Gazette article, 7/11/07

 

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Sex-ed critics consider suing school system State board approves revised curriculum; county board  wants to move on by Marcus Moore | Staff Writer         Now that the Maryland State Board of Education has declined to discard Montgomery County’s sex education curriculum, critics of the controversial lesson plans are considering a federal lawsuit to have the classes tossed before the school year starts.         The lesson plans — with a video in 10th grade on how to properly use and discard a condom and two 45-minute lessons on sexual orientation — will be taught in all middle and high schools next year.         Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and  Gays, and Family Leader Network filed two appeals with the state board this  year — one in February to have the curriculum thrown out before it was  piloted in the spring and another in June to have the lessons scrapped before  the start of the school year.         ‘‘A legal option is on the table,” CRC vice president Michelle Turner said.  ‘‘We’re certainly leaning that way, but it’s not an ironclad decision.” CRC’s executive board planned to consider its next step on Tuesday  after The Gazette’s deadline.         The critics claim the school system released inaccurate information and  did not put material out for review before approving the curriculum.  They also claimed the lesson plans violated students’ constitutional rights. But in a 17-page opinion on July 3, the state board decided not to  ‘‘second-guess the appropriateness of the local board’s decision.” Four  of the 11 board members abstained from the vote.         ‘‘We conclude that the three additional lessons do not violate the law,”  the state board wrote in its opinion. ‘‘As to the content of the lessons,  there may be disparate points of view on whether homosexuality or transgender  issues are appropriately included in the curriculum in the way MCPS has  chosen to do so.”         John R. Garza, CRC president and an attorney for the three groups,  said he was disappointed in the state board’s decision but understood why  it decided the way it did.         ‘‘I can see how they would come to that conclusion,” he said. ‘‘I think  that it was a well-thought-out decision.” The lawsuit could be filed by the end of the week, he said. As for the  lesson plans, Garza said, the issue is not as simple as advocates have  made it to be. ‘‘There’s a lot more we’re going to teach a child than  how to wear a condom,” he added.         Peter Sprigg, who represents PFOX on the school board’s advisory panel  that revised the curriculum, said there are still several concerns that need  to be addressed. The lesson plans promote full acceptance of homosexuality  without mentioning how controversial it is, he said. The lessons do not  acknowledge ex-gays and lack information in its condom lesson about  the dangers of sex, he said.         ‘There are aspects ... that are illegal and unconstitutional,” Sprigg said.  ‘‘This [appeal] was an effort to exhaust all administrative remedies.” Although the state board’s decision last week was a blow, the critics  were successful two years ago in having the curriculum changed. 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 ruled that teacher resource materials,  which were not used in the classroom, were objectionable because they  unfairly singled out specific religious denominations for their condemnation  of homosexuality.         As part of 2005 settlement, the county school board agreed to scrap the  curriculum and restarted the process of revising the lessons. The critics  were given seats on the reconstituted advisory committee that recommended  the recently approved curriculum.         The school board wants to move past the sex-ed battles. During its June 12  meeting, the board adopted final revisions to the curriculum, which included  a statement for teachers to use if a student asks if homosexuality is an illness.         ‘‘We are proceeding as scheduled,” said board President Nancy Navarro  (Dist. 5) of Silver Spring. ‘‘At this point, we’re not necessarily focusing  on what happens next. There isn’t anything else for us to do at this point.  I am optimistic and this [decision by the state board] makes us even more optimistic.”