CRC @ BOE PC
The Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum turned up at the school board meeting Monday to whine about the usual stuff: these guys are something else. Michelle Turner, who is the president of CRC; Ruth Jacobs, who is their rep on the citizens advisory committee; and Steina Walter, who is ... their other member, I guess, all took a turn at public comments (or "pc" as we call it).
Ms. Turner had these insights for the community:
Yes, good question, how would you feel if you were a kid and the teacher told you that somebody was "better than you?"
Uh, just a minute, I said that wrong. It's not a good question, I meant to say it's a dumb question, because this will never happen. Nobody is going to tell anybody that someone is better than them.
But it's so much easier to argue against things you make up than real things.
And, tell me ... what religion, exactly, is it that teaches that some differences are wrong? Please, reader, run that through your brain one time, OK? Does that make sense? Did Jesus stand up on the mountaintop and say, "Verily, I say unto thee, thy differences are wrong?" Differences are not wrong, behaviors might be.
And what doctor tells you that some differences are dangerous to your health? I'd like to know what doctor says that. Differences aren't dangerous to your health, some behaviors are.
Finally ... look, every word of this is pure rubbish ... look at the way she transforms the word "accept" into the word "approve." She tells us they mean the same thing, then substitutes "accept and approve" everywhere that "accept" belongs.
I rode on the train this morning next to a guy with the ugliest tie I have ever seen. It was like booger-green and baby-poop brown, and it was tied crooked. I did not approve of that tie. Did I accept it? Why, yes, I did. Did I tolerate it? Yes, I did that, too.
Ah, but she wasn't finished:
I can't figure out where she's going with these first three questions. Like, how will these kids assimilate this information into their lives? What does that mean? How do you assimilate polynomials into your life, or the periodic table of elements, or The Taming of the Shrew?
You just do it, I guess. It mostly doesn't hurt anything.
This last paragraph is just more of the usual -- note the "accept and approve" sleight-of-hand. As far as telling students how they must feel about others, I'm sorry, but school does that. They will learn about prejudice, discrimination, conflict resolution, all kinds of things that have to do with accepting the feelings of others. That's not new.
Look, school isn't a place that just pours information into the top of kids' heads. The point is not to just teach them useful tricks, the real function of a school is to produce good citizens. You can't get around that. A public school has a special challenge to deal with, because students may come from all kinds of homes, and it is not appropriate to disrespect honest citizens' differences. But some differences do not have to be accommodated. For instance, a student who comes from a home full of bigots may learn some values that contradict that: it is in society's interest to promote domestic tranquility, cooperation, a sense of responsibility and respect for others. Get over it.
Finally:
Yeah, sure, boo hoo ... why waste time on dumb stuff like tolerance, empathy, and respect? It's unconstitutional, yeah sure, waa waa. Yer breakin' my heart here.
Dr. Ruth Jacobs addressed the board. I'm not going to quote her statement, it's pretty familiar already. She's complaining about condoms and anal sex. Quotes the Surgeon General. Doesn't mention the quote is from the 1980s.
Ah, OK, I'll give you the meat-n-potatoes from her talk:
Right. A bunch of government web sites recommend using a condom for anal sex, and any doctor, even Dr. Jacobs I'll just betcha, will tell you the same: if you're going to have anal sex, use a condom. But there isn't much research, mostly for ethical reasons. So ... what should the schools do? Recommend not using a condom? Ignore this important advice altogether? Should there be a whole class on anal sex? Sorry, there's no way around this one. You have to mention it and move on.
Finally, Steina Walter spoke about the interesting problem of the alternative lessons. In Montgomery County, a kid has to have a signed permission slip in order to take sex-ed, in 8th and 10th grades, at least. And if they don't have one, they get sent to the library for some busy-work. Previous informal reports were that about one percent of students opt out of it. Even more informal reports have suggested that these were mostly Muslim girls -- I can't swear to that, they don't actually collect the data on this but they talk among themselves and MCPS insiders have intimated this observation.
There isn't an alternative sex-ed class for opt-out kids, they study something else in that time. "Some people" think this provides an opening for suggesting, you know, their kind of class, as an alternative.
Here's Ms. Walter:
Look lady, there isn't alternative algebra for those who oppose irrational numbers; there aren't separate Civil War History classes for Southerners and Northerners... It just doesn't work that way.
And as for "many parents" not wanting their kids in the sexual orientation sections, well, so far there aren't any sexual orientation sections, so this statement is meaningless.
Sexual orientation isn't a controversial issue; it's very simple. Some people have one sexual orientation, other people have a different one. See? Easy.
The "controversy" was invented by a tiny group of radicals who originally wanted to recall the entire school board, and settled for suing the county instead. Why they picked this topic, or this time, or this place, I can't tell you. The curriculum that was proposed was not inherently controversial, these guys were just feeling their oats after the 2004 elections, and wanted to pull the school district down. It didn't work. The "controversy" was fake and opportunistic. Let's call it what it is.
She said more... do you want to hear it? She tells of her experiences pulling her daughter out of 5th grade sex ed, and explains what it did to her son. I won't take up space with it, but this part is interesting:
Now ... raise your hand if you think any of this came from a fifth grade health class. Hold 'em up there where I can see 'em.
Hmmm, none.
The problem is that when they say this stuff, some gullible people will believe them. So you've got to go around sweeping the streets behind them, cleaning up after the lies and misconstruals. It's time-consuming, but it needs to be done.
Ms. Turner had these insights for the community:
How would you feel if you were an 8th grader in a sex ed. class discussing sexual orientation and the teacher was explaining that to show "tolerance" toward people, it was necessary for you to accept the things that made these people seem different, and perhaps they were better than you?
What if your religion and parents taught you some of these differences were wrong? What if your doctor told you some were dangerous to your health?
If the 8th grader knew that the common English meaning for "accept" suggests "to approve", would he agree with the teacher? Or feel threatened and coerced by the teacher to change his beliefs and morals?
Yes, good question, how would you feel if you were a kid and the teacher told you that somebody was "better than you?"
Uh, just a minute, I said that wrong. It's not a good question, I meant to say it's a dumb question, because this will never happen. Nobody is going to tell anybody that someone is better than them.
But it's so much easier to argue against things you make up than real things.
And, tell me ... what religion, exactly, is it that teaches that some differences are wrong? Please, reader, run that through your brain one time, OK? Does that make sense? Did Jesus stand up on the mountaintop and say, "Verily, I say unto thee, thy differences are wrong?" Differences are not wrong, behaviors might be.
And what doctor tells you that some differences are dangerous to your health? I'd like to know what doctor says that. Differences aren't dangerous to your health, some behaviors are.
Finally ... look, every word of this is pure rubbish ... look at the way she transforms the word "accept" into the word "approve." She tells us they mean the same thing, then substitutes "accept and approve" everywhere that "accept" belongs.
I rode on the train this morning next to a guy with the ugliest tie I have ever seen. It was like booger-green and baby-poop brown, and it was tied crooked. I did not approve of that tie. Did I accept it? Why, yes, I did. Did I tolerate it? Yes, I did that, too.
Ah, but she wasn't finished:
How would a sexually abused child assimilate this information in his life? Or a child with strong religious convictions? or a child concerned about health risks?
Are 8th graders wise and mature enough to reject what the teacher says or should they accept whatever the teacher says and ignore their own beliefs so they can get the answer right? When schools start telling our children what they must think and how they must feel about others-indeed that they must accept and approve the feelings of others, aren't the schools getting out of education and into indoctrination?
I can't figure out where she's going with these first three questions. Like, how will these kids assimilate this information into their lives? What does that mean? How do you assimilate polynomials into your life, or the periodic table of elements, or The Taming of the Shrew?
You just do it, I guess. It mostly doesn't hurt anything.
This last paragraph is just more of the usual -- note the "accept and approve" sleight-of-hand. As far as telling students how they must feel about others, I'm sorry, but school does that. They will learn about prejudice, discrimination, conflict resolution, all kinds of things that have to do with accepting the feelings of others. That's not new.
Look, school isn't a place that just pours information into the top of kids' heads. The point is not to just teach them useful tricks, the real function of a school is to produce good citizens. You can't get around that. A public school has a special challenge to deal with, because students may come from all kinds of homes, and it is not appropriate to disrespect honest citizens' differences. But some differences do not have to be accommodated. For instance, a student who comes from a home full of bigots may learn some values that contradict that: it is in society's interest to promote domestic tranquility, cooperation, a sense of responsibility and respect for others. Get over it.
Finally:
Is MCPS compromising the child's own thoughts and feelings carefully nurtured by the child's parents and religion and protected by the US Constitution?
"Tolerance", "empathy" and "respect" are some of the incorrect words used in this 8 grade curriculum. The definition for "gender/sexual identity" doesn't even appear in the 8th grade frameworks or in the 8th grade approved resource material.
Yeah, sure, boo hoo ... why waste time on dumb stuff like tolerance, empathy, and respect? It's unconstitutional, yeah sure, waa waa. Yer breakin' my heart here.
Dr. Ruth Jacobs addressed the board. I'm not going to quote her statement, it's pretty familiar already. She's complaining about condoms and anal sex. Quotes the Surgeon General. Doesn't mention the quote is from the 1980s.
Ah, OK, I'll give you the meat-n-potatoes from her talk:
... I am concerned that the committee has voted to include recommendations for condom use for oral, anal, and vaginal sex in the condom use video. This has the effect of "normalizing anal sex" without fully explaining the increased HIV transmission or the untested nature of condoms with anal sex.
Right. A bunch of government web sites recommend using a condom for anal sex, and any doctor, even Dr. Jacobs I'll just betcha, will tell you the same: if you're going to have anal sex, use a condom. But there isn't much research, mostly for ethical reasons. So ... what should the schools do? Recommend not using a condom? Ignore this important advice altogether? Should there be a whole class on anal sex? Sorry, there's no way around this one. You have to mention it and move on.
Finally, Steina Walter spoke about the interesting problem of the alternative lessons. In Montgomery County, a kid has to have a signed permission slip in order to take sex-ed, in 8th and 10th grades, at least. And if they don't have one, they get sent to the library for some busy-work. Previous informal reports were that about one percent of students opt out of it. Even more informal reports have suggested that these were mostly Muslim girls -- I can't swear to that, they don't actually collect the data on this but they talk among themselves and MCPS insiders have intimated this observation.
There isn't an alternative sex-ed class for opt-out kids, they study something else in that time. "Some people" think this provides an opening for suggesting, you know, their kind of class, as an alternative.
Here's Ms. Walter:
Why is MCPS not providing a meaningful alternative curriculum for those children who plan not to take the two week optional human sexuality curriculum? This new 8th grade Human Sexuality curriculum contains a two day class on sexual orientation: however in order for parents to exclude their children from this two day optional sexual orientation section; they will have to have their children not opt into the entire two week human sexuality classes.
Does that sound reasonable? Many parents like for their children to take the human sexuality part without the sexual orientation sections. Now students will be "punished" for not taking the entire two weeks by going to the library for two weeks. Can't MCPS do better than that?
Look lady, there isn't alternative algebra for those who oppose irrational numbers; there aren't separate Civil War History classes for Southerners and Northerners... It just doesn't work that way.
And as for "many parents" not wanting their kids in the sexual orientation sections, well, so far there aren't any sexual orientation sections, so this statement is meaningless.
As MCPS has seen, the sexual orientation issue is a controversial issue, however by requiring parents to take "all or nothing" MCPS may end up destroying the benefits of the human sexuality part of the health curriculum.
We hope MCPS will have an alternative curriculum ready along with this new curriculum
Sexual orientation isn't a controversial issue; it's very simple. Some people have one sexual orientation, other people have a different one. See? Easy.
The "controversy" was invented by a tiny group of radicals who originally wanted to recall the entire school board, and settled for suing the county instead. Why they picked this topic, or this time, or this place, I can't tell you. The curriculum that was proposed was not inherently controversial, these guys were just feeling their oats after the 2004 elections, and wanted to pull the school district down. It didn't work. The "controversy" was fake and opportunistic. Let's call it what it is.
She said more... do you want to hear it? She tells of her experiences pulling her daughter out of 5th grade sex ed, and explains what it did to her son. I won't take up space with it, but this part is interesting:
We have a son in 7th grade who did take this course when he was in 5th grade, and his attitude toward sex changed from our teaching of waiting until he was married, to sex is pleasure and a need that should be fulfilled and as long as boys wear condoms there is no need to worry about pregnancy, aids or other sexually transmitted diseases. Another piece of information he seemed to get out of that unit was "oral Sex" without the consequences.
Now ... raise your hand if you think any of this came from a fifth grade health class. Hold 'em up there where I can see 'em.
Hmmm, none.
The problem is that when they say this stuff, some gullible people will believe them. So you've got to go around sweeping the streets behind them, cleaning up after the lies and misconstruals. It's time-consuming, but it needs to be done.
posted by JimK at 11:12 AM
32 Comments:
"Yes, good question, how would you feel if you were a kid and the teacher told you that somebody was "better than you?"
Uh, just a minute, I said that wrong. It's not a good question, I meant to say it's a dumb question, because this will never happen. Nobody is going to tell anybody that someone is better than them."
Actually, this was the implication of the nefarious Fishaback revisions. That people who don't believe homosexuality is OK are morally deficient. The judge saw right through it.
"But it's so much easier to argue against things you make up than real things.
And, tell me ... what religion, exactly, is it that teaches that some differences are wrong? Please, reader, run that through your brain one time, OK? Does that make sense? Did Jesus stand up on the mountaintop and say, "Verily, I say unto thee, thy differences are wrong?" Differences are not wrong, behaviors might be."
You might want to check out that Sermon on the Mount, Jim. Jesus makes the point repeatedly that behavior is not sin but intent is.
"And what doctor tells you that some differences are dangerous to your health? I'd like to know what doctor says that. Differences aren't dangerous to your health, some behaviors are."
If the difference is you want to do harmful things, I think the doctor might suggest taking action to curb these dangerous desires.
"Finally ... look, every word of this is pure rubbish ... look at the way she transforms the word "accept" into the word "approve." She tells us they mean the same thing, then substitutes "accept and approve" everywhere that "accept" belongs."
She referenced the definitions.
"I rode on the train this morning next to a guy with the ugliest tie I have ever seen. It was like booger-green and baby-poop brown, and it was tied crooked. I did not approve of that tie. Did I accept it? Why, yes, I did. Did I tolerate it? Yes, I did that, too."
Well, if people would stop tolerating that stuff, we'd have a more pleasant mass transit for the tree huggers.
"This last paragraph is just more of the usual -- note the "accept and approve" sleight-of-hand. As far as telling students how they must feel about others, I'm sorry, but school does that."
Then why can't we tell gays how to feel about the opposite gender?
"They will learn about prejudice, discrimination, conflict resolution, all kinds of things that have to do with accepting the feelings of others. That's not new."
Actually, it is and it's insidious. Prejudice and discrimination were topics where you couldn't assume people's character based on their outward appearance. The idea that feelings have nothing to do with character is a brand new lunacy.
"Look, school isn't a place that just pours information into the top of kids' heads. The point is not to just teach them useful tricks, the real function of a school is to produce good citizens."
Actually, no. They should learn this in their family. Trying to make a surrogate parent out of governmental education institutions is creepy.
"You can't get around that. A public school has a special challenge to deal with, because students may come from all kinds of homes, and it is not appropriate to disrespect honest citizens' differences."
So as long as they're honest about them, any feelings are accepted and approved? Who is the government to rule on this? They should only be concerned with behaviors and stop telling people how to think and feel.
"But some differences do not have to be accommodated."
Not to the extent that you deceive kids about the nature of the differences.
BTW, how do you decide which ones have to accomodated and which do not?
"For instance, a student who comes from a home full of bigots may learn some values that contradict that: it is in society's interest to promote domestic tranquility, cooperation, a sense of responsibility and respect for others. Get over it."
Problem is, by your way of thinking, everyone's a bigot.
"Yeah, sure, boo hoo ... why waste time on dumb stuff like tolerance, empathy, and respect? It's unconstitutional, yeah sure, waa waa. Yer breakin' my heart here."
We're obviously dealing with a very sophisticated level of thought here.
"Dr. Ruth Jacobs addressed the board. I'm not going to quote her statement, it's pretty familiar already. She's complaining about condoms and anal sex. Quotes the Surgeon General. Doesn't mention the quote is from the 1980s."
Actually, she suggests that kids be informed that failure rates for condoms during anal sex are not documented but are likely high. This is absolutely necessary to help them make responsible choices. She cites patients who developed AIDS after using condoms anally and telling her they were led to believe buggery is safe when using condoms.
"Sexual orientation isn't a controversial issue; it's very simple. Some people have one sexual orientation, other people have a different one. See? Easy."
Wrong. I assume you mean preference because there is no proof of people oriented to anything other than hetero sex. There is controversy over how it develops, whether it can be prevented, whether it can be reversed or lessened and what other behaviors and tendencies are associated with it and why.
"The "controversy" was invented by a tiny group of radicals who originally wanted to recall the entire school board, and settled for suing the county instead."
How warped to say a group that wanted to maintain the status quo is "radical". The meaning of radical is seeking change. TTF is the one that wants to change what kids are taught.
"Why they picked this topic, or this time, or this place, I can't tell you."
Uh, they didn't. MCPS enacted the Fishbackist revisions.
"The curriculum that was proposed was not inherently controversial,"
Oh yeah, we've seen that.
"these guys were just feeling their oats after the 2004 elections,"
It was an entertaining election. look for a repeat if Hillary runs against McCain.
"and wanted to pull the school district down. It didn't work."
They only wanted to eliminate the Fishbackist revisions. CHA-CHING!
A couple o' years later, it ain't in the school.
"The "controversy" was fake and opportunistic."
It was authentic and one must carpe diem.
"Let's call it what it is."
OK: A valiant and victorious fight against city hall.
Anon said "Then why can't we tell gays how to feel about the opposite gender?"
Followed shortly thereafter with: "They [the government] should only be concerned with behaviors and stop telling people how to think and feel."
Careful. All that spinning is making you dizzy.
So which is it? Do you want the government to tell gays how to FEEL? Do you want the government to STOP telling people how to FEEL? Or is it that you only want the government to tell the people you disagree with to FEEL like you do?
Aunt Bea
Anonymous said:
"Wrong. I assume you mean preference because there is no proof of people oriented to anything other than hetero sex."
Such a bold statement. Be careful; people might actually believe you.
K.A.
"So which is it? Do you want the government to tell gays how to FEEL? Do you want the government to STOP telling people how to FEEL? Or is it that you only want the government to tell the people you disagree with to FEEL like you do?"
Sorry to confuse you, Beatrice. Definitely the second. I thought it was clear when I said the first that I was simply demonstrating where the logic of Jim's statement would lead.
Anonymous at October 26, 2006 1:18 PM said "there is no proof of people oriented to anything other than hetero sex."
Anonymous, what would make you feel that way - other than the immature erroneous belief that because you feel heterosexually oriented everyone else must feel the same way you do? Fact is you don't have any proof people aren't same sex oriented, do you? If everyone were heterosexually oriented there wouldn't be any gays. And there have been throughout recorded history in roughly the same ratios across all societies - pretty hard to explain other than if a certain small percentage of the population is inherently same sex oriented. Given that many if not most gays will tell you they've always been same sex attracted, never been opposite sex attracted, what reason other than bigotry do you have to doubt their word? What makes you think you can judge another person's experience better than they can themselves?
Jim et al.
A teacher in Montgomery shared some concerns with me about PFOX apparently distributing materials to students through the school system. Can you or someone from TTF contact me via my email (rrigbyjr@yahoo.com) so I can share with y'all in more detail.
Robert
How disheartening! A disturbing distribution, yea, a dissemination of dastardly information disclosing an inconvenient truth that students must not discover:
If you're feeling gay, it's not necessarily permanent.
Unless we're vigilant, teens will engage more and more in the free exchange of ideas and learn that the gay agenda is disingenuous and insidious. Breathe easy, friends, the public schools are set up so that teachers should be able to prevent kids from reading this type of material which can only lead to...I can even begin to describe it!
Last Anon- one of the same who would be up in arms if it wasn't PFOX's lies that were passed out but something by PFLAG that suggested gay people had the same rights as everyone else.
Oh I'm all for disclosing absolutely everything. You know, including all the distortions of fact and flat out lies that are put forth. That way students will see the truth behind the ex-gay myth and all its deceptive tactics.
After the lies and distortions are exposed, the culprits remain silent and just continue to repeat the same claims hoping they'll become true. Fallacy alert!
Students aren't stupid. Expose and reveal the truth, and it will be the demise of "loving" bigotry.
"Students aren't stupid."
Exactly. That's why teachers shouldn't try to hide information from them. But, of course, the teachers know the students aren't stupid. That's why they don't want them to see the PFOX material. They'd see how shallow and ridiculous the claims of the Tolerance yad-yada groups are!!
Anonymous at October 27, 2006 2:17 PM said "If you're feeling gay, it's not necessarily permanent."
Based on everything we've seen it looks like it is permanent in all but a tiny tiny percentage of instances. Beyond the damage of PFOX giving gay children the false hope that maybe they can avoid the hatred by becoming heterosexual their true goal is to promote societal rejection and oppression of gays - they're not out to "help" anyone.
"We have a son in 7th grade who did take this course when he was in 5th grade, and his attitude toward sex changed from our teaching of waiting until he was married, to sex is pleasure and a need that should be fulfilled and as long as boys wear condoms there is no need to worry about pregnancy, aids or other sexually transmitted diseases. Another piece of information he seemed to get out of that unit was "oral Sex" without the consequences."
I would agree with Steina's assesment of the the fixth grade sex ed program. I was concerned enough about it to pull my daughter out of NCC mid-year in the spring and put her back in a Catholic School before the unit started. It did talk about sex as a need and urge, it made no mentioning of waiting until you were married (don't want to offend those who can't get married).
I am perfectly willing to concede that most kids won't wait until they are married. But I don't think that means you lower the bar at age 10 (fifth grade). I think you say wait till your are married throughout, but if you don't here's how you use birth control... and you hope you convince them to wait till they are out of high school.
Anybody who says their kid learned "sex is pleasure and a need that should be fulfilled and as long as boys wear condoms there is no need to worry" in MCPS in any health class, especially a fifth grade health class, is lying.
MCPS Mom
does anyone have a link to the "Just Around the Corner" film shown to the kids in the fifth grade health class ....
put it up here, let's let folks judge for themselves.
I tell you what it does not say...
It does NOT say wait until your married.
It does show a video of a boy coming out of his bedroom in the morning clutching his sheets that he has dirtied with a wet dream...
remember, this is shown to 10 year olds.
... and so, Theresa, do you think this movie encourages boys to have wet dreams?
I mean ... what's the problem?
JimK
Here's what the publisher says:
Designed for younger students, these videos are grounded in fact, sensitive to young feelings, and reassuring about changes that are on the way.
Younger elementary-level boys will appreciate this upbeat look at the changes of puberty, featuring two fourth grade boys, lighthearted animated figures, and Todd — a promising art student and easygoing teenaged big brother. Todd helps prepare boys for the momentous changes waiting "just around the corner." He introduces these important topics:
• When to expect the onset of puberty
• The physical and emotional changes of puberty
• The maturation of the male reproductive system
• Common experiences of puberty, including voice change, feelings of physical awkwardness, and nocturnal emissions
• The importance of good hygiene and healthy habits
This video is the ideal way to present human development information to boys in grades 3-5.
“A highlight of the program is the accompanying teaching guide, which includes the full script of the video, a list of vocabulary words, a list of instructional goals, suggested classroom activities and discussion question.”
—Science Books & Films
“A fine introductory video for human-growth or sex-ed instruction.”
— Video Librarian
See this HERE
JimK
You know this discussion kind of reminds me of one aspect of this controversy that gets little mention. The whole invasion of privacy by a governmental authority. It's kind of nauseating to kids of this age to have this discussed by their public school teacher in class, or shown a movie about it under the supervision of some adult authority figure.
Civilization has survived nicely for thousands of years without this being necessary. Why is it considered so important now?
Well, Jim.
I don't think we are going to ever agree.
I think it is inappropriate to show boys movies about having wet dreams at age 10, just like I think it is inappropriate to say the words "anal sex" around kindergartners...
I think it is not necessary, and gets them thinking about things they might not have been thinking about without the encouragement of their local public school.
Theresa, the whole point is that boys learn what will be happening to them, so they're ready when it happens. Can you tell us what possible harm could come from telling 10-year-olds that at some point they may have nocturnal emissions? Even if, as you suggest, it "gets them thinking about things," it's just a messy sheet, there's not even another person involved. It's not something you can choose not to do, it just happens. And it's gonna happen. And what do you suppose an adolescent boy thinks when he "wets the bed" all of a sudden, but ... it's different?
Man, if I was that kid, I'd want to know.
JimK
"Theresa, the whole point is that boys learn what will be happening to them, so they're ready when it happens. Can you tell us what possible harm could come from telling 10-year-olds that at some point they may have nocturnal emissions?"
Yes, whatever has mankind done all these years without the public school there to tell you what's going to you before it does? Oh, how horrible! The centuries of suffering from surprise have finally come to a close!
So in other words...
Question: "What possible harm could come from telling 10-year-olds that at some point they may have nocturnal emissions?"
Answer: None.
D
"Question: "What possible harm could come from telling 10-year-olds that at some point they may have nocturnal emissions?"
Answer: None."
It's an invasion by a governmental institution into the kids' privacy. The schools need to back off.
What possible good could come from it? "So they can know what's happening to them before it happens"?
Give me a break.
The question was "what HARM would come" and your answer was some BS about "centuries of suffering from surprise have finally come to a close".
You apparently believe a student's privacy is invaded when s/he is told that they are going to experience physiological changes as a result of maturation. In order to protect the public health, we educate developing kids about the physical and emotional changes puberty brings. One of those changes is nocturnal emissions in males.
By your logic, we should let menstruation be a surprise for our daughters.
D
"You apparently believe a student's privacy is invaded when s/he is told that they are going to experience physiological changes as a result of maturation."
I think it's invaded when he's forced to listen to some battle-ax teacher talk about his sexual development when he'd rather not discuss it.
"In order to protect the public health, we educate developing kids about the physical and emotional changes puberty brings. One of those changes is nocturnal emissions in males."
Very slowly now: How did wet dreams become a health issue? I thought they were considered safe. Is this some new facet of the agenda?
"By your logic, we should let menstruation be a surprise for our daughters."
It's a topic girls need to be informed about. By their mothers.
Anonymous at October 31, 2006 9:59 PM
I know too many girls who's parents didn't tell them about menstruation before it happened to trust parents to do this job. Most kids I know would rather hear about menstruation or wet dreams from anyone but their parents. In the end there's no harm done if the school repeats something the parents have said, or vice versa. The important thing is that kids learn what's going to happen in advance rather than get a rude surprise.
"Most kids I know would rather hear about menstruation or wet dreams from anyone but their parents."
Two completely different things.
"In the end there's no harm done if the school repeats something the parents have said, or vice versa."
You've been bit by the "no-harm" bug again. It's been leading you to some bizarre places. The schools are intruding into personal matters. Liberals, of course, don't see the problem because they have inserted in government to fill the hole created when they banned religion from schools.
Anonymous at November 01, 2006 9:22 AM
Now don't go complaining about the lack of promotion of religion in schools, aren't you the one that said schools shouldn't be teaching anything other than academics? Religion teaches a destructive us versus them attitude and disrupts proper scientific learning with its belief in magic and "true" paradoxes.
Of course menstruation and wet dreams are two different things, but they are the same in that its good for kids to know about them before they happen to them.
Your thinking is warped if you feel a need to poo-poo no harm being done. The alternative is definitely to be avoided. The oath doctors take starts with "First do no harm" after all.
Many parents are afraid to broach these subjects with their children and that's a harm that can be avoided by having the schools do it. Having the school do it ensures all children get this information prior to a nasty surprise.
""By your logic, we should let menstruation be a surprise for our daughters."
It's a topic girls need to be informed about. By their mothers."
I agree with you Anon, but I also know not to assume all mothers will tell their daughters about menstruation. So do our educators and legislators. That's why Maryland State Law under COMAR includes this little passage:
"(c) Students may be excused from this unit of the program upon a written request from their parents/guardians. [Actually MCPS
turns this around, you must have a signed permission slip to take this optioinal course.] For students excused from the unit, the local school shall provide other worthwhile learning activities, such as independent study on a topic in a health area or another area of student interests or needs. The local school shall make arrangements to permit those girls not participating in the total program in Focus Area Two to receive instruction concerning menstruation."
http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/13a/13a.04.18.03.htm
Post a Comment
<< Home