Gazette article: 6/22/07

 

Friday, June 22, 2007 Critics try again to block Montgomery’s sex-ed plan Groups ask state school board to halt lesson plan before the fall by Marcus Moore | Staff Writer A coalition of activist groups has filed another appeal with the Maryland State Board of Education,this time to stop Montgomery County’s sex-ed curriculum before it is implemented in all middle schools and high schools this fall. In February, the groups — Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) and Family Leader Network — asked the state board to stop the controversial curriculum before it was piloted. State schools Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick denied that request and allowed  the pilot test to continue. The state board has yet to make a ruling in that case. On Wednesday, the groups asked the state board to throw out the now-approved  curriculum before the start of the school year. If the state board does not stop  the curriculum, the critics said they would sue the county school system,  claiming it released factually inaccurate information and did not put out material for public review before approving the curriculum. The groups also claim the lesson plans violate students’ constitutional rights,  including freedom of speech and the right to freely exercise religion. The Montgomery school board adopted the revised lesson plans in a 6-1 vote during its June 12 meeting, and approved a last-minute addition from  Superintendent Jerry D. Weast that allows teachers to answer questions about  homosexuality. ‘‘Montgomery County is showing incredible arrogance by voting to adopt the  revised health education curriculum before the State Board renders a decision  on the legality of this very controversial curriculum,” John R. Garza, the  groups’ attorney, said in a statement. ‘‘We don’t understand why Montgomery  County is ignoring the process in this case, especially given Dr. Grasmick’s  opinion that both sides have equally matched arguments.” ‘‘The state superintendent did make a decision based on the pilot, but the matter is pending before the state board,” said Judith S. Bresler, an  attorney for the school system. ‘‘I’m not sure I see the point in [the appeal]  ... given the fact that we’re going to have a decision before school starts.” Bresler received a copy of the appeal on Wednesday and will respond only  if the state board asks, she said. Montgomery board member Patricia B. O’Neill (Dist. 3) of Bethesda,  who has been involved in the sex-ed discussions for five years, said  the board showed ‘‘courage in the face of bigots” in adopting the lesson plans. ‘‘It’s more of the same,” she said. ‘‘I’m not surprised. When we adopted the  curriculum, I said, ‘Bring it on,’ because we will fight you tooth-and-nail.  I am happy we did what we did and [am] confident it will stand up at the  state board, in federal court, or wherever.” The lessons, with a seven-minute video on proper condom use for  10th-graders and two 45-minute lessons on sexual orientation for  eighth-graders, have come under fire before. Revisions passed in 2004 included a discussion of homosexuality  and a video on condom use. CRC and PFOX sued to stop the  curriculum in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, saying it was unconstitutional. In May 2005, a federal judge agreed, saying that teacher resource materials,  not used in the classroom, were objectionable because they unfairly  singled out specific religious denominations for their condemnation of homosexuality. As part of settlement, the school board agreed to scrap the curriculum and  restarted the process of revising the lessons. The critics were given seats on  the advisory commission that recommended the curriculum that was approved in June. ‘‘They’re going to do everything they can do,” said James Kennedy, a member of the  advisory panel and president of TeachTheFacts.org, a group that supports sex  education in schools. ‘‘There’s no reason to think that the state board is going to  override the local school board.” David S. Fishback, a former chairman of the advisory panel, called the latest  appeal a stunt.‘‘This is nothing more than an attempt to keep the issue in the news,”  he said. ‘‘There’s nothing new in these papers.” Board Vice President Shirley Brandman said she saw the new effort to stop the  lessons coming. ‘‘I still stand behind the curriculum,” said Brandman (At-large) of Bethesda.  ‘‘My further hope is that nothing will derail it at this point. This doesn’t shake  my confidence as to the appropriateness of the curriculum.”