STICKY

PERHAPS WE LEARNED SOMETHING.....
…Perhaps we were only mildly entertained. Regardless, please enjoy these Reviews, Responses, Works of Fiction, and Retellings brought to you by one who hopes to someday join the ranks of those who have written something worth reading.
(Kaylia Metcalfe)


Also, don't forget to visit Kaylia's Official Website where you can get information about Kaylia's upcoming events, and learn more about her free lance writing and other publications.

Good Idea Done Wrong... Or Just Bad All Around?

I was sick today and wasn’t able to attend Pride. Which is bad all around. First off, it isn’t fun being sick when the weather is gorgeous and there is so much to do. Secondly, missing Pride for the second year in a row is downright embarrassing. I just know they were having a great time while I was trying to muster up the energy to go buy groceries… see that was the worst part. Being too sick to go to Pride, but not quite sick enough to justify ignoring my chores.

Well, anyway. I was there in spirit.

But in honor of Pride, here is a blog post inspirited by a recent article dealing with the promotion of that all powerful Gay Agenda.

As part of an anti bullying program, Alameda county schools will be working with a curriculum next year that aims to teach tolerance regarding the LGBT community starting in kindergarten and going through the 5th grade..

The curriculum additions are extensive, (again starting in kindergarten with a book… and going through 5th grade with a book/video). Along the way students are exposed to and educated on different family structures and vocabulary. They are even taught the proper use of words from that vocabulary. This includes teaching the definition of the world “Transgender” as well as theuse of the word “gay” being taught as a signifier of sexual preference not as something bad as in “That was so gay.”

And as you might imagine, some teachers and parents are in an uproar.

Is this just proof that the NOM was right and with the passage of gay marriage, schools are forced to teach the gay agenda? No. first of all because gay marriage didn’t pass…

But most importantly… teaching about gay people just makes sense. Gay people are here, my friends. They are here, and they are here to stay. They are part of our communities and workforces and schools and politics, and military, and every other aspect of our lives. To turn a blind eye or to purposely leave the entire gay community out of the picture would just be insane. Part of what schools do for our youth is prepare them for the world, give them the tools they need and the education to process the world around them in order to become decent members of society. Being aware that gay people exist and are just as normal as the not-gays, is essential to that.

But lets look at what they are doing… and whether or not they are doing it the right way.

Let’s break it down in Pros and Cons for this type of curriculum.

Pros: This is a curriculum that will start at the ground level teaching tolerance and helping students understand their world. The hope is that it will also lead to less bullying.

Cons: Teachers have to teach something that goes against traditional values even if they hold those values themselves. According to the article, “The additional curriculum is intolerant of the traditional values.” Which… as a statement is so completely insane I can’t believe they actually said it.

Also, parents aren’t given the option of opting out because it is part of the bullying curriculum. If it were part of the regular curriculum then parents have the right to opt out based on the following criteria.

Under [current] regulations, parents must be notified and given an opportunity to opt-out, if the evaluation addresses topics such as:
• Political affiliations or beliefs of the student or the student's parent;
• sex behavior or attitudes;
• religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or student's parent, etc.


This is the crux of the outcry and what is sparking the threat of lawsuits because clearly teaching about families with two daddies is going to fall under those criteria.

But these additions are part of the anit-bullying cirriculum… and there seems to be some strong disagreement about the legality of forcing this sort of thing on the students.

So a few questions worth thinking about:
Should it be part of the bullying curriculum?
Should it be part of the curriculum at all?
Should parents be able to opt out?
Should teachers be able to opt out?

The article also says that race and ethnicity are both bigger motivators for bullying and therefore that is what the Anti-bullying curriculum should be focusing on. (I couldn’t find anything to substantiate or repudiate this claim.)

I only have my opinions here… the legal jargon seems to be undergoing a few definition changes.

But, I do balk at the idea of the curriculum being snuck in.

However, I am very glad to see them doing something, my gut reaction is that this is a good thing… I am just not sure if it is a good thing being done all wrong.

And because it seems so painfully obvious, I have to point out the parallels with teaching evolution.

Lastly, I contacted the three members of the Alameda Board of Education who voted in favor of the additional curriculum thanking them and trying to get a bit more information… but none of them have responded. (I contacted them on Wed. June 10th)

I am sure that we will be hearing more about this idea as time goes on… Should be interesting to watch.



Read the article yourself here.

4 comments:

Steve Shaw said...

Not to be a downer or anything, but is there any evidence that these programs work? Considering the failure of past attempts at behavior manipulation such as DARE and those abstinence only courses (programs whose failure I couldn't care less about), I find myself skeptical that these classes do anything besides waste time and money. Assuming that they do work though, the opt out option will likely invalidate any success that would have been had. Socially conservative parents will just take their kids out of the program leaving only the kids who'd in all likelihood have turned out sympathetic to the LGBT movement as it is. The whole thing just seems destined to failure to me.

Sheldon said...

Have you ever seen this documentary, Steve? It's called "The Eye of the Storm," and it might change your mind about the effectiveness of such programs.

http://tinyurl.com/kvyojj

It's in 4 parts, but you can easily find the others in the sidebar on the YouTube page above.

Jay said...

I really do think that the opt out option will lessen the effectiveness of these programs. It give the parents a chance to start teaching their kids intolerance at age 5 by not letting them participate.

I also find the idea of allowing parents to "opt out" of their kids being taught tolerance rather hilarious. And sad.

Also, if you look at polls and statistics, with each generation we already seeing more and more acceptance of gay rights and gay marriage etc. This has happened pretty naturally and hasn't needed all of these programs. So, I wonder if there is a threat of a backlash against programs like this that would actually hurt those trends?

Kay said...

Steve: I wonder about that too. And yeah, the whole preaching to the choir thing is something I think we need to be cautious of.

Sheldon: I didn’t know you blogged! Oh wait, I just clicked… it seems like you USED to blog…. I haven’t seen “The Eye” yet, will check it out, thanks.

Jay: I dislike the idea of parents opting out.. not just of this but sex-ed, evolution, etc… what I can’t quite figure out is where the line should be drawn. At what point do we tell parents “No, if you insist on teaching your kids untruths then society has a responsibility to teach the reality”? Is there a line? If so… where… and better yet, Who draws it?