Metro DC PFLAG Montgomery County District 1, 3, and 5 BOE Candidate Questionnaire Answers

In recent years, the Montgomery County Public Schools system (MCPS) has made great progress with respect to  LGBTQ matters.  MCPS policy, of course, is set by the Montgomery County Board of Education.  Below is the Questionnaire that the Metro DC Chapter of  PFLAG sent to all 2018 candidates for the Board of Education.  Scroll down for the answers provided by the District 1, 3, and 5 Candidates.  For those seeking more context, I suggest checking out the links provided in the Questionnaire itself.  NOTE:  In the June 26 primary election, the top two voter-getters move on to the general election in November.  Since there are only two candidates for the District 1 and 5 seats, the candidates for those seats will not be on the June 26 ballot.  Also, while district candidates must live in their district, all County voters may vote in all the district races.  (Answers from the At-Large candidates may be found at http://davidfishback.blogspot.com/2018/05/metro-dc-pflag-montgomery-county-at.html)

Dear __________:

For many years, the Metro DC Chapter of PFLAG has worked cooperatively with MCPS and the Board of Education to work foster a positive environment for Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgender, and Gender Non-Conforming students.

In order to inform our members and supporters of the viewpoints of the many candidates running to serve on the Board of Education, we respectfully request that you answer two questions (pasted below), one on Curriculum and one on Anti-Discrimination policies.  In order to provide a context, we include background materials.  As a 501(c)(3) organization, we will not be endorsing candidates for office, but we will pass along your answers, and anything else you would like to let us know, to our members and supporters.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

We would appreciate your response no later than May 1, 2018.  Typing in your responses in a Reply email would be appreciated.

Thank you,

David S. Fishback, Maryland Advocacy Chair

Metro DC PFLAG

fishbackpflag@gmail.com

1.  CURRICULUM

Background

On May 13, 2014, the MCPS superintendent recommended changes in the secondary school Family Life and Human Sexuality curriculum.  See pp. 5-6 of the Superintendent’s recommendation at https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/9JVRVT6D30ED/$file/6%201%20Sec%20Health%20Ed%20Curr%20Framework.pdf  With respect to matters of sexual orientation and gender identity were no longer to be tightly scripted and, “[i]nstead of the scripted lessons, instructional planning resources will be developed similar to all other content areas, including sample learning tasks, suggested instructional resources, and teacher guidance (e.g., the American Psychological Association’s Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality, available at http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.pdf[which references http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.pdf] This shift will permit teachers to plan instruction based on the specific needs of their students, as they do in all other content areas. 

On June 17, 2014, these recommendations were adopted by the Board of Education.  See, also, BOE Public Comments testimony from the Metro DC PFLAG Advocacy Chair at https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/9L7HZB4AA1F7/$file/Fishback%2C%20David%20S.-Testimony.pdf

Question

What is your position on these steps regarding the MCPS health education curriculum?

2.  ANTI-DISCRIMINATION

Background

MCPS guidelines and regulations make it very clear that the Board of Education “expects all students and staff to conduct themselves in a manner that demonstrates mutual respect without regard to an individual’s actual or perceived personal characteristics, such as . . . gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, [and] family/parental status.”

See, for example, A Student’s Guide to Rights and Responsibilities, 2017-18

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/students/rights/2017_StudentRightsAndResponsibilities_Web.pdf (pp. 6-7, 15) 

and

Employee Code of Conduct, 2017-18

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/staff/Refresh_2013_Content_Pieces/0042.18_EmployeeCodeofConduct_BOOKLET_ENG_web.pdf (pp. 5-6, 14)

With respect to gender identity and expression, MCPS provides specific Guidelines.  See Guidelines Regarding Student Gender Identity Matters 

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/departments/studentservices/gender-identity-matters.pdf

Question  

What is your view of MCPS anti-discrimination policies?

3.  IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH US, PLEASE DO SO HERE.

DISTRICT 1

Maria Blaeuer 

Question 1: What is your position on these steps regarding the MCPS health education curriculum? 

First, I have no significant concerns about the content/substantive changes that were made.  I am generally in favor of seeking community engagement and buy-in for changes to the student experience - including changes to the curriculum.  I do understand the frustration you shared in your testimony- community engagement is not the same thing as allowing a small minority to prevent actions that reflect the consensus of the broader community (especially when the rights of the minority are not impacted).

 Question 2: What is your view of MCPS anti-discrimination policies?  

 I am supportive of them; all students should feel safe and valued at school. To that end, I also think it is important that MCPS affirmatively support student affinity groups at our schools.    I have some minor concerns around the Guidelines Regarding Student Gender Identity Matters, but don't know if policy changes need to be made or if it is a matter of implementation and ongoing staff development.  Likewise, I am concerned that the restorative discipline approach as implemented in MCPS may not be truly restorative, and is not informed by best practices in restorative justice, as there has not be consistent training and support for restorative practices to be implemented meaningfully. 

Question 3: If there is anything else you would like to share with us, please do so here.   

I would be happy to meet with you and/or this chapter of PFLAG to talk about any of these answers, why I am running and your concerns.  As I am sure you know very well, some of the data regarding GBLTQ youth is alarming, and I would love to hear your thoughts about improving outcomes for them and meeting their needs within MCPS more effectively.  


Judith Docca (Incumbent)

Question 1: What is your position on these steps regarding the MCPS health education curriculum?

I am very pleased that we are beginning to seriously be concerned about issues related to social/emotional growth of our students. Providing students with unbiased curriculum, particularly when it is related to transgender equality issues, is an intervention we must continue. In the past, there was fear that to face squarely the issues related to LGBTQ was a step we were uncertain about letting our teachers face.There was fear about the backlash from parts of the community, so a tightly scripted syllabus was offered and teachers were trained to use the script. Since then, the whole nation has become exposed to more substantive information on these issues. Many facets of the community in the nation are more knowledgeable and accepting of many differences and similarities among the members of our population.The differences and similarities encompass race, religion, ethnic origin and LGBTQ information. It is a learning experience for many adults but students seem comfortable with appropriate access to knowledge.We will continue to normalize information, feelings, beliefs with authentic information and a well-trained staff. Parents and students still will have the opportunity to opt out of health education although sex-ed,which was very difficult to be passed by the BOE also provides life-learning information in other health and safety issues including, substance abuse, healthy dating behaviors, understanding processes to keep our bodies healthy, suicide prevention and the ability to choose activities that are beneficial to the body and the psyche.

Question 2: What is your view of MCPS anti-discrimination policies?

MCPS has several policies which devolve around preventing discrimination for employees and students. As mentioned, policies against discriminating on the basis of religious freedom, ethnicity, nationality, gender issues, etc.are in place. There is a path for complaints or concerns for students and staff. Students may start with teachers, counselors, administrators and other staff, such as building service, food service, parent community coordinators in the school setting.Staff may look to directors, associate superintendents, the Deputy Superintendent, the Chief Academic Officer and the Chief Executive Officer the Superintendent,  principals the ombudsman and their own organizations for redress.

We encourage all students to identify with at least one adult in each building for support and/or advice and to be supported by parents also. All staff members received mandatory basic training in recognizing issues related to substance and sex abuse, suicide prevention, gang information, respect for ethnicity, religion and other pertinent issues for adults and students.

Question 3: If there is anything else you would like to share with us, please do so here.  

I am looking forward to even more training in the issues related to anti-discrimination and sex equity next year. I believe staff is paying more attention to serious issues, is reporting abuse and working closely with other staff members to make MCPS a workplace  and a school system where we are more respectful of each other.

DISTRICT 3

Lynn Amano 

Question 1: What is your position on these steps regarding the MCPS health education curriculum? 

I believe that education on LGBTQ issues is an integral and necessary part of public education and welcome it’s inclusion in the health education curriculum. I am in open communications with the LGBTQ community on how we can best continue to expand on our curriculum in ways that adapt to the ongoing and evolving needs of the LGBTQ community, including looking into models that work well in other school systems. I look forward to continuing this close relationship in the future.

Question 2: What is your view of MCPS anti-discrimination policies?

It is imperative that all of our students feel safe and supported in our school environment. While I appreciate that MCPS has made inroads into supporting the LGBTQ community, it is clear that there is still a great deal of work to be done in executing anti-bullying policies and truly protecting and nurturing our LGBTQ students.

Question 3: If there is anything else you would like to share with us, please do so here.   

In general, I am supportive of all adaptations and changes that support, protect, and welcome LBGTQ students. I look forward to working with the LGBTQ community, LGBTQ students, and their parents and supporters to move policies forward that expand and improve upon our policies and their implementation to best serve our LGBTQ students.

Patricia O'Neill (Incumbent)

Question 1: What is your position on these steps regarding the MCPS health education curriculum? 

I am pleased with the MCPS curriculum.  It is a model that other districts should use.   I have been on the Board since 1998 and I have been working on this issue since 2002.  In 2013, I made the motion to unscript the lessons.  I fought the political and legal battles to help get us here.  I am proud of my work and I am proud to have worked with community partners in these efforts. We cannot afford to go backwards with our curriculum.

Question 2: What is your view of MCPS anti-discrimination policies?

The MCPS Anti-Discrimination policies and regulation.s are good and sound.  One of my earliest votes was to add sexual orientation  to the policy  MCPS transgender bathroom policy is appropriate ,in spite of the Trump administration efforts to reverse course.

Question 3: If there is anything else you would like to share with us, please do so here.  

I am a twenty year veteran of the board.  I bring experience and courage to the table.  I have fought the "sex ed wars." I am proud of my motion and vote to name our newest elementary school after Bayard  Rustin.  This is the first school in Montgomery County to be named after a member of the LBGTQ community.

Laura Simon

Question 1: What is your position on these steps regarding the MCPS health education curriculum? 

I support the MCPS health education curriculum recommendations. am pleased with the MCPS curriculum.  It is a model that other districts should use.   

Question 2: What is your view of MCPS anti-discrimination policies?

I also support the MCPS anti-discrimination policies. 

Question 3: If there is anything else you would like to share with us, please do so here.  

[No response.] 

DISTRICT 5

Peter Pykosh

No response submitted. Mr. Pykosh recently withdrew from the race.

Brenda Wolff

Question 1: What is your position on these steps regarding the MCPS health education curriculum?

I am proud to live in a county that values respect and teaches respect for differences. This curriculum process included input from all stakeholders.  I support the concept that instruction should not be scripted. The goal of any curriculum is among other things to teach critical thinking. I like that this curriculum is aligned with the strategic planning framework and promotes a focus on instruction that values diversity and differences.

I think it is important to note that parents opt in for their children to participate in sexual orientation instruction and that a high percentage of parents have chosen to do so.  This speaks well for our community although we know that there is still work to be done.  As a member of the board of education, I will monitor implementation and make any necessary adjustments to ensure the best educational outcome for all students.

Question 2:  What is your view of MCPS anti-discrimination policies?

 The anti-discrimination policies are comprehensive and consistent with MCPS’ core values.

The policies are designed to ensure that students and employees are treated consistently and fairly by providing clear standards of conduct that everyone has to follow, as well as procedures for handling complaints and conducting investigations. At a time when many protections against discrimination are being scaled back, I support the efforts of MCPS to make clear what will and will not be tolerated. 

 Question 3:  If there is anything else you would like to share with us, please do so here. 

My entire career has dealt with issues of equal opportunity and access. I started my career with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adjudicating appeals from decisions of federal agencies on allegations of discrimination.

I spent 27 years in the US Department of Education in numerous positions.  I served as the Chief Regional Attorney in the Boston Office for Civil Rights and the Deputy Director and Acting Director in the Philadelphia Office for Civil Rights which has jurisdiction over the state of Maryland. 

I was appointed by the Secretary of Education as the Special Assistant for Gender Equity for the entire agency.  In that capacity I advised the Secretary and Deputy Secretary on issues of gender equity in all of the Department’s programs.  During that time I also took on the role of advancing the President’s One America Initiative on Race.   I facilitated discussions and activities in the Department that allowed staff to feel safe in talking about race relations in their offices and lives. 

I later became the Director of the National Institute of Educational Governance, Finance Policymaking and Management in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement of the US Department of Education becoming responsible for managing  studies on numerous school governance and policy issues concerned with improving the quality of education and ensuring access to equal education opportunities for all. During that time I also served as the Acting Director of the National Institute on the Education of At-Risk Students.

I subsequently moved to the National Center for Education Statistics serving as the Program Manager for the National Assessment of Education Progress.  In this position I was responsible for management of a budget in excess 0f $131 million dollars a year, Reporting and Quality Assurance. 

I am sharing this history so that you understand how committed how I am to ensuring that all children  are treated with dignity and respect and provided equitable access and opportunity to all programs and activities in MCPS.  This has been the work I have been involved in and continue to do.

Principals, Allies, and Advocacy

A recurring issue in social justice movements has been the role that allies of oppressed groups play in the movements.  What has become a truism is that the direct victims of marginalization should, if at all possible, be the principal advocates for their own liberation.  Allies are vitally important, but should not "take over” the movements; allies need to be aware that their privilege as non-oppressed groups should not be used, even inadvertently, to re-marginalize those they wish to help.  

The formula is not so simple when advocating for children (including pre-schoolers) who may be LGBTQ+.  Parents must advocate for their children, and, by necessity, must be the principal advocates when their children are not prepared to take (and should not be expected to take) the load of advocating for themselves.  A variation of this refrain was heard from many of the Parkland students regarding gun policy after the mass murder at their school.  As David Hogg said said, "Please.  We are children.  You guys are, like, the adults.  Take action, work together, cover over your politics, and get something done." So parents are not simply allies; they must serve as principals, as well. 

In a recent Facebook thread, Lee Blinder noted that “there are LGBTQ+ adults here in the community, many like me who attended MoCo schools.”  Lee advised Board of Education Member Jill Ortman-Fouse, that “for the best results . . . MCPS begin to seek guidance from those community members, and allow our allies like David [Fishback] to support us in our leadership on those endeavors. We have the connections and the knowledge to know the needs of the community the best.”

Later in the thread, Lee wrote that “PFLAG chapters in this area need to start to serve its function which is to educate and support parents of LGBTQ+ better and to let LGBTQ+ persons ourselves lead on policy.  Outreach to unsupportive parents and helping parents overcome barriers to supporting their youth, and for parents to have resiliency and support in their advocacy for their youth is the work that PFLAG is perfectly suited to do.”
 

I am Maryland Advocacy Chair for the Metro DC Chapter of PFLAG (formerly known as Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays – we just use the acronym now because the scope of our concerns reaches beyond sexual orientation and includes gender identity, as well).  I agree that members of the LGBTQ+ community should be deeply involved in leadership on these issues, and not simply rely on their parents to carry the ball.  Indeed, I welcome such involvement.  I certainly fail to see how PFLAG is not "let[ting] LGBTQ+ persons ourselves lead on policy."  Over the last 16 years, MCPS has listened to all who have useful ideas on how to proceed, and never once has PFLAG gotten in anyone's way.   

More to the point, who should be involved as “leadership” is not a binary choice.  This is not an either/or question. Supportive parents know their children, and families know their needs, just as LGBTQ+ people have perspectives that should be listened to and appreciated.  As a straight cisgender man, I do not  know everything there is to know about LGBTQ+ children; but, similarly, as an LGBTQ+ person, Lee does not  know everything there is to know about my children.  All of us must be part of the mix. 

I have been very pleased to see members of the LGBTQ+ community in Montgomery County become more active in local matters.  Earlier this year, Mark Eckstein Bernardo, a gay man and the father of two MCPS students, was, at my suggestion, named Vice Chair for Maryland Advocacy for Metro DC PFLAG.  (I have been working on LGBTQ+ issues in Montgomery County for 16 years, and, having reached three score and ten, I know there must be a successor.)

PFLAG Community Groups

Lee states that “PFLAG chapters in this area need to start to serve its function which is to educate and support parents of LGBTQ+ better," including "helping parents overcome barriers to supporting their youth, and for parents to have resiliency and support in their advocacy for their youth."  I am compelled to note that this is, and has been for many years, precisely the main focus of PFLAG.  Metro DC PFLAG has 16 community groups in the Washington DC metropolitan area, three of which are located in Montgomery County, providing the assistance Lee recommends.  The vast majority of PFLAG volunteers do the work of the community groups.  Indeed, my introduction to PFLAG occurred when our younger son came out in 1997 and gave my wife and me the contact information for the PFLAG community group at Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church in Bethesda. 

I suspect that Lee is not questioning the efficacy of the community groups for those who attend them; indeed, I have no idea what Lee's basis for such a criticism would be.  Lee's real point appears to be that PFLAG should do a better job reaching out "to unsupportive parents [which] is the work that PFLAG is perfectly suited to do.”  Reaching out to families who are not supportive of their LGBTQ+ children has always been a challenge.  We in Metro DC PFLAG are here for them, but I do not know what we can do specifically other than to urge schools and other social services organizations to let students and their parents know that PFLAG community groups are available to them. I do not know how we reach homophobic parents. We are happy to work arm and arm with members of the LGBTQ+ community in Montgomery County to find ways to reach out to those families and to continue to make progress in MCPS.  PFLAG and other groups have been able to do much to change the culture so that more and more families are accepting of their LGBTQ+ children. But I do not know what Metro DC PFLAG, a volunteer organization with virtually no budget, can uniquely do to directly reach families who are so fearful and misinformed about things they do not understand that they throw out their children. I, for one, am certainly open to suggestions.  

PFLAG ADVOCACY

On the advocacy front, where Lee seems to believe that PFLAG should step back, some history is in order:  

The advocacy role of Metro DC PFLAG, particularly with regard to MCPS, came about because of the need to fill a vacuum at the beginning of this century.  At that time, there was virtually no organized local effort to fix the antiquated MCPS health education policies, which barred teachers from even mentioning LGBT matters. The parent voice was pretty much silent when it came to school matters, and, with an important exception noted below, virtually no other voices were being raised. 

The first significant step was the 2002 recommendation of the Board of Education’s Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development (the “CAC”, then chaired by Larry Jacobs, a gay man who was also an MCPS parent) to include discussion of sexual orientation in the health education curriculum.  When Larry retired from the CAC  at the end of that year, I was elected unanimously by the CAC to be the next chair.  As a PFLAG dad, a graduate of MCPS, and the father of two gay MCPS graduates, I understood how important the parental voice was in moving the ball forward.  If parents did not stand up for their children, who else would?  There were gay members of the CAC, and they contributed to the CAC discussions, but I was the one they chose to take the lead. 

Later, when a right-wing law suit threatened to upend our progress, I became Advocacy Chair for the Metro DC PFLAG chapter, and pressed MCPS and worked with the Board of Education to stay on track, and we eventually secured a strong foundation for progress, including a secondary school health education curriculum that accurately presents matters involving sexual orientation and gender identity and a comprehensive set of policies protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.  See https://www.pflag.org/blog/curriculumvictorymontgomerycounty and http://davidfishback.blogspot.com/2017/03/recap-and-resources-sexual-orientation.html

PFLAG also confronted efforts by PFOX ("Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays," a right-wing front group) to spread lies about so-called “conversion” or “reparative" therapies, when PFOX annually distributed flyers in a number of MCPS high schools from 2006-10.   MCPS believed it could not bar the flyers because of a court decision finding that if flyer distribution was allowed, MCPS could not discriminate based on “viewpoint.” Nor did the MCPS Administration, until 2012, take a position opposing the message of the flyers.  Each time, when no one else took an organized stand against the PFOX flyers, PFLAG distributed its own flyers in every high school explaining that all mainstream American medical and mental health professional associations condemned those practices as dangerous and ineffective.  Finally, when PFOX distributed flyers in 2012, PFLAG not only distributed flyers again, but, as Advocacy Chair, I successfully took on PFOX/Family Research Council spokesman Peter Sprigg in a locally-televised debate.  The resulting furor convinced the Board of Education to cancel the high school flyer distribution program altogether.  When no other organized group stood up to PFOX and the Family Research Council, PFLAG did.

More recently, when transgender students and their families had difficulty navigating MCPS, PFLAG worked with MCPS to get stakeholder input to the MCPS policies on gender identity (virtually all of which MCPS adopted) and then stepped up to urge MCPS to post its official policy on its website, which it did in 2016. This was necessary, because not all MCPS school administrators were aware of the policies.  In the nearly two years since the website posting, families have found it much easier to work with the system.  

In the last couple of years, two Montgomery County PFLAG moms, including Stephanie Kreps (who is also founder of the Rainbow Youth Alliance), have been meeting with secondary school GSAs, and have been instrumental in assuring that such clubs can be formed in middle, as well as high schools.  They and I have worked with families of transgender students to inform them of their rights, and help them navigate the increasingly friendly MCPS waters.  

PFLAG has been well-positioned to advance the interests of students.  Any suggestion that our activity has somehow has interfered with the ability of LGBTQ+ people to be prime advocates for LGBTQ+ interests has no basis in fact. We need and want more people to pitch in. All stakeholders need, in the now-immortal words of Lin Manuel Miranda in Hamilton, to be “in the room when it happens.”  (I should also note that a large percentage of the Board of Directors of Metro DC PFLAG are LGBT, as is a large portion of the National PFLAG staff, with whom we have closely worked.) 

EMERGENCE OF LGBTQ+ ADVOCATES

So that is the history of the last 16 years.  But just because something worked well in one era, does not mean that it will be the optimal approach in the future.  It is important that LGBTQ+ students and adults become part of the mix, as well. PFLAG should not have to stand alone as the only organized group advocating for LGBTQ+ students at MCPS.  It is encouraging, for example, to see LGBTQ+ students, like Jamie Griffith, be advocates for themselves and their peers.  And Jamie is not the only one.  One of the things we have been doing behind the scenes is to help train students to be self-advocates.  Happily, more and more students are doing it on their own, without PFLAG.  

One of the most gratifying things to emerge from the campaign to name the new Rockville elementary school after Bayard Rustin was the effectiveness of members of the LGBTQ+ community, organized by Mark Eckstein Bernardo, in explaining the wisdom of that name choice.  Parents and other allies of LGBTQ+ students weighed in heavily, but the testimony of LGBTQ+ students and LGBTQ+ MCPS graduates was the key.  See, e.g., here and here.  The expanding circle of advocates on MCPS matters is a great thing for Montgomery County. 

It is also noteworthy that LGBTQ+ people in Montgomery County are organizing around other important issues, notably the problem of homelessness among LGBTQ+ youth, who have been thrown out of their homes.  Here, PFLAGers are best positioned to be allies, as we were in the campaigns to secure Civil Marriage Equality and Anti-Discrimination Laws in both Montgomery County and the State of Maryland.  

***********

To summarize, Metro DC PFLAG has played, and should continue to play, an important role in helping MCPS become an increasingly welcoming and embracing place for LGBTQ+ students and their families.  We respect and applaud advocacy from others in the LGBTQ+ community in Montgomery County, and look forward to working together.  All of us are principals in this effort.  Together, we are stronger and more effective.