Community Message Concerning Access to the Carver Educational Services Center on Thursday, July 20

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A new piece from Em Espey in MoCo360, this morning:

https://moco360.media/2023/07/20/volume-of-lgbtq-opt-out-requests-caused-significant-disruptions-mcps-says-in-legal-filing/

Clearly there are quite a few people who agree with the protestors. MCPS and the BOE might want to at least hear them out.

MCPS and the BoE has heard them out. They have had a lot of opportunity to have their say, and they are continuing to have that opportunity. You need to distinguish between "having your say" and "getting your way."

If the same material about gender identity is taught in the Family Life unit, people can opt out. But when it's taught in the English Language Arts unit, people cannot. This does not make any sense.

I predict this case will go to the Supreme Court and MCPS will lose there. It will take a few years, after MCPS spends millions of dollars defending it.

The MCPS response filed in the lawsuit will help clear up your confusion. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L0BKX9u-EuvS8B2pkvB0zY58eqUsDSfg/view

The teacher is not just going to read with the class a book about "a prince falling in love with a knight" (one of the books MCPS uses to teach English Language Arts). The teacher will have a discussion about gender identity with elementary school students about that story after reading the book. That discussion will cover the same material used in the Family Life and Human Sexuality curriculum that a family can opt out. But now in the ELA part, people cannot opt out. That's a clear inconsistency.

Well they likely wouldn't have gender identity discussions with the prince book since both the prince and the knight identify as male in that book. But it does come up with a Boy Named Penelope, where gender identity theory is central to the theme and plot of the book.

I've read the book. It is a picture book. There is no discussion of any theory of any sort.

I've read the book too. The theory of whether a child can, because they feel like it, decide they are not the gender they were born as, is the central plot of the story. When children are read this book, it confuses them and they don't understand how that works. I know this because when my child was read this book, that was their response. Again: Gender identity theory is central to "A Boy Named Penelope" because it hinges on the idea that gender is based on feeling and not biology.

That is a theory that some, particularly those who are LGBTQ and LGBTQ-allied, believe as fact, and those outside of that community who believe is not fact and in some cases, offensive and against their faith and religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A new piece from Em Espey in MoCo360, this morning:

https://moco360.media/2023/07/20/volume-of-lgbtq-opt-out-requests-caused-significant-disruptions-mcps-says-in-legal-filing/

Clearly there are quite a few people who agree with the protestors. MCPS and the BOE might want to at least hear them out.

MCPS and the BoE has heard them out. They have had a lot of opportunity to have their say, and they are continuing to have that opportunity. You need to distinguish between "having your say" and "getting your way."

+1. No one is being blocked from submitting testimony or putting themselves on the schedule for public comment. Nor are they being prevented from reaching out to their district representative on the BoE or Central Office itself. If anything MCPS is making sure this is done in an orderly and safe way.

Let's be careful not to hyperbolize, here. Speaking slots are capped at 20 & at a premium, leaving many out in the cold (many speaking on one subject, saying the same/similar things, keep other subjects entirely off the table -- for months, if not entirely). Further, slots were reduced to 2 minutes from 3 minutes -- already far to little to make meaningful/detailed enough arguments to counter anything MCPS presents with no effective time limitation of their own (and with no opportunity for timely rebuttal by the community). Those providing testimony have to speed-read their way through, rarely able to properly puctuate/emphasize/elicit audience empathy, a few talented orators excepted, let alone present counter-arguments to anticipated MCPS responses.

MCPS and the board don't even respond to the opt-out testimonies at this point. They just ignore them.

You are entitled to make your comment, if you get a comment spot. You are not entitled to a response to your comment from BoE members.

Ignoring consistent and strongly held feedback from your community runs counter to the service to the public mindset board members are supposed to have.

You can't please everyone, so you're going to make some enemies now and again, but the fact that every board member ignores and refuses to engage with these folks is piss-poor public service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A new piece from Em Espey in MoCo360, this morning:

https://moco360.media/2023/07/20/volume-of-lgbtq-opt-out-requests-caused-significant-disruptions-mcps-says-in-legal-filing/

Clearly there are quite a few people who agree with the protestors. MCPS and the BOE might want to at least hear them out.

MCPS and the BoE has heard them out. They have had a lot of opportunity to have their say, and they are continuing to have that opportunity. You need to distinguish between "having your say" and "getting your way."

What concessions did MCPS and the BOE make after they had their say?

say (noun)
1
: an expression of opinion
had my say

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/say

No one is confused about the definition of the phrase. You failed to answer my question.

Keep trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS uses these books to teach English Language Arts:

a family attending a Pride parade

a niece meeting her uncle’s husband-to-be

a prince falling in love with a knight as they work together to battle a dragon in a mythical kingdom

a girl racing through the snow with her crush

a transgender boy sharing his gender identity with his family

In my option, Aesop's fables are much, much better.

Those five books are not the only books in the MCPS ELA curriculum. You know that, right? There are also other books in the MCPS ELA curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A new piece from Em Espey in MoCo360, this morning:

https://moco360.media/2023/07/20/volume-of-lgbtq-opt-out-requests-caused-significant-disruptions-mcps-says-in-legal-filing/

Clearly there are quite a few people who agree with the protestors. MCPS and the BOE might want to at least hear them out.

MCPS and the BoE has heard them out. They have had a lot of opportunity to have their say, and they are continuing to have that opportunity. You need to distinguish between "having your say" and "getting your way."

+1. No one is being blocked from submitting testimony or putting themselves on the schedule for public comment. Nor are they being prevented from reaching out to their district representative on the BoE or Central Office itself. If anything MCPS is making sure this is done in an orderly and safe way.

Let's be careful not to hyperbolize, here. Speaking slots are capped at 20 & at a premium, leaving many out in the cold (many speaking on one subject, saying the same/similar things, keep other subjects entirely off the table -- for months, if not entirely). Further, slots were reduced to 2 minutes from 3 minutes -- already far to little to make meaningful/detailed enough arguments to counter anything MCPS presents with no effective time limitation of their own (and with no opportunity for timely rebuttal by the community). Those providing testimony have to speed-read their way through, rarely able to properly puctuate/emphasize/elicit audience empathy, a few talented orators excepted, let alone present counter-arguments to anticipated MCPS responses.

MCPS and the board don't even respond to the opt-out testimonies at this point. They just ignore them.

You are entitled to make your comment, if you get a comment spot. You are not entitled to a response to your comment from BoE members.

Ignoring consistent and strongly held feedback from your community runs counter to the service to the public mindset board members are supposed to have.

You can't please everyone, so you're going to make some enemies now and again, but the fact that every board member ignores and refuses to engage with these folks is piss-poor public service.

MCPS has not ignored these opinions. See, for example: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/publicinfo/community/school-year-2022-2023/docs/InclusiveAndWelcomingLearning.pdf - especially the FAQs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A new piece from Em Espey in MoCo360, this morning:

https://moco360.media/2023/07/20/volume-of-lgbtq-opt-out-requests-caused-significant-disruptions-mcps-says-in-legal-filing/

Clearly there are quite a few people who agree with the protestors. MCPS and the BOE might want to at least hear them out.

MCPS and the BoE has heard them out. They have had a lot of opportunity to have their say, and they are continuing to have that opportunity. You need to distinguish between "having your say" and "getting your way."

If the same material about gender identity is taught in the Family Life unit, people can opt out. But when it's taught in the English Language Arts unit, people cannot. This does not make any sense.

I predict this case will go to the Supreme Court and MCPS will lose there. It will take a few years, after MCPS spends millions of dollars defending it.

The MCPS response filed in the lawsuit will help clear up your confusion. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L0BKX9u-EuvS8B2pkvB0zY58eqUsDSfg/view

The teacher is not just going to read with the class a book about "a prince falling in love with a knight" (one of the books MCPS uses to teach English Language Arts). The teacher will have a discussion about gender identity with elementary school students about that story after reading the book. That discussion will cover the same material used in the Family Life and Human Sexuality curriculum that a family can opt out. But now in the ELA part, people cannot opt out. That's a clear inconsistency.

Well they likely wouldn't have gender identity discussions with the prince book since both the prince and the knight identify as male in that book. But it does come up with a Boy Named Penelope, where gender identity theory is central to the theme and plot of the book.

I've read the book. It is a picture book. There is no discussion of any theory of any sort.

I've read the book too. The theory of whether a child can, because they feel like it, decide they are not the gender they were born as, is the central plot of the story. When children are read this book, it confuses them and they don't understand how that works. I know this because when my child was read this book, that was their response. Again: Gender identity theory is central to "A Boy Named Penelope" because it hinges on the idea that gender is based on feeling and not biology.

That is a theory that some, particularly those who are LGBTQ and LGBTQ-allied, believe as fact, and those outside of that community who believe is not fact and in some cases, offensive and against their faith and religion.

That might be an idea. It's not a theory.

But yes, sometimes, when children read books, they encounter ideas that confuse them. In fact, this even sometimes happens to adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A new piece from Em Espey in MoCo360, this morning:

https://moco360.media/2023/07/20/volume-of-lgbtq-opt-out-requests-caused-significant-disruptions-mcps-says-in-legal-filing/

Clearly there are quite a few people who agree with the protestors. MCPS and the BOE might want to at least hear them out.

MCPS and the BoE has heard them out. They have had a lot of opportunity to have their say, and they are continuing to have that opportunity. You need to distinguish between "having your say" and "getting your way."

+1. No one is being blocked from submitting testimony or putting themselves on the schedule for public comment. Nor are they being prevented from reaching out to their district representative on the BoE or Central Office itself. If anything MCPS is making sure this is done in an orderly and safe way.

Let's be careful not to hyperbolize, here. Speaking slots are capped at 20 & at a premium, leaving many out in the cold (many speaking on one subject, saying the same/similar things, keep other subjects entirely off the table -- for months, if not entirely). Further, slots were reduced to 2 minutes from 3 minutes -- already far to little to make meaningful/detailed enough arguments to counter anything MCPS presents with no effective time limitation of their own (and with no opportunity for timely rebuttal by the community). Those providing testimony have to speed-read their way through, rarely able to properly puctuate/emphasize/elicit audience empathy, a few talented orators excepted, let alone present counter-arguments to anticipated MCPS responses.

MCPS and the board don't even respond to the opt-out testimonies at this point. They just ignore them.

You are entitled to make your comment, if you get a comment spot. You are not entitled to a response to your comment from BoE members.

Ignoring consistent and strongly held feedback from your community runs counter to the service to the public mindset board members are supposed to have.

You can't please everyone, so you're going to make some enemies now and again, but the fact that every board member ignores and refuses to engage with these folks is piss-poor public service.

MCPS has not ignored these opinions. See, for example: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/publicinfo/community/school-year-2022-2023/docs/InclusiveAndWelcomingLearning.pdf - especially the FAQs.

What do you think in that FAQ appeased or made the parents who are uncomfortable with the LGBTQ books in the ELA curriculum more comfortable? That FAQ just doubles down on MCPS's current stance that it's right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A new piece from Em Espey in MoCo360, this morning:

https://moco360.media/2023/07/20/volume-of-lgbtq-opt-out-requests-caused-significant-disruptions-mcps-says-in-legal-filing/

Clearly there are quite a few people who agree with the protestors. MCPS and the BOE might want to at least hear them out.

MCPS and the BoE has heard them out. They have had a lot of opportunity to have their say, and they are continuing to have that opportunity. You need to distinguish between "having your say" and "getting your way."

If the same material about gender identity is taught in the Family Life unit, people can opt out. But when it's taught in the English Language Arts unit, people cannot. This does not make any sense.

I predict this case will go to the Supreme Court and MCPS will lose there. It will take a few years, after MCPS spends millions of dollars defending it.

The MCPS response filed in the lawsuit will help clear up your confusion. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L0BKX9u-EuvS8B2pkvB0zY58eqUsDSfg/view

The teacher is not just going to read with the class a book about "a prince falling in love with a knight" (one of the books MCPS uses to teach English Language Arts). The teacher will have a discussion about gender identity with elementary school students about that story after reading the book. That discussion will cover the same material used in the Family Life and Human Sexuality curriculum that a family can opt out. But now in the ELA part, people cannot opt out. That's a clear inconsistency.

Well they likely wouldn't have gender identity discussions with the prince book since both the prince and the knight identify as male in that book. But it does come up with a Boy Named Penelope, where gender identity theory is central to the theme and plot of the book.

I've read the book. It is a picture book. There is no discussion of any theory of any sort.

I've read the book too. The theory of whether a child can, because they feel like it, decide they are not the gender they were born as, is the central plot of the story. When children are read this book, it confuses them and they don't understand how that works. I know this because when my child was read this book, that was their response. Again: Gender identity theory is central to "A Boy Named Penelope" because it hinges on the idea that gender is based on feeling and not biology.

That is a theory that some, particularly those who are LGBTQ and LGBTQ-allied, believe as fact, and those outside of that community who believe is not fact and in some cases, offensive and against their faith and religion.

That might be an idea. It's not a theory.

But yes, sometimes, when children read books, they encounter ideas that confuse them. In fact, this even sometimes happens to adults.

The fact that you are trying to split hairs and act like there's a vast difference between the words "theory" and "idea" in this context is draining. Clearly, you're here to waste time and not engage in meaningful or substantive discussion. Go somewhere else.

[Anonymous]

Why would MCPS consider public comments when there is pending litigation? They aren't. People are free to make any comments they want but at this point it won't change anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A new piece from Em Espey in MoCo360, this morning:

https://moco360.media/2023/07/20/volume-of-lgbtq-opt-out-requests-caused-significant-disruptions-mcps-says-in-legal-filing/

Clearly there are quite a few people who agree with the protestors. MCPS and the BOE might want to at least hear them out.

Yup. They literally are pulling back on the opt-out option because it was so popular. That does not suggest these people are a minority voice you can just ignore.

I don't feel strongly on this issue (kids are no longer in MCPS), but this is what really strikes me. If the option was so popular that MCPS got overwhelmed with requests, then that shows there is sufficient parent demand, and they should find a way to serve that demand.

In high school at MCPS, there are electives you can sign up for. If a course is really popular, MCPS would try to find a way to add more of that course to meet demand, not cancel the course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would MCPS consider public comments when there is pending litigation? They aren't. People are free to make any comments they want but at this point it won't change anything.

If they didn't, then people would file frivolous lawsuits on a proposal just to block comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A new piece from Em Espey in MoCo360, this morning:

https://moco360.media/2023/07/20/volume-of-lgbtq-opt-out-requests-caused-significant-disruptions-mcps-says-in-legal-filing/

Clearly there are quite a few people who agree with the protestors. MCPS and the BOE might want to at least hear them out.

MCPS and the BoE has heard them out. They have had a lot of opportunity to have their say, and they are continuing to have that opportunity. You need to distinguish between "having your say" and "getting your way."

+1. No one is being blocked from submitting testimony or putting themselves on the schedule for public comment. Nor are they being prevented from reaching out to their district representative on the BoE or Central Office itself. If anything MCPS is making sure this is done in an orderly and safe way.

Let's be careful not to hyperbolize, here. Speaking slots are capped at 20 & at a premium, leaving many out in the cold (many speaking on one subject, saying the same/similar things, keep other subjects entirely off the table -- for months, if not entirely). Further, slots were reduced to 2 minutes from 3 minutes -- already far to little to make meaningful/detailed enough arguments to counter anything MCPS presents with no effective time limitation of their own (and with no opportunity for timely rebuttal by the community). Those providing testimony have to speed-read their way through, rarely able to properly puctuate/emphasize/elicit audience empathy, a few talented orators excepted, let alone present counter-arguments to anticipated MCPS responses.

MCPS and the board don't even respond to the opt-out testimonies at this point. They just ignore them.

You are entitled to make your comment, if you get a comment spot. You are not entitled to a response to your comment from BoE members.

Ignoring consistent and strongly held feedback from your community runs counter to the service to the public mindset board members are supposed to have.

You can't please everyone, so you're going to make some enemies now and again, but the fact that every board member ignores and refuses to engage with these folks is piss-poor public service.

MCPS has not ignored these opinions. See, for example: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/publicinfo/community/school-year-2022-2023/docs/InclusiveAndWelcomingLearning.pdf - especially the FAQs.

What do you think in that FAQ appeased or made the parents who are uncomfortable with the LGBTQ books in the ELA curriculum more comfortable? That FAQ just doubles down on MCPS's current stance that it's right.

MCPS has acknowledged and addressed your opinions. What MCPS has not done, is give you what you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A new piece from Em Espey in MoCo360, this morning:

https://moco360.media/2023/07/20/volume-of-lgbtq-opt-out-requests-caused-significant-disruptions-mcps-says-in-legal-filing/

Clearly there are quite a few people who agree with the protestors. MCPS and the BOE might want to at least hear them out.

Yup. They literally are pulling back on the opt-out option because it was so popular. That does not suggest these people are a minority voice you can just ignore.

I don't feel strongly on this issue (kids are no longer in MCPS), but this is what really strikes me. If the option was so popular that MCPS got overwhelmed with requests, then that shows there is sufficient parent demand, and they should find a way to serve that demand.

In high school at MCPS, there are electives you can sign up for. If a course is really popular, MCPS would try to find a way to add more of that course to meet demand, not cancel the course.

Sufficient parent demand for what, though? For disrupting instruction? For making an exception in the ELA curriculum for books that represent one particular group of people in MCPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A new piece from Em Espey in MoCo360, this morning:

https://moco360.media/2023/07/20/volume-of-lgbtq-opt-out-requests-caused-significant-disruptions-mcps-says-in-legal-filing/

Clearly there are quite a few people who agree with the protestors. MCPS and the BOE might want to at least hear them out.

Yup. They literally are pulling back on the opt-out option because it was so popular. That does not suggest these people are a minority voice you can just ignore.

I don't feel strongly on this issue (kids are no longer in MCPS), but this is what really strikes me. If the option was so popular that MCPS got overwhelmed with requests, then that shows there is sufficient parent demand, and they should find a way to serve that demand.

In high school at MCPS, there are electives you can sign up for. If a course is really popular, MCPS would try to find a way to add more of that course to meet demand, not cancel the course.

Sufficient parent demand for what, though? For disrupting instruction? For making an exception in the ELA curriculum for books that represent one particular group of people in MCPS?

As I understand it, sufficient parent demand for opting their children out of reading a certain set of books. I assume MCPS provided that opt-out for a reason. They don't provide it for math books, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A new piece from Em Espey in MoCo360, this morning:

https://moco360.media/2023/07/20/volume-of-lgbtq-opt-out-requests-caused-significant-disruptions-mcps-says-in-legal-filing/

Clearly there are quite a few people who agree with the protestors. MCPS and the BOE might want to at least hear them out.

Yup. They literally are pulling back on the opt-out option because it was so popular. That does not suggest these people are a minority voice you can just ignore.

I don't feel strongly on this issue (kids are no longer in MCPS), but this is what really strikes me. If the option was so popular that MCPS got overwhelmed with requests, then that shows there is sufficient parent demand, and they should find a way to serve that demand.

In high school at MCPS, there are electives you can sign up for. If a course is really popular, MCPS would try to find a way to add more of that course to meet demand, not cancel the course.

Sufficient parent demand for what, though? For disrupting instruction? For making an exception in the ELA curriculum for books that represent one particular group of people in MCPS?

As I understand it, sufficient parent demand for opting their children out of reading a certain set of books. I assume MCPS provided that opt-out for a reason. They don't provide it for math books, for example.

And now, consistent with the policy for other parts of the curriculum, they also don't it provide for ELA books. Here's MCPS's most recent legal filing, in case you're interested: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L0BKX9u-EuvS8B2pkvB0zY58eqUsDSfg/view