<p>Aren’t 1st graders around 5ish? I think that’s how old I was in 1st grade, if so then the same argument. Ideally I think parents should be able to decide on a case by case basis when they’re ready for their child to be exposed to that since they best understand the maturity of their child. Of course there would have to be some cut off age where ‘past x, you kid is going to learn, period.’ I just think foisting it on parents when it’s still an extremely touchy subject for many people is a little rude.</p>
<p>But red-dragone, the taunting happened in school. Read my posts. The girl was driven to tears by taunting. Should the teacher have ignored her tears and left it to her parents, who were divorcing because the father had come out and probably were already overwhelmed? And what about the rest of the students, including those who did the taunting? If the teacher had not acted, I would not have known about it and been able to teach my own kid how to behave.</p>
<p>It’s not a case of “foisting” or “rudeness.”
This reminds me that I have a co-worker who is gay. A few years ago, he and his partner went to Cambodia and adopted two boys. They are now in kindergarten. My co-worker is a proud papa. I hope his boys are not taunted by cruel classmates.</p>
<p>family structure- is not about sex- little kids don’t ask about sex- they don’t want to think about it & if you think they do- you either haven’t been around little kids or the little kids you know have been watching too much tv</p>
<p>Kindergarten is a perfectly logical time for teachers to teach children about other types of families/workers/cultures etc, than their immediate experience.
After all that is what they are supposed to do in school right? teach?</p>
<p>I know many kinds of families- for example two women one a grandmother- one her daughter who began having children when she was 14, and her kids who are now 12,9 & 3. Not homosexual- is it ok to talk about their kind of family?
Another family, young widow- 30 years old, whose husband was killed in Iraq, she has an 7 year old. As support both financial and emotional, her husbands younger brother ( in his 20s) also lives with her and her son. Not really sure what the sexual relationship is there, but not any of my business, still they are a family, is it ok to mention them? </p>
<p>I also have a question, if you don’t think it is appropriate to mention sex in anyway to 5 year olds, when is it OK?
Im also wondering, do these parents keep their kids away from the zoo in the springtime?
Just how far do they go to “protect” their children?</p>
<p>My D saw a really ample gentlemen walking down the street. She was 4. She asked, very loudly, mommy, when is he having his baby??!!</p>
<p>SHe was old enough to ask the question, so she was old enough to hear, he isn’t having a baby, that is for females. And sweetheart, we never point and ask about other people loudly.</p>
<p>It is what kids do. And if a child walked up to me, a mom, and asked if I was a lesbian, I would say, we are friends. Like men and women can be friends. What about adopted kids who don’t “match” the parents? To think explaining the various human relationships will create little nosy monsters is absurd. If the kid is nosy, he is gonna find something rude to ask anyway.</p>
<p>If a parent has a child that doesn’t have manners and asks personal questions of strangers, that is a whole other issue.</p>
<p>But to say, well, we shouldn’t teach kids because they might ask some questions is just silly</p>
<p>Ever take your kid to the zoo and the monkey is playing with himself. You just explain it. Or you cat has kittens, you ignore it because it might bring up sex. </p>
<p>We need to grow up.</p>
<p>It reminds of the old tv shows…with the seperate beds. Kids saw their parents bedrooms with, gosh one bed and knew they shared it. So why the two beds? It was like pretending.</p>
<p>As for sensitivities of parents, well, gosh, its 2007 and there are gay people on the planet…and statistcally there is a chance their own child could be gay</p>
<p>People were senstitive about blacks, asians, women…and learned they were scary or bad or whatever prejudice they had…</p>
<p>I wasn’t talking about sex per se, a lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality whether the individual is in a relationship or not. </p>
<p>marite, if kids were taunting someone then they’ve already learned via some source and should be educated/corrected by their parents. I’m talking about kids who don’t know, who wouldn’t know that it’s an insult and wouldn’t use it to tease someone. Not every family is as liberal/advanced as others, some are still struggling with these ideas and I think we should try to respect that within reason.</p>
<p>Years of being told something is wrong by your parents and community has an effect, whether in reality it’s true or not. Not every parent can drop misconceptions immediately and embrace the idea of their 5 year asking about two mommies and two daddies when they’re still struggling with the idea themselves. I’m not saying that’s ideal, I’m just saying that’s the way it is.</p>
<p>
Slightly off-topic but… Um, yeah. The schools are trying in part to teach respect and acceptance–which would hopefully translate to respect and acceptance of gay students so that in middle and high school they are not put through those years of being told they are wrong by their communities (when the chances are they get to go through that wonderful process at home with their parents). It does have an effect on these students, and it’s not necessary to have generations of gay and lesbian students treated in high schools the way they currently are.</p>
<p>red-dragone:</p>
<p>Sorry. I don’t buy your logic. First, the kids who did the taunting were not being corrected by their parents. It’s possible the parents were unaware. Second, lots of kids who did not do the taunting learned by inference that being gay or having gay parents was bad. That’s exactly what my kid learned from this incident. He did not know the meaning of gay, but he sure learned from the kids that it was bad. </p>
<p>Even if the teacher had contacted the parents of the taunting kids, the rest of the class would have missed the chance to learn a very valuable lesson. I am extremely glad that my kid was set right by the diversity instructor. Learning of the whole episode after it had happened, I was able to reinforce the lesson provided by the teacher and the outside instructor.
The teacher used this incident to do several things: to reassure the girl who was being taunted; to teach the taunting kids that they should not do so; to teach other kids who knew of the taunting that it was not appropriate to taunt the girl. What’s wrong with this scenario? </p>
<p>If parents are so concerned about their right to teach their own children exactly what they want and when they want, they should homeschool them.
There’s plenty I did not like about the curriculum, about the testing mandates, about various other aspects of public education. I, however, did not demand to sit in my kids’ classes every day, not did I demand to vet everything they did or read, whether it was sent home by a teacher as in one of the Lexington case or chosen by another child for in-class reading by another.</p>
<p>I think that Marite highlighted a point I made earlier, which bears repeating.</p>
<p>If parents want their children taught only certain things, in certain ways, and not to be exposed to others (sure can’t predict what will happen on the playground), they really have no other option but to homeschool said children, or find alternative private settingd in which more of their individual demands can be met.</p>
<p>Public schools cannot possibly satisfy every individual, nor should they be expected to. PS is designed to educate the masses, and if specific children or families have needs or expectations outside of that norm, they will have to do something else. Imagine if every parent made demands to have their children taught to their own specifications. It is ridiculous (not to mention what such idiotic litigation has cost the town…what a waste!).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is it–not about sex, or about sex? If I were you, I’d pick one for your argument and stick with it. In fact, #18 of the Estabrook Elementary School "Anti-Bias Curriculum for Schoolchildren for Kindergarten and First Grade: is:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are these family structures, or sexual orientations?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hope you realize there is probably not a “diversity” instructor on hand to set the Estabrook kids right about not taunting kids from Christian families who happen not to believe in gay marriage or polyamorous family structures. I’m getting the feeling that not much compassion is extended to these kids.</p>
<p>Tolerance is the acknowledgment of someone’s right to make a choice.</p>
<p>Acceptance is the personal validation of that choice.</p>
<p>The children in the Lexington schools are not being taught tolerance. They are being indoctrinated into accepting a particular world view which the state has decided is the only correct one. Parents have purposely been taken out of the equation to facilitate the indoctrination.</p>
<p>There is an opt-out law in place already. It cost the community and district nothing to simply follow the law. The argument that it’s too much trouble to expect the school to do this is silly, as they have been doing it for years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The hubris here is astonishing.</p>
<p>For some profound reflection on the thousands year old Christian tradition and its relation to “What Makes a Family”–see Drosselmeier’s brilliant posts in the “Campus Crusades” thread.</p>
<p>I don’t know about how other schools strive to teach about lesbian, gay and straight. In my S’s first grade class, the diversity instructor defined gay as people who love people of the same sex (not sexuality). Which is why my S thought it applied to mothers and daughters. But the take-home message he did get: that we should be tolerant and that taunting others was bad. And I believe the other kids in the class got that message as well. The rest of the year passed uneventfully.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>School kids have been getting that message for at least a couple of hundred years now. That’s not what’s going on here, is it.</p>
<p>Isn’t it?</p>
<p>Schools have been trying to teach many things over and over and over again. Like reading, or math. Should they stop now because it has been done for at least a couple of hundred years now?</p>
<p>The old excuse that we need to tolerate hate and prejudice because it is religious based in hogwash and twofaced.</p>
<p>To tolerate hate is not in the spirit of tolerance. </p>
<p>What htey are being taught is that teasing, bashing, and hatred of another person because of who they are, how they were born…and that thinking others are less is not okay.</p>
<p>Guess that is just to much for some religious people to put their heads around. </p>
<p>And your statement that being gay is a choice says it all about your real views on the subject.</p>
<p>Certain religious types only care that it is their way or the highway. There is no way of teaching them about tolerance. Their minds are too locked. </p>
<p>We really must pity them.</p>
<p>a couple of hundred years now.</p>
<p>Im 
are they five or a couple of hundred years old?</p>
<p>marite, I can’t believe that you are missing the larger point. Are you being purposely disingenuous, as are so many in this cause, or do you really not see it?</p>
<p>As for #133 and #134: the usual bilge.</p>
<p>“That’s not what’s going on here, is it.”</p>
<p>I don’t know what is or is not “going on,” but I’ll tell you what i.m.o. should & should not be going on.</p>
<p>Because “gay” (regardless of its origins) indicates a particular group (and actually in many arenas a protected group like racial minorities – i.e., protected from abuse, from discrimination, from hate-crimes, etc.), it would be best school policy to bring this to the attention of the school (parental) community in an appropriate forum, OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL. Thus, a letter home, or addressing the subject at a parent assembly if that is timely, etc. The letter would suggest eliminating the ambiguous word from common public conversation on the school campus, if the term is being used negatively.</p>
<p>Concurrently, it would be good to have a SHORT lesson on this in the various classrooms of the campus where it occurred. This should not even take a full period. 15 minutes. You solicit student response, to make sure they understand that being sensitive to people’s feelings is important, & that even if the word in question was not meant to insult a particular group, there is potential for offense because the word has several meanings. Then, here’s a radical thought: RETURN TO ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION.</p>
<p>One of several problems with CA public schools is the interminable dwelling on social agenda in preference to academics. In the classroom, out of the classroom, at Board meetings, in the State Capitol, on & on. We get it already: the State, & local government by extension, has an interest in maintaining a level of tolerance for all the people that the public schools serve, & that an open & welcome atmosphere should be maintained to that end.</p>
<p>Excessive staff time is spent trying to <em>ensure</em> that the desired atmosphere is present at all times. How unrealistic. You just cannot control people to that extent. The best method is not attempts at mind control but by excellent role modeling on the part of teachers & parents, by excellent reading lists, by thoughtful classroom discussions on a variety of issues encouraging students to be thoughtful & non-reactive, look at all sides of an issue. On the younger level, there are plenty of excellent books (a suprising number of classics, as well as new fiction) in which the stories feature the absurdity of marginalizing the Different, the Odd-Looking, the Exception, etc.</p>
<p>Nope, I don’t see it. </p>
<p>Are you suggesting that because tolerance has been taught for “a couple of hundred years,” further efforts are futile? unnecessary?
And what exactly is meant by tolerance in this context? Slavery? Jim Crow laws? Segregation? The Exclusion Act? Gender discrimination? When I arrived in this country, the Civil Rights movement was still in full swing; none of the Ivies admitted women.</p>
<p>I agree with EK. The kids are 5,6, 7 years old. The current crop of kindergarteners is not the same as the one from last year and the year before, and the year before, and so forth. So the same message needs to be repeated every year, just as English and math lessons need to be repeated.</p>
<p>Epiphany, in theory I agree with you. I don’t know exactly how much time was spent dealing with the taunting of my S’s classmate. But it clearly involved more than her and those who taunted her as other classmates witnessed the taunting and learned from it that having gay parents was bad and cause for being taunted.</p>
<p>Otherwise, I think your suggestions are very good.</p>
<p>Epiphany’s suggestion is not only humble but good and practical. I fully endorse the approach as a sane and reasonable (apolitical) one to any form of endemic taunting.</p>
<p>I would think taunting should be considered bad form no matter what the cause–there is no good reason to taunt anyone for any reason whatsoever: </p>
<p>–economic status, religion, lack of athletic ability, looks, accent, neighborhood, marital status (single/gay/divorced) etc. </p>
<p>Perhaps we need more emphasis on good behavior than on its applications to sexual/marital behavior.</p>
<p>
- again, from the poster who complains about the tone of other’s posts.</p>
<p>Marite, what you don’t get it that HH sincerely believes that less than enthusiastic assistance for those who want to teach their children not to be tolerant and respectful towards gays constitutes “intolerance”. She actually believes that Christians are a victimized minority whose rights are being abused, while gays are, apparently, unworthy of protection against taunting (and worse.) If you look at the world from that perspective all of her posts make sense, and the rest is, as she so cogently states, “bilge.”</p>