Kansas: Having Second Thoughts, Too Late
The state school board in Kansas, which already ranks last in the nation in science education, just isn't happy yet. They're afraid some Kansas students might learn something about sex in sex-ed.
Must ... prevent ... that.
See, this is what happens when you don't pay attention. The people of Kansas don't want this kind of junk, but they elected a school board that's doing it to them anyway. I suppose they thought they were fighting the war on Terra or something when they put these nuts into office, but like a lot of people they've had second thoughts since then.
Red State Rabble has outed a stealth school board candidate who, without saying anything, planned to promote an anti-science agenda in Kansas schools. You've got to ask them, you've got to find out for sure exactly how they feel about the issues that are important to you. Because these people work in the dark of night, they don't feel obligated to tell you what they're up to.
-- "Abstinence till marriage." What do you suppose that means, in describing a sex-ed curriculum? Are you supposed to tell students that people don't have sex till they're married? Are you supposed to tell students not to have sex themselves until they marry?
Uh, yeah, sure, that'd work, sure.
I'll tell you what it reminds me of: D.A.R.E. The least effective use of classroom time imaginable. Tell kids a bunch of lies about drugs and then ... pretend they won't use them.
In both cases, kids are going to figure out, first of all, that grown-ups lie and can't be trusted. And worst of all, once they've figured out that they were lied to about one aspect of it, they're going to disregard the whole message. Figuring out that Marihuana the Weed With Roots In Hell does not immediately lead to addiction might make them question whether crack or heroin are addictive. Call me crazy, but I think you oughta just give them the facts and let them make informed decisions.
Same thing with sex. It just makes ridiculously obvious good sense to tell students the truth, and trust that we've raised them to make good decisions. Some won't, we know that. At least they ought to know what's going on, what precautions to take, what to expect, how to deal with it.
A funny thing is, Montgomery County already has the more conservative "opt-in" procedure. We're not complaining about it. Almost all parents sign the form, they figure about one percent don't. We don't want to trick anybody into signing up for sex ed if they don't want it, but again, it's simple: give people the facts and they'll make good decisions.
Must ... prevent ... that.
Having joined a small number of states that require parental permission before allowing students to take sex education, the [Kansas] State Board of Education now is considering tightening restrictions on the subject even further.
The board today will decide whether to require every school district use “abstinence-until-marriage” sex education.
Several advocates for a more comprehensive approach to sex education asked the board to reject the proposal.
Lois Culver, a retired teacher from Lenexa, said “abstinence-until-marriage” programs were dangerous.
“They do not discuss all the lifesaving information young people need to make responsible decisions,” she said.
James Hasselle, a retired psychologist from Lawrence, agreed, saying young people need as much factual information as they can get.
“A thoughtful, intelligent program of sex education benefits the youth and all of Kansas,” Hasselle said.
A number of students and parents also urged the board to reject abstinence until marriage and require a comprehensive, age-appropriate human sexuality curriculum.
See, this is what happens when you don't pay attention. The people of Kansas don't want this kind of junk, but they elected a school board that's doing it to them anyway. I suppose they thought they were fighting the war on Terra or something when they put these nuts into office, but like a lot of people they've had second thoughts since then.
Red State Rabble has outed a stealth school board candidate who, without saying anything, planned to promote an anti-science agenda in Kansas schools. You've got to ask them, you've got to find out for sure exactly how they feel about the issues that are important to you. Because these people work in the dark of night, they don't feel obligated to tell you what they're up to.
-- "Abstinence till marriage." What do you suppose that means, in describing a sex-ed curriculum? Are you supposed to tell students that people don't have sex till they're married? Are you supposed to tell students not to have sex themselves until they marry?
Uh, yeah, sure, that'd work, sure.
I'll tell you what it reminds me of: D.A.R.E. The least effective use of classroom time imaginable. Tell kids a bunch of lies about drugs and then ... pretend they won't use them.
In both cases, kids are going to figure out, first of all, that grown-ups lie and can't be trusted. And worst of all, once they've figured out that they were lied to about one aspect of it, they're going to disregard the whole message. Figuring out that Marihuana the Weed With Roots In Hell does not immediately lead to addiction might make them question whether crack or heroin are addictive. Call me crazy, but I think you oughta just give them the facts and let them make informed decisions.
Same thing with sex. It just makes ridiculously obvious good sense to tell students the truth, and trust that we've raised them to make good decisions. Some won't, we know that. At least they ought to know what's going on, what precautions to take, what to expect, how to deal with it.
In March, the board on a 6-4 vote went against the advice of health care professionals by requiring that school districts receive parental permission for students to participate in sexual education classes. This so-called “opt-in” policy will mean some students will not benefit from the class simply because their parents are inattentive to school needs, the health care experts said.
Most states and school districts, including Lawrence, have an opt-out policy in which parents can sign a form if they want their children removed from sex education class. Despite the board’s opt-in requirement, Lawrence school officials said they won’t change their local policy.
The state board also briefly considered requiring “abstinence only” sex education. But that idea died.
This new proposal was seen by some members who had wanted “abstinence only” as a compromise. Abstinence-based plan for sex education is returning
A funny thing is, Montgomery County already has the more conservative "opt-in" procedure. We're not complaining about it. Almost all parents sign the form, they figure about one percent don't. We don't want to trick anybody into signing up for sex ed if they don't want it, but again, it's simple: give people the facts and they'll make good decisions.
posted by JimK at 9:01 PM
6 Comments:
Jim writes
The state school board in Kansas, which already ranks last in the nation in science education, just isn't happy yet.
First off, it would appear that States ought to take the Fordham Foundation's rankings seriously (if they will criticize a left-wing education nut case like Jonathon Kozol, then they must be non-partisan).
Of the seven States that received an "A" in 2005, for other half of them (4) this meant an improvement since the last ranking in 2000. In the case of New Mexico the improvement was dramatic, going from an "F" to an "A".
What is most interesting though is the distribution in the States receiving "A's" and those receiving "F's". Of the States receiving an "A", four of them were "Red" states in the 2004 election, while three were "Blue" states. That is, in States that did their best, it seems they were divided relatively equally.
The picture does change though when it comes to States getting an "F" grade. Of those, 11 were "Red" and 4 were "Blue"
However, before attributing this news to willful ignorance, perhaps a little caution is in order. The press release that accompanied these rankings was titled thusly,
Most K-12 state science standards don’t make the grade
Scientists' review finds expectations lax in 21 states; evolution only part of the story
Jim writes,
I suppose they thought they were fighting the war on Terra or something when they put these nuts into office, but like a lot of people they've had second thoughts since then.
"Nut cases"??? Come now Jim, you can do better than that...can't you? Remember, there are elections and voters (those that bother) elect who will represent them. Honestly, I thought voters of the State of New York were nuts to vote Hillary Rodham as the replacement for the (now) late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan...an individual with NO electoral experience (much like Jess Jackson and Pat Buchanan) and suspect credentials (apparently Garrison Keillor felt the same way about Norm Coleman in the Minnesota Senate race), Rodham...err, I mean Clinton was not a particularly strong candidate. But the voters decided otherwise...
Jim writes,
-- "Abstinence till marriage." What do you suppose that means, in describing a sex-ed curriculum? Are you supposed to tell students that people don't have sex till they're married? Are you supposed to tell students not to have sex themselves until they marry?
From what I have seen it can mean any number of things...I know I am at a point that I would allow instruction in condom usage *if* the focus were genuinely on encouraging abstinence, especially be teaching students what social science research has found with regards to abstinence until marriage. The mind of a student is still fairly immature intellectually speaking, but it can grasp a simple fact like this:
FACT: University of Maryland Professor William Galston (and former domestic policy advisor to the Clinton Admin.) has stated that doing three simple things can dramaticly reduce your odds of suffering from poverty. First, finish high school; second, reaching age 21 before becoming sexually active; and third, getting married before having the first child. Follow those three simple rules and you reduce your risk of suffering from poverty from 78% to 8%.
Why not teach this fact to students?
And your last point Jim about the opt-IN versus the opt-OUT option...whether it is one or the other, what MUST be done is to involve the parents. I would like to think this is something we can all agree upon. Besides, parents that feel that they are a partner in their child's education are less likely to fight against.
"Honestly, I thought voters of the State of New York were nuts to vote Hillary Rodham as the replacement for the (now) late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan...an individual with NO electoral experience (much like Jess Jackson and Pat Buchanan) and suspect credentials (apparently Garrison Keillor felt the same way about Norm Coleman in the Minnesota Senate race), Rodham...err, I mean Clinton was not a particularly strong candidate. But the voters decided otherwise..."
Hate to be a heretic but, personally, I've always liked Hillary. Wouldn't agree with her on most issues and probably won't vote for her for President but she shows more sense than many Democrats. She opposes gay marriage and a time-table for pulling out of Iraq.
Maybe we can make her an ambassador or something in the McCain administration.
Hate to be a heretic but, personally, I've always liked Hillary.
I guess I should qualify my dislike of her which really does not stem from her stint as First Lady...I did not think she deserved to be elected to the US Senate for the same reason as Jackson and Buchanan: a total lack of electoral experience. The US Senate is not a place for Beginner's and Novices, no matter how smart they may fancy themselves.
And the other reason I did not think she deserved to be elected was due to the person who held the seat, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a gentleman and a scholar...quite literally.
Unlike Bush, who was elected Governor of Texas, Clinton had no experience beforehand. And I suspect she will find in running for the Presidency that being the Governor of a State is much better experience than the US Senate. Time will tell...
Still, once again, the voters of New York spoke, and Hillary Clinton is one of their US Senators.
Wouldn't agree with her on most issues and probably won't vote for her for President but she shows more sense than many Democrats. She opposes gay marriage and a time-table for pulling out of Iraq.
The sense that Sen. Clinton shows to the public is not, IMO, an example of prudence, but rather is a classic example of cunning. In this respect she is most unlike her husband, who really had no core principles (including fidelity in marriage) that he was not willing at some point or another to compromise for something with a little more glitter that has come along. She is a True Believer only tempered by a calculating sense of what she can pull off without setting off alarm bells.
Maybe we can make her an ambassador or something in the McCain administration.
McCain is a good man that means well, but he would very soon find himself over his head.
JimK
"Child molesters are another thing altogether. Most child molesters are not gay, and most gay people are not child molesters. You seem to enjoy confusing the two things."
JimK you have a bad habit of reading things into a persons statement that were not there. I never said that more than half of homosexuals are child molesters. I don’t know how many homosexuals molest children or want to molest children. Nor have I stated that boys are more likely to be sexually abused than girls. I think that you say things like this to duck the issue. You also plead ignorance on the topic and than give an opinion. If you are about teaching the facts than you should get the facts and then give an opinion. The fact is that NAMBLA was an embraced part of the gay rights movement. You have to except that as fact. If it is your belief that, the age of Consent, is an arbitrary thing. Well what do you think is the appropriate age of consent? 18,16,14,12,10,8,6,4,1 as far as teach the facts are concerned, and what is your definition of the age of consent or one you would use in this conversation. What is your definition of gay in this conversation? What is your definition of a child molester? I strongly feel that this is something that needs to be addressed if the school is to teach sex education. As these all have to do with non-reproductive human sexual behavior.
The fact is that NAMBLA was an embraced part of the gay rights movement. You have to except that as fact.
Please do provide some evidence to support this "fact."
JimK
I guess you are going to have to give me your definition of a "fact" now. Since I am at a loss as to why you need to ask for more proof than is already stated. What would constitute a fact to you historical records, newspaper accounts, biographers, congressional records, and FBI reports?
Post a Comment
<< Home