Exposing the doublespeak OSPI engages in. They claim they don't approve curricula, only determine if they meet the standards. But guess who determines the standards? OSPI, of course. And they can change them at any time.
Dils explained “OSPI does not have statutory authority to ‘approve’ or ‘recommend’ curricula, just assess their consistency with the 2005 guidelines and the other requirements spelled out in the Healthy Youth Act … since districts are able to develop or choose curricula that are not on our list, and may review their own materials for consistency with state requirements, and make their own decision to approve curricula for use in their district, OSPI does not have the last word on what is used at the district level.”
Rush said this is not what happened in Battle Ground, which has become a battle ground over the requirement for comprehensive sex education adoption statewide.
OSPI does not need statutory authority to approve curriculum, because OSPI writes the standards by which curriculum are evaluated."
Sue Lani Madsen: When it comes to sex ed, Referendum 90 is your chance to send a message
UPDATED: Thu., Oct. 8, 2020
By Sue Lani Madsen Spokesman-Review columnist
Read the for and “against” statements in the Voter’s Guide for Referendum 90 and you’ll be minimally enlightened. Both sides want healthy, safe kids. One side believes in local control to deliver sensitive material in a culturally appropriate way, the other insists a statewide mandate is necessary.
The foundational difference between the two sides remains unstated. It’s about defining sex.
For thousands of years, man has been identified as an adult human male, woman as an adult human female, and the distinction based on objective biological characteristics. Now we have gender fluidity, saying “gender identity is socially constructed based on the region of the world where you grew up and were socialized, and that gender identity is different than your body, your biology, what you were assigned when you were born,” according to Nick Franco, Ph.D., director of the Eastern Washington University Pride Center.
It’s a philosophical, theological and medical minefield.
The arguments for and against were written by groups including teachers, school board members, parents and medical experts. Both statements tiptoe around the edges of the political danger zone. Laurie Dils, a representative of the state’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, insisted in an email exchange that the “bill does not require a particular perspective to be presented.”
Wendy Rush, of Battle Ground, was encouraged by a vice principal and teachers in her school district to apply for one of the two parent representative positions on her school district’s instructional materials review committee. “I was naïve,” Rush said. “Then teachers said they wanted me there to ask questions they were afraid to ask without losing their jobs.”
A former P.E. teacher herself, Rush sought answers to why the KNOW curriculum the district had been using for high school health and sex education had to be replaced. Committee notes provided by Rush indicate Allison Tuchardt, assistant director of assessment for the Battle Ground School District, reported Dils had advised the KNOW curriculum was no longer supported by OSPI because it was no longer medically accurate.
Rush asked why. “At first the answer was the STD rates had changed, but you don’t change a whole curriculum to update a chart. There was a lot of waffling, but it came down to gender definitions,” Rush said.
All of the curricula on the OSPI list are based on the foundational belief that sex is non-binary. This gender theory is incorporated at every level, starting in kindergarten, where the recommended 3Rs curriculum teaches “there are some body parts that mostly just girls have and some body parts that mostly just boys have.”
At the close of the lesson, the teacher is told to ask students “which body parts only girls have, only boys have and both have” in order to “assess the knowledge of the class.” Tough question for 5-year-olds who have just been told sometimes girls have boy parts and boys have girl parts. Adding confusion, the same kindergarten curriculum also says “your body is exactly right for you.”
Dils explained “OSPI does not have statutory authority to ‘approve’ or ‘recommend’ curricula, just assess their consistency with the 2005 guidelines and the other requirements spelled out in the Healthy Youth Act … since districts are able to develop or choose curricula that are not on our list, and may review their own materials for consistency with state requirements, and make their own decision to approve curricula for use in their district, OSPI does not have the last word on what is used at the district level.”
Rush said this is not what happened in Battle Ground, which has become a battle ground over the requirement for comprehensive sex education adoption statewide. OSPI does not need statutory authority to approve curriculum, because OSPI writes the standards by which curriculum are evaluated.
Chris Reykdal, superintendent of public instruction, referred to those who disagree with OSPI’s curriculum assessments as “flat-earthers” in testimony to the Legislature. It’s disingenuous to suggest OSPI is merely a bystander offering objective advice.
The record-breaking signature gathering effort to put Referendum 90 on the ballot is a measure of public dissatisfaction with an agenda driven by gender theories. Rejecting Referendum 90 may be more symbolic than practical, since OSPI will still be writing a list and checking it twice. School boards will still be reluctant to go out on a limb and defy the power of the state. But if you have an opinion on which foundation health and sex education curriculum should be built, Referendum 90 is a chance to send a message