Curriculum

[ima062002]

A group of parents in a California school district say they are being bullied by school administrators into accepting a new curriculum that addresses bullying, respect and acceptance -- and that includes compulsory lessons about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community that will be taught to children as young as 5 years old.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521209,00.html

“I believe these children are far too young to be learning about what these issues mean,” said Alaina Stewart, who has three children who attend elementary school in Alameda. “These are adult issues and they are being thrust upon the children.”

I don't agree. Whether people agree with what some call "lifestyle" (as if it is just a matter of choice which nobody gay I know believes it is, but that is another topic) or not is not the issue. This is meant to teach that no matter what, nobody has the right to call people names (such as fag) or act in a belittling or derogatory way.

I also don't get what the issue is about the book ("And Tango Makes Three"). I can't believe it is forbidden in some parts of the country!!!! My son actually picked it last time we were at the library and it's a true story of two male penguins who exhibit mating and relationship behavior usually reserved to a female and male. When presented with an egg of a female penguin, who routinely had too many eggs and wasn't able to care for all of them, the two males tended to it lovingly and well and it hatched. They cared for it like a male/female penguin couple would. I found it an interesting story.

[Sputterduck]

I don't think sexuality should be addressed for 5 year olds at all at school. My little guy just turned 5 and it unaware of sexuality and I'd be pissed if someone opened his innocent little eyes at this point. And some point, sure, but 5 is rather young.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I'm about as open-minded as they come when it comes to this type of thing. However, I agree with this:

The parents from the Unified School District in Alameda, a suburb of San Francisco and Oakland, say these issues are best learned at home

I'd really need to see exactly what is being taught, but if I'm understanding correctly, it's too close to teaching "religious beliefs" to me. This type of thing should be taught in the home, not in the school.

As for the bullying, that's a whole other issue. Sessions dealing with bullying in general should be taught, not exclusively related to gays and lesbians.

[Sputterduck]

or what Judy said

[ima062002]

So what do you do with a child who talks about fags (and according to the article, there were kindergarten kids using that term to describe gays) - let's say says that Jimmy's dads are two fags. How should that be approached?

My kids knew that some families have two dads, some two moms and that some men like dressing in women's clothes simply because we live in a very diverse town. They've seen men and women hugging and kissing in the streets and some of their classmates have gay parents. There is the odd men walking in women's clothes. They knew about all of this in Kindergarten. Heck my ds is not even in K and he knows about these things.

Talking about the fact that there are gay and lesbian couples and that it is not ok to make fun of them is NOT sex talk. I don't think that anybody is advocating to talk about how gay couples engage in sexual acts - that is something that isn't even on their radar, nor should it be. The fact that homosexuality exists is something that should be part of general knowledge, precisely to ward off the development of homophobia.

[JudyJudyJudy]

So what do you do with a child who talks about fags (and according to the article, there were kindergarten kids using that term to describe gays) - let's say says that Jimmy's dads are two fags. How should that be approached?
It should be approached in the same way that it should be if kids were making fun of any other kid's parents. If a kid's father is an alcoholic and other kids are making fun of the kid because of it, we don't need an entire curriculum set up around alcoholism. If a kid's mother is mentally ill and other kids are saying she's a psychotic lunatic, we don't need an entire curriculum set up around mental illness. If a kid's heterosexual mother is dating several different men and other kids are saying she's a whore, we don't need an entire curriculum set up around it. If a kid lives with his elderly grandparents and other kids are making fun of him because of it, we don't need an entire curriculum about such things. These are all bullying issues, and that's how they should be handled.

[MrsKitty]

My child is not being exposed to sexuality or having his innocence ruined.

He also knows that some men love women, some women love men, some men love men, and some women love women.

Amazingly there is no talk about sex required!

Neither was his poor little psyche shattered by being around my friends who are trans.

[QuiltyConscience]

I agree with Judy on this one.
And I'll add:
How about teaching kids to read and do math? That'd be good.

[HIJKMommy]

I agree with Judy on this one.
And I'll add:
How about teaching kids to read and do math? That'd be good.

Or how to refrain from disrupting others while in the classroom.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I agree with Judy on this one.
And I'll add:
How about teaching kids to read and do math? That'd be good.
Yes.


Or how to refrain from disrupting others while in the classroom.
And yes.

[Iconoclast]

I agree. I am as progressive on social issues as they come, but school is for learning to read, write and count.

[HammBugga]

There have been a rash of suicides in young children lately due to bullying and being called "gay" and "faggot" and worse. So I do agree that it needs to be taught in school, centered around bullying but I think 5 is too young.

[pawprint]

My child is not being exposed to sexuality or having his innocence ruined.

He also knows that some men love women, some women love men, some men love men, and some women love women.

Amazingly there is no talk about sex required!

Neither was his poor little psyche shattered by being around my friends who are trans.
This exactly. Being gay is not all about sex, just like being straight is not. It's about love. Both of my sons knew what being gay meant long before they were five.

[SingingMom]

My kids know that sometimes men love men, and women love women.

But bullying is not about gender issues. It's about bullying. When a kid calls names at school, the response should be about the fact that it's not okay to make fun of people and call names.

It doesn't matter if the bullying is about gender issues, or homelessness, or alcoholism, or whatever. It's not okay. You consequence it. But do we need to design a curriculum about it? Really?

I'd really rather that the schools focused on education. Like actual skills.

[ima062002]

Unfortunately what I see in my dd's class, parents don't do their job and if the school is just focusing on teaching skills like reading and writing and controlling disruptive behavior, it is going to have problems like bullying and homophobia on their hands. I think the two - skill teaching and learning how to be tolerant can go hand in hand. Choosing reading material, say "And Tango makes Three" over "Bears are curious" is a way of doing that.

[Sputterduck]

I'm suddenly even happier that we are homeschooling.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Unfortunately what I see in my dd's class, parents don't do their job and if the school is just focusing on teaching skills like reading and writing and controlling disruptive behavior, it is going to have problems like bullying and homophobia on their hands. I think the two - skill teaching and learning how to be tolerant can go hand in hand. Choosing reading material, say "And Tango makes Three" over "Bears are curious" is a way of doing that.
I still fail to see why bullying related to such things deserves its own curriculum. Bullying is harmful regardless of the reason.

[HammBugga]

My kids know that sometimes men love men, and women love women.

But bullying is not about gender issues. It's about bullying. When a kid calls names at school, the response should be about the fact that it's not okay to make fun of people and call names.

It doesn't matter if the bullying is about gender issues, or homelessness, or alcoholism, or whatever. It's not okay. You consequence it. But do we need to design a curriculum about it? Really?

I'd really rather that the schools focused on education. Like actual skills.

You are right that bullying is bullying but if we taught our children about different people, whether it is race, religion, sexual orientation, etc... then bullying regarding those things could be greatly decreased.

[HammBugga]

I still fail to see why bullying related to such things deserves its own curriculum. Bullying is harmful regardless of the reason.


We don't know that it is focusing solely on that issue. In fact, I bet it is just one facet of what will be talked about. When teaching about bullying, it makes sense to talk about things that people are bullied for. It also makes sense to explain to the children that just because someone is different, doesn't mean it is ok to make fun of them for it.

[JudyJudyJudy]

We don't know that it is focusing solely on that issue. In fact, I bet it is just one facet of what will be talked about. When teaching about bullying, it makes sense to talk about things that people are bullied for. It also makes sense to explain to the children that just because someone is different, doesn't mean it is ok to make fun of them for it.
I agree that it's good to teach about differences. However, I don't believe that LBGT lessons should be separate lessons from teaching about differences and respect in general.

The proposed curriculum will include a 45-minute LGBT lesson, once a year from kindergarten through fifth grade. The kindergartners will focus on the harms of teasing, while the fifth graders will study sexual orientation stereotypes.

Again, if every problem that kids deal with got its own lesson, there would be no time left to teach the skills that are supposed to be taught in school.

[HammBugga]

I think that big issues that kids deal with do get their own lessons, its called History in most cases. Eventually LGBT issues will be a part of history lessons as well. We aren't at that point yet, unfortunately.

[MrsKitty]

Those that feel that school should only teach reading and math and such. Would you also be okay with taking out programs like D.A.R.E?

[QuiltyConscience]

Those that feel that school should only teach reading and math and such. Would you also be okay with taking out programs like D.A.R.E?


I do think the school's main focus should be teaching to read and math..etc. That doesn't mean I think they should they should never do anything else. DARE, AFAIK isn't an entire class. I think having workshops and student government activities addressing bullying is a good idea.


Designing an entire curriculum around only *one* aspect of bullying seems to me to be taking up a lot of valuable class time. Plenty of information can be worked in through several classes - History for example..English essays can be written on bullying topics, etc.

[MrsKitty]

For us, D.A.R.E was a weekly class with tests and homework.

The proposal is a 45 minute class once a year.

[HammBugga]

Yeah 45 minutes once a year is hardly a waste of time.

[SingingMom]

I could live with one forty five minute class, once a year. However, I have reservations about trying to solve problems like bullying with classes for everyone. It makes more sense to send bullies to classes, rather than waste everyone's time on it. It isn't possible to really cover all the ways a kid can bully; are we seriously going to try and cover every social, cultural, and ethnic variation on bullying?

Really, I think that's a huge waste of time. When you have to just not tolerate bullying at all. And other bad behavior. I don't know that I believe in "teaching kids to get along" with a one-time class. It smacks of propaganda and I don't believe it works.

If you want to change their behavior, you have to watch them, catch them at it, and consequence it. Standing up and telling all the kids not to do something is not particularly effective, IME.

Are kids really deciding not to drink and use drugs because of classes? I find I'm dubious on that. How is this different from "abstinence training"?

[HammBugga]

Do you think that, back when civil rights were a huge issue, spending 45 minutes a YEAR talking about it would have been too much, or not enough? I see the LGBT issue, the civil rights issue of today.

[SingingMom]

I don't think that curriculum is the arena in which to fight this fight. I think that adults have the responsibility to discuss and act on the issues in the public arena.

The schools' responsibility is to teach kids to read, do math, and so on. I think it's out of line to use a lot of school time on issues (remember, we're talking about kindergarteners here!) that kids aren't really ready for and can't do much about.

I don't want anybody, liberal or conservative, using my kids' school time to promote their social agenda.

As for the civil rights movement, actions speak louder than words, even when you're speaking to children. The courageous men and women who fought for civil rights all over have certainly passed into the history books, and deservedly. But do you really want your young kids embroiled in political discussions in school among groups that disagree about things like gay marriage? What a waste of instructional time.

I think it's appropriate and useful to discuss these topics with teens. And I think that history and social science classes are the venue for that. I think it's silly to spend a bunch of time on this with young kids.

[ima062002]

I think it's out of line to use a lot of school time on issues (remember, we're talking about kindergarteners here!) that kids aren't really ready for and can't do much about.
....
But do you really want your young kids embroiled in political discussions in school among groups that disagree about things like gay marriage? What a waste of instructional time.

Why are K kids not ready to hear that we need to be respectful of other people's choices in a mate? It's expanding their mind, so see that there isn't just one way of living, not always mom/dad/kid, sometimes it's dad/dad and kid and that is their choice and not something to ridicule or call derogatory names.

It's not about gay marriage and whether the government should accept it or not. It's about not calling someone fag if they are gay, or ridicule a child if s/he has two dads or two moms.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Why are K kids not ready to hear that we need to be respectful of other people's choices in a mate? It's expanding their mind, so see that there isn't just one way of living, not always mom/dad/kid, sometimes it's dad/dad and kid and that is their choice and not something to ridicule or call derogatory names.
A school can and should teach a child how to behave, but it's not the school's place to teach a child what to believe. The school shouldn't be teaching values and religious beliefs. This is stepping dangerously close to interfering with religion. I don't want conservatives to teach my child their values, and it isn't right for liberals to teach their values, either.

Also, you keep using the word "choice." That goes against the argument that being gay isn't a choice, which I totally believe.

If you're all for teaching children about having two moms or two dads, should we also teach about families that have two daddies and a mother or two mothers and a daddy in the same household? Where will this line be drawn?


It's not about gay marriage and whether the government should accept it or not.
No, it's worse; it's about telling the child that he or she has to accept it. It wouldn't be so bad to me if they were teaching older students why it should be LEGAL since that is about civil rights. This goes too far, though.


It's about not calling someone fag if they are gay, or ridicule a child if s/he has two dads or two moms.
Then stick to having a quick seminar on bullying and then harshly dealing with the bullies.

[ima062002]

It is a choice for a gay couple to adopt a child or have a sperm donor to create a family. I wasn't referring to being gay being a choice.

[SingingMom]

It's expanding their mind, so see that there isn't just one way of living, not always mom/dad/kid, sometimes it's dad/dad and kid and that is their choice and not something to ridicule or call derogatory names.



Not everyone believes this. So what you are promoting here is that the schools will teach a particular social viewpoint to kindergarteners.

As it happens, my viewpoint agrees with yours. But I wouldn't want to waste my kids' time or my time arguing with other parents about it, and I don't feel it's necessary to address it with young children.

It's the "expanding their mind" part that is going to cause trouble. To decide that this is the way it should be taught is very disrespectful to those with different beliefs. And to teach it to young children who have little ability to deal with subtlety and lack experience with cognitive conflict is ridiculous.

[RaisingThemLeft]

I have a very hard time believing that this is happening. I live in CA, and have 3 children in the public school system. I am very involved in school, volunteer a couple of times a week and serve on the board of the PTA. This curriculum is not in place, not mandated by the state, and is not something that has been discussed at all. Right now, our biggest concern is scrambling to form classes (we are losing our 20 to 1 in second grade and need to redistribute students) and the fact that we are losing our librarian and media clerk. Oh, and how we are going to afford paper and laminate. Believe me, LGBS issues are far, FAR from the front burner.

The closest thing we had to any of this came in the form of an assembly on bullying. This was paid for by the PTA, was extracurricular, was chosen by a PTA board person and teacher rep, not mandated by the state, and included zero info on sexuality or LGBS issues. It was just a general don't bully people who are different from you message. It was put on by the OC Performing Arts group and was really good, the kids loved it.

Our K teachers are NOT talking about sex in class. They are not talking about sex in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd grade either. Can't tell you for sure about 4th, 5th, and 6th grade since we aren't there yet. I remember having sex ed in 7th grade and believe that is still when they are doing it, and parents have to sign a waiver.

Our school offers a program where parents can go to school at night, with their children and they have people trained to talk about these things in age appropriate ways, offered for 4th-6th graders. It's something extra, that you have to pay for, and attend with a parent.

[RaisingThemLeft]

Ok, I just read the article and it's one district, not the whole state. That makes more sense. Because in our district, this is just not a priority. It's more about not getting what we have taken away, forget about adding new stuff.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Not everyone believes this. So what you are promoting here is that the schools will teach a particular social viewpoint to kindergarteners.

As it happens, my viewpoint agrees with yours. But I wouldn't want to waste my kids' time or my time arguing with other parents about it, and I don't feel it's necessary to address it with young children.

It's the "expanding their mind" part that is going to cause trouble. To decide that this is the way it should be taught is very disrespectful to those with different beliefs. And to teach it to young children who have little ability to deal with subtlety and lack experience with cognitive conflict is ridiculous.
I totally agree.


Ok, I just read the article and it's one district, not the whole state. That makes more sense. Because in our district, this is just not a priority. It's more about not getting what we have taken away, forget about adding new stuff.
I would be willing to bet that that district is facing some of the same issues as you all are. My understanding is that it's happening pretty much everywhere.

[RaisingThemLeft]

Judy I'm sure you are right, which kind of does make me wonder where their priorities are at. I think this is a time where we, as CA public school parents, need to band together to try to get something done about the budget and our kids' educations, not be fighting over curriculum issues. Why introduce controversial extra curricular stuff now? I don't get it.

[Justicedog]

My child is not being exposed to sexuality or having his innocence ruined.

He also knows that some men love women, some women love men, some men love men, and some women love women.

Amazingly there is no talk about sex required!

Neither was his poor little psyche shattered by being around my friends who are trans.

The curriculum is in line with what you believe in and teach your kids, what if it wasn't? I don't think you'd feel the same way. I don't think the schools have a right to force "their" opinions on the kids.

I agree with Judy. This is not the school's place. Perhaps if they would concentrate more on reading and math, they wouldn't have to just "teach for the test." Bullying can be addressed, but this seems to be teaching what should be taught at home.

There is the odd men walking in women's clothes.

What? A man is odd for walking in women's clothes? How utterly intolerant of you.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Lol, Jd!