is no question about that -- that's how the case was won. There is no myths and facts worksheet in the curriculum. There may be such a worksheet in the teachers resources, but they are not to bring that stuff into the classroom. Students DO NOT fill out such a worksheet.
I don't see anything in the curriculum that says teachers "are not to bring that stuff into the classroom." What I do find are the following "Instructional Outcomes"
By the end of the designated grade level, the student should be able to:
* Define terms related to human sexuality
* Define stereotyping and discuss generalizations regarding sexual identity
* Examine factors that influence stereotyping and generalizations regarding sexual identity
* Examine myths and misconceptions about human sexuality
* Discuss how family values, culture, religious views, and other factors influence family planning
It seems very likely that teachers would in fact draw on "that stuff" to discuss the effect of religious views, as one "factor" to be examined, on "stereotyping and generalizations regarding sexual identity" and "myths and misconceptions abut human sexuality."
And even if it is just for the teachers, why is the School Board so eager for the teachers to be lead to such conclusions?
I see that MCPS has taken down the teachers editions, but I have them saved. Cutting and pasting from the 8th grade document (10th said similar): (Please Note: the sources for the definitions are listed below for teacher use only. The definitions are to be presented to students as stated below – no additional information, interpretation or examples are to be provided by the teacher.)
In other words, you can tell students the definitions of various things, but do not share the source materials -- the teachers resources -- with them.
In another place, I cut and paste: For Teacher Reference Only (The information in the shaded area is not to be shared with students.)
You may argue that teachers would be influenced by these materials, and I would agree they shouldn't be there. But the Liberty Counsel lawyers made sure the judge did not distinguish between these resources and the actual classroom content, and I'm sure the MCPS lawyers never guessed anybody would try something so obviously dumb (thus making it not so dumb). It is clear from his written statement that the judge failed to see the difference, and that he issued his decision under the impression that material was part of the classroom curriculum, not private notes for teachers.
And as for myths and facts, there is a myths and facts section, but it is not the one quoted in the court papers -- the judge didn't see anything wrong with the M&F section of the actual curriculum.
If you want to argue against the points to be covered by the curriculum, the objectives, then you lose. The judge didn't see anything wrong with those, and neither do the people of Montgomery County.
You obviously have a source of information I don't. The only section labeled For Teacher Reference Only in the curriculum I have is a short little section on definitions. I am not sure why just that section would be highlighted.
Again, the curriculum is just an outline. I am not a teacher, but it's clear that no one could just read through the outline. That wouldn't be much of a class. It would only take 5 minutes per session. So, what materials would the teacher actually use to base discussion and formulate real lesson plans if not the resources given them? Or, the lesson plan included as a link in the curriculum? The minutes introducing these materials make it very clear that discussion is the point.
I cited the objectives to point out that "examining factors that influence generalizations and stereotypes" and rebutting "myths and misconceptions" is very much the intent of this curriculum. The factors influencing family planning decisions includes "religious views." The curriculum itself has a section on the effects of family "beliefs" on sexual identity.
Given that the resources I quoted are the resources cited in the curriculum for teachers to use in meeting these objectives, it seems very reasonable to think the judge got it right. It seems much more probable that the curriculum was slanted against more conservative "religious views" than that the judge didn't get it.
One positive thing about this. I noticed that parents could opt to keep their children from attending these sessions. That's much better than the recent incident in Lexington, MA, where parents don't even have the right to be notified about what their elementary school age children are learning.
Yes, actually parents have to "opt in" -- your kid can't take the class unless you sign the permission slip.
And I'm sorry, I do have some materials that were posted on the web and taken down after the judge's ruling.
We'll never know, but given the fact that the board of education only was able to submit papers on the morning of the hearing, and the ruling was issued that afternoon, it is extremely possible that the judge did not understand the distinction. This whole thing was done in a few days, with the plaintiffs having a head start. It was probably good lawyering, but I don't think the people of the county really like Jerry Falwell's guys coming in from out of state to impose values that are not common here. The people of Montgomery County would be quite agreeable to having their children learn about homosexuality and contraception -- in fact, most plans to drum up opposition to the curriculum failed terribly, with most of them backfiring. People here wanted this curriculum, but a federal judge was persuaded to squelch it. These are certainly not what I understood to be "conservative" values!
Well, I appreciate the exchange.
Post a Comment