Email to MCEA, 2/5/13

 --------- Forwarded message ----------

From: David Fishback <fishbackpflag@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: Re my meeting with Chris Barclay
To: "Israel, Tom" <tisrael@mceanea.org>
Cc: "Gerson, Jon" <JGerson@mceanea.org>

Tom,

 

Thanks for getting back to me. 

 

The Regulation is very interesting, particularly the language at pp. 3 and 13.

 

There is no indication that the Health Education curriculum is currently under review, even though the Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality units were implemented in the Autumn of 2007 -- more than five years ago.  Indeed, while Erick Lang's July 6, 2012 letter to the Montgomery County Commission on Children and Youth said that the Citizens Advisory Committee's recommendations "will be presented for consideration when the full K-12 health education curriculum is reviewed," he made no mention of when such review would take place.  Will there be any public announcement concerning when such review would occur?  In any event, in light of the statements from MCPS curriculum people, I have no confidence in waiting for the supposed scheduled review.   And that is why your idea advising Chris to be insistent that there be a review now is a good one. 

 

A full review needs to go way beyond the five statements recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee and the other groups.  As Chris, unprompted, noted to me on Friday, the curriculum needs to do a lot more regarding gender identity.  And the whole pedagogical approach -- the tightly-scripted curriculum, with material that (according to some students to whom I've listened) is outdated -- will require a very comprehensive review, which may take quite some time.  There needs to be a very serious discussion about whether the teachers should be so tightly scripted here.  That approach, I am told, leads to a lot of eye-rolling and inattention from students. 

 

But there is no reason to await a full review of the curriculum, whenever that is to be conducted, to include the five statements.  As Shirley noted to me some time ago, the statements could simply be added in the extensions. 

 

So now is the time to act -- not to wait until, at some unspecified time, curriculum writers in the central office decide to think about addressing the issues and then actually do so.  Given their reluctance to address the issues, I fear that absent instruction from the Board and/or the Superintendent, they will, once again, ignore the Citizens Advisory Committee's, the American Academy of Pediatrics', and the Commission on Children and Youth's recommendations.  If that happens, MCPS will end up looking very, very bad. 

 

I was told by many people close to MCPS last spring that, given the marriage referendum, the thought was that no further action should be taken until after the election.  The election took place, and 2/3 of Montgomery County voters voted in favor of same sex marriage.  And it is unfair to those who voted No on Number 6 to assume that their views on marriage meant that they think that students should be deprived of accurate medical information on sexual orientation. 

 

I strongly urge that when you speak with Chris, you emphasize the need for substantive action NOW, so that the basic, potentially life-saving information will be in the curriculum in the Autumn of 2013. It need not await the completion of an full internal review which apparently has not yet even begun. (Even if the process began within MCPS tomorrow, it likely would not be completed and  implemented until Autumn 2014, at the earliest.)  It is bad enough that the curriculum has been unnecessarily silent for six years.  There is no justification for further delay.

 

Thank you for your help and support.

 

David

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Israel, Tom <TIsrael@mceanea.org> wrote:

David,

 

Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner from your call the end of last week. I wanted to review the MCPS curriculum review policy (http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/ifara.pdf).

 

As you likely know, that policy references that core curriculum will be reviewed every five years. Seems to me that’s a basis for Chris to insist that the health ed/sex ed curriculum come up for a formal review.

 

I will talk with Doug Prouty about his letting Chris know that we are supportive of the review (and of changes that are being proposed). And certainly when the process moves forward, we can get teacher representatives in the room who will be good advocates.

 

Hope all is well.

Stay in touch.