New Eighth Grade Curriculum Unveiled
I got a lot to do and no time to blog, but wanted to catch you up on the unveiling of the eighth grade sexual orientation curriculum. The citizens committee just met, and MCPS staff handed out materials and walked us through the two days of classes.
The first day is all about respect, empathy, and tolerance, which are part of a healthy relationship, and then about bullying, harassment, and stereotyping, which, it turns out, are not part of a healthy relationship.
The second day defines a couple of terms and talks about them a little bit. There's an overhead that talks about "human sexuality," "gender/sexual identity," and "sexual orientation," and gives tight little textbook definitions of these. The words heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual are defined under sexual orientation.
I will have some recommendations for changes, just a few at the moment but I'll want to look at this some more and think about it. I am pleased with the direction it goes, but, kinda like the condom video, I wonder if they couldn't have gotten a little more information in there. There's a pretty nice textbook excerpt, very benign, very light.
My first reaction is that it's basically OK, just kind of light. I think I liked the educational tone of the last curriculum better, it just seeemed a little more formal and had more meat and potatoes, but whatever, that one's off the table now. It will be very interesting to see what changes committee members propose. So far, this seems to stick very close to the regulations, every definition has a source and everything ties together.
I can't imagine that anyone would be able to make this out to be some kind of "homosexual agenda" brainwashing our children, but after two years of playing this game I can't be surprised any more.
The first day is all about respect, empathy, and tolerance, which are part of a healthy relationship, and then about bullying, harassment, and stereotyping, which, it turns out, are not part of a healthy relationship.
The second day defines a couple of terms and talks about them a little bit. There's an overhead that talks about "human sexuality," "gender/sexual identity," and "sexual orientation," and gives tight little textbook definitions of these. The words heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual are defined under sexual orientation.
I will have some recommendations for changes, just a few at the moment but I'll want to look at this some more and think about it. I am pleased with the direction it goes, but, kinda like the condom video, I wonder if they couldn't have gotten a little more information in there. There's a pretty nice textbook excerpt, very benign, very light.
My first reaction is that it's basically OK, just kind of light. I think I liked the educational tone of the last curriculum better, it just seeemed a little more formal and had more meat and potatoes, but whatever, that one's off the table now. It will be very interesting to see what changes committee members propose. So far, this seems to stick very close to the regulations, every definition has a source and everything ties together.
I can't imagine that anyone would be able to make this out to be some kind of "homosexual agenda" brainwashing our children, but after two years of playing this game I can't be surprised any more.
posted by JimK at 9:52 PM
18 Comments:
"The second day defines a couple of terms and talks about them a little bit. There's an overhead that talks about "human sexuality," "gender/sexual identity," and "sexual orientation," and gives tight little textbook definitions of these. The words heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual are defined under sexual orientation."
You didn't share the definitions here but I have some concerns about the term "sexual orientation". It is confusing because the word has multiple meanings. It didn't used to but the gay advocacy movement misused the term so much that it can now mean either an innateness proclivity or simply a preference. A much better choice of term would be "sexual preference" since there is no proof that an innate orientation that can vary between individuals exists.
"Time is short, Friend. I hope you will respond today.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush
P.S. Friend, it is vital that we maintain our Republican majorities in the U.S. House and Senate. We must also elect more GOP Governors and state officials up and down the ballot. Winning is critical to keeping our bold, responsible agenda for America on track."
"I can't imagine that anyone would be able to make this out to be some kind of "homosexual agenda" brainwashing our children, but after two years of playing this game I can't be surprised any more."
The Fishback curriculum didn't so much "brainwash" as mislead. It could have caused some kids to jump to wrong conclusions and almost all students to be misinformed.
"There's a pretty nice textbook except, very benign,"
Well, by all means, let's put some malignant stuff in there.
"MCPS staff handed out materials"
Did they pass it out to all onlookers and tell everyone to keep it top-secret?
All meetings of the CAC are open to the public. In addition to CAC members, all four members of the public who attended last night's CAC meeting received copies of the drafted 8th grade curriculum. Each page handed out was marked "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION" except for the excerpt of the 2005 Glencoe textbook on Human Sexuality.
The Glencoe excerpt is six paragraphs of text and includes four definitions:
"A homosexual is someone who is sexually attracted to people of the same gender. A bisexual is someone who is sexually attracted to people of both genders. A heterosexual is someone who is sexually attracted to people of the opposite gender."
"A stereotype is an idea or image held about a group that represents a prejudiced attitude, oversimplified opinion, or uninformed judgment."
Christine
Christine
Those look fine. How about the meaning of "sexual orientation"?
The entire excerpt from the Glencoe book is entitled "Sexual Orientation."
I'm sorry, but I don't have time during my lunch break to type the text up for you.
If you want to learn about the specifics of the curriculum as it is being revised, you should attend CAC meetings. They are open to the public and there are usually plenty of empty seats available.
The meaning of sexual orientation is "a person's attraction to either or both gender genders".
This is how gay advocacy groups use the term, they have not misused it.
"I'm sorry, but I don't have time during my lunch break to type the text up for you."
Thanks anyway, Cilly. I had no idea it was that long. Definitions are usually brief but if it goes through the history of the term like the brilliant Throckmorton suggested curriculum presented at the terrific CRC event a while back, it would be great.
"If you want to learn about the specifics of the curriculum as it is being revised, you should attend CAC meetings. They are open to the public and there are usually plenty of empty seats available."
There's a reason for those empty seats.
anonymous said,
There's a reason for those empty seats.
Yes anon because your butt stayed home.
As for Throckmorton-----how brilliant was he to hitch his wagon to Richard Cohen/PFOX only to have to unhitch his wagon over Cohen's need to hug gayness out of his patients while getting his jollies on TV and print?
Ted
Used in curriculum
Sexual Orientation
The recognition of a gender preference with regard to sexual attraction." (Glencoe)
Yes, we know Throckmorton's brilliance - that is why he is at third rate college like Grove City.
"Yes, we know Throckmorton's brilliance - that is why he is at third rate college like Grove City."
Sounds third rate but I was just looking at Princeton's college guide the other night and their stats are impressive. They're affiliated with the Presbyterian Church so they tend toward intellectualism. Both Princeton and Harvard evolved from the same theological branch of Christianity.
Harvard University was chartered in 1636 by the Massachusetts Bay Colony (16 years after the founding of Boston)to provide for the education of home-grown Puritan ministers. As the Puritan Church evolved into the Congregationalist, Unitarian and Universalist churches, Harvard went the way of the Unitarians. Since the joining of the Unitarian and Universalist churches in the late 1950s, Harvard has been one of only three Unitarian-Universalist Seminaries in the United States. (The other two are Star-King in Berkeley and Meadville-Lombard at the University of Chicago.)
Princeton University was founded 110 years after Harvard as the College of New Jersey, with a unique charter specifying that students of any denomination could enroll. In 1812, the Princeton Theological Seminary was founded by the Presbyterian Church. Princeton Theological and Princeton University are separate entities, though they have cooperative agreements to allow students to use both schools' libraries.
It is rather a stretch to say that Harvard and Princeton evolved from the same branch of Christianity unless you mean the Protestant branch. (That's one pretty big branch.) On the other hand, there is no doubting the intellectual strength of the UU seminary at Harvard.
"Harvard University was chartered in 1636 by the Massachusetts Bay Colony (16 years after the founding of Boston)to provide for the education of home-grown Puritan ministers."
"It is rather a stretch to say that Harvard...evolved from the same branch of Christianity (as Grove City College, that is) unless you mean the Protestant branch."
I was referring to the Calvinist branch of Christianity which included Puritans, Reformed and Presbyterian branches. Calvin, who developed the first systemic theology, was a towering intellect. The churches that hold to his teachings follow in that tradition. As you say, Harvard was founded to train ministers in this religious tradition. Someday, Grove City may well be another Harvard after political correctness, relativism and post-literacy have taken their toll on the nation's secular educational institutions.
"Princeton University was founded 110 years after Harvard as the College of New Jersey, with a unique charter specifying that students of any denomination could enroll. In 1812, the Princeton Theological Seminary was founded by the Presbyterian Church."
"It is rather a stretch to say that...Princeton evolved from the same branch of Christianity (as Grove City College, that is) unless you mean the Protestant branch."
Like Harvard, Princeton was founded to train ministers in the Calvinist branch of Christianity, namely Presbyterians. One of its early presidents, John Witherspoon, was a noted Presbyterian minister and the only member of the clergy to sign the U.S. Declaration of Independence. The fact that the seminary eventually spun off into a seperate entity doesn't change the origin.
Again we see Grove City as coming from the same origin as some of our finest educational institutions. They are listed in Princeton's 361 college guide and have a higher academic rating from them than many more well-known schools. Admission is also highly competitive.
The Unitarian church has a number of far-fetched ideas and is not even really a Christian church in any meaningful way but is considered heretical by most other Christian traditions.
"The Unitarian church has a number of far-fetched ideas and is not even really a Christian church in any meaningful way but is considered heretical by most other Christian traditions."
The prejudicial statement above represents one danger of allowing church and state to become confounded. Imagine if the US government disallowed members of any faith to worship as they please because their faith was considered "heretical."
Rather than creating a national religion, our founding fathers included the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to erect a wall of separation between church and state. Our founding fathers were well aware that some early settlers left their European homelands because their governments forced citizens to practice certain faiths. They sagely erected the wall of separation between church and state to prevent this injustice from continuing in the New World.
"The prejudicial statement above represents one danger of allowing church and state to become confounded. Imagine if the US government disallowed members of any faith to worship as they please because their faith was considered "heretical.""
This statement is nonsense. I never suggested for a second that heretics should be outlawed. One clear right we have under the constitution is to disagree with other religions. It's the kind of healthy dialogue a thriving democracy is full of.
I think your problem is that whenever you see a problem, you think the government is the answer. This is actually a form of idolatry if you think of it. A common liberal sin.
Post a Comment
<< Home