This was clearly handled in a deceptive manner and is now causing polarization in our community. We denounce the usage of our tax dollars being used in support of such curriculum. In addition, we, as parents, should at least be given the opportunity to opt out.
I have reviewed much of the material presented and what I can find online. I will start in saying I am for safety in schools and training teachers on how best to deal with bullying and name calling in schools. Unfortunately the curriculum presented last week touched upon safety and elaborated on sexual orientation and gender identity for our grade school children. This is inappropriate for grade school kids and I do not want this as part of the curriculum.
It appears the committee that spearheaded the curriculum and Assistant Superintendent of AUSD failed to fairly disclose to the parents of this community what the committee was working on and did not provide progress reports to allow input or comments from the parents of this community. Thus we have a curriculum created in a vacuum and you wonder why there is such an uproar and mistrust.
It also appears that LGBT education (see Alameda Sun, July 4, 2008 article) was introduced to AUSD by our Assistant Superintendent. She later hired Barry Chersky, who she worked with in San Leandro Unified and is a change agent for LGBT awareness, to help in educating the teachers and kids in sexual orientation and gender identification. Why was Mr Chersky hired to do safety when his expertise is in LGBT awareness and workplace harassment? Because he was hired to implement a LGBT curriculum similar to the one he implemented in Oakland and San Leandro . Why was the community not informed in the forefront that this curriculum would be under the guise of safety? For the community to find how far this has gone without a vehicle for community input…this is the cause for mistrust.
As for the presentation last week…I found in a website where Mr. Chersky is a Senior Facilitator, a quoted by a filmmaker saying “Film has the power to touch hearts, release fears and present hope in a way that can directly lead to shifts in community attitudes, behaviors and policies.” It is obvious that the intent of the films shown at the forum is to soften our hearts to their cause and to forge sympathy so the filmmaker’s agenda can be thrust forward. Although I am sympathetic, I will not allow a film to cause me to lose sight of what is best for the young and idealistic minds of my children.
If the debate is whether we include sexual orientation to our sex ed curriculum, then let’s discuss this and call it what it is and not force it into the curriculum in the name of safety. If you want to regain the trust of this community I propose you do the following:
As concerned parents in Alameda, we were extremely upset and disturbed to hear about and review the "Safe Schools" curriculum, which is supposedly intended to teach our elementary school students tolerance and acceptance of people and their differences. Of course the safety and well-being of students is our most important concern, as it is of any parent and community member; however, to translate that into a curriculum which teaches about a specific sexual orientation is not only a gross misrepresentation of that commendable and necessary goal, but the manner in which the curriculum has been planned (without sufficient input from community members) is also an insult to us as voters and as constituents of an elected school board intended to represent the differing views of the community at large, and not just of one specific interest group. Moreover, if education about sexual orientation is not "sex education" to our ELEMENTARY aged children, for crying out loud, I don't know what is. To not be given an option to opt out of this curriculum which narrowly focuses on the specific values of one interest group would be reason enough for us to seriously consider taking our tax dollars out of the Alameda School District, as we firmly believe it is not the place of the public school and the school board to impart its own choice of values to our children. As concerned parents and concerned voters, we appreciate very much the chance to express our strong dissent to this curriculum being passed.
If we are so interested in "Safe School", then it should address and introduce all religious groups (as clearly seen by Muselum children being attacked at school right after the 9/11) and all ethnic groups (a friend of mine, who's child is an recent immigrant from South Korea, was singled out and taunted at school after the identity of the gunman at Virginia Tech shooting was made public. The school teacher and the lunch attendants knew of this yet they did not stop other kids from bothering him).
Not only that, It is not appropriate to discuss and define words such as "lesbian," "gay" and "transgender" to elementary school-aged children. How can you discuss these issues without bringing in some moral bias? It is impossible!
At the least, we the parents should have been given more opportunity to comment on the development of this curriculum, but instead, the curriculum has been developed and even piloted without input from those who are opposed to it. I feel that this was handled deceptively AND is now causing polarization in our community.
I believe in and teach acceptance of all people to my children at home where I can impart the values I believe with respect to sexual orientation. I am all for teaching tolerance, but it should be kept at a general level and not so focused on one specific interest group.
I feel strongly that suuport of such curriculum is not an appropriate way for our tax dollars to be used. In addition, parents should at least be given the opportunity to opt out.
I have been an Alameda resident for a couple of years now and as a voter and taxpayer, I am very concerned about the proposed curriculum for including LGBT education starting from kindergarten through to higher grade levels. Categorizing it as a "Safe Schools" curriculum is misleading. It is a value-based agenda advocated by a special interest group, and is not proper for our schools. I would not have voted for Measure H had I been aware that this is where our tax dollars would be used. Personally, I have no reasons to no be accepting towards individuals in the LGBT community, this curriculum and its development process seems like a deceptive attempt to impose values that are inappropriate to be taught in public school. There is no option to opt out of this in quite the same way other religiously based lessons can, and I do not believe children at that age can fully comprehened what they are learning and deal with the information properly at that level of maturity.
I am planning to attend the future meetings, and will continue to voice my oppositions and concern over this curriculum change.
I am an Alameda resident and would like to voice my opposition to the proposed "Safe Schools" curriculum. I agree that tolerance and respect should be taught in our schools and that schools should take disciplinary action for bullying and name-calling. I support generalized curriculum on this topic. However, one group should not be singled out, especially when teaching on the topic of same sex couples inevitably will lead to statements of value judgments by the teachers. We all know that the issue of homosexuality is a politically and morally charged topic, with greatly differing viewpoints, and as such, the public school setting is not the place where kids should be "taught" about this. In addition, teachers will be given a great deal of discretion on how much to say, with no quality control or means of monitoring.
Calling this a "safety" issue is a thinly veiled attempt to sneak in curriculum that is actually moralizing and belongs in the arena of sex education, with an opt-in or opt-out option. We were given very little notice of the development of this and now that it is about to be voted on, we have not had sufficient time to review it.
I request that this curriculum be rejected. Thank you for your time.
I have been an Alameda resident for 24 years. I was raised in this city and attended public schools for my K-12 education. I am also currently a second and third grade teacher nearby. As an educator, voter and taxpayer, I am very concerned about the proposed curriculum for the Alameda Unified School District. I believe that the public was not given sufficient opportunity to participate in the development of this curriculum, and that categorizing it as a "Safe Schools" curriculum is misleading. It is a value-based agenda advocated by a special interest group, and is not proper for our schools. Had I known about this proposed curriculum, I would have thought twice before voting for Measure H, as I do not believe my tax dollars should go to fund such curriculum. Though I am personally accepting towards individuals in the LGBT community, this curriculum and its development process seems like a deceptive attempt to impose values that are inappropriate to be taught in public school. I know that as an educator myself, I would not be comfortable presenting and discussing these topics under the guise of promoting "safe schools." Curriculum like this passed and implemented without complete parental and community agreement is uncalled for. Ultimately this is a polarizing issue that was handled in a manner that could cause a backlash. This curriculum should not pass, but if it does pass, at a minimum there should be a provision allowing parents to opt in or out. Have you considered what teachers in public schools feel about this matter? Have you considered what parents and guardians of our Alameda children feel about their children receiving curriculum that may impinge on their own cultural, ethical, moral, or religious beliefs?
I am planning to attend the future meetings, but wanted to voice my concern in advance.
I am an Alameda resident and would like to voice my opposition to the proposed "Safe Schools" curriculum. As a teacher, I support generalized curriculum on this topic BUT when teaching on the topic of same sex couples will inevitably lead to statements of value judgment by the teachers. The issue of homosexuality has many greatly differing viewpoints and the public school setting is not the place where kids should be "taught" about this. It is almost impossible to discuss these issues without bringing in some moral bias. Though I am personally accepting of the LGBT community, this curriculum attempts to impose values that are inappropriate to be taught in public school. I believe in and teach acceptance of all people to my students in my classroom, but if we are going to teach tolerance, it should be kept at a general level and not so focused on one specific interest group.
I strongly believe the topic of homosexuality belongs in the arena of sex education, with an opt-in or opt-out option for the parents.
I request that this curriculum be rejected. Thank you for your time.
I am a concerned parent. I teach my children tolerance and to respect themselves & others (always a challenge for a Kindergarten boy!). As an Asian-American growing up in a small, mostly-Caucasian Midwestern town, I know first-hand the scars of peer alienation (nobody wants to date the Asian girl), name-calling ("chink," "gook") and the general cruelty of ignorance ("Do your eyes see as much as mine?" "Wow, your English is so good!"). So, yes, I definitely encourage a K-8 curriculum that intelligently & responsibly addresses the uniqueness of every family, so that we can raise kids on a foundation free of hate and misunderstanding. That said, after viewing the curriculum and attending last Tuesday's Community Forum, I am quite disappointed in the poor choices the Board has been making and in the whole adoption process..
The Board is severely discounting the role of the family in tolerance education. By keeping parents in the dark about specific classroom activities, you are excluding what is quite possibly THE most important influence on a child – their parents & family. And without a spirit of co-education & partnership, this new curriculum cannot be as successful as we hope it to be. I would like to be able to discuss with my child what he's learned on days that address homosexual & other family structures, as these are important & somewhat confusing issues for a child. But by hiding the specific daily lessons from me, the Board is not allowing me that opportunity. Tolerance is not just a matter of a new vocabulary; it's not just putting a word to a picture. You absolutely need the full support of the children's families. Please bear in mind that without parental support, you are completely alienating a key resource in building a respectful community. I suggest the Board revisit how families can participate in reviewing and developing the content of the curriculum.
I strongly believe the curriculum is not age-appropriate. I hope you can understand that it is near impossible to separate words such as "lesbian" and "gay" from conversations about sexuality in the same way that using "heterosexual" also introduces sexuality – these terms are, by DEFINITION, a concept of sexuality! A gay man at Tuesday's Community Forum made it quite clear that homosexuality was NOT a lifestyle choice. If not, then what? Clearly, it's sexuality. By very deliberately introducing these words into the vocabulary of elementary school students, the curriculum automatically raises issues of sexuality. Yet you claim that this is NOT a part of sex education. There are ways to introduce the uniqueness of every family without having to introduce terms that the children are just not ready to grasp. Yet the Board seems to believe, quite arrogantly, that they are equipped and ready to introduce sexuality without the consent or participation of parents & families.
If it is genuinely the district's goal to create a tolerant society, I strongly believe you have taken some missteps along the way. And if these missteps are not addressed to the satisfaction of both those for and against the new curriculum, you will only see partial success – if not a step backwards – in your attempt to educate our kids on tolerance. These are difficult issues – most definitely, not as easy as deciding on a math curriculum. But I believe that by listening to MANY different opinions, you can arrive at something that can genuinely work for every family in our district.
I must express my deepest support for the work being done around the Alameda Unified School Districts (AUSD) work for our communities Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) students and families. The importance of materials in our classrooms that include LGBT people and their families reflects the construct of our communities. Our LGBT friends are in our schools, churches, government bodies, and local businesses. Having no recognition in our educational system only perpetuates ignorance which continues to contribute to the unsafe environment our own AUSD statistics show exist.
The education of our student body and faculty does not require to advocate for a particular life style but to do the job the district is set out to do and educate about our world and the people in it. We must be allowed to build vocabulary and lessons that speak to this issue so that the ignorance that exists can be addressed and the good people who are responsible for administering this information are guided with the proper tools.
The children need our help and we must put our own ideology aside and reflect the realness of who we are and demand of ourselves we stop the outrageous discriminatory behavior being directed toward our LGBT community.
I am a straight parent of a third grader and appreciate the work the district is doing concerning the caring schools curriculum. Reaching out to all the diverse families in the Alameda schools and creating an atmosphere of respect and acceptance is an imporant part of creating a more peaceful community. Teaching this important curriculum in the schools helps address issues of hurtful slurs and bullying in an immediate and relevant context and promotes a safer, more enriching learning environment for our children.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and I look forward to it being taught next year.
I write for the sake of my two children. My son xxx will be starting kindergarten this Fall and my sincere and deep hope is that he will never be teased or harassed because he has two mothers. Similarly, I hope that none of his fellow students who are children of color or otherwise not part of the dominant culture will not be harassed based on their perceived difference. While I understand that my wishes for my son and his young friends to be able to be free of harassment will likely go unfulfilled, I see no reason why we all shouldn't do every thing we can to make it happen. In that spirit, I urge you to adopt the anti-discrimination curriculum aimed at preventing harassment based on sexual orientation. Going forward, I also urge you to adopt any curriculum that teaches that we are all part of a larger community that values, celebrates and respects one another in all of our variety.
Best of luck weathering this storm..
This is not a sex education curriculum. This is an essential step towards taking responsibility to teach our children about ALL TYPES of human beings and their families. I am so impressed that AUSD is taking this step. I want my children to learn about diversity, tolerance, compassion and to embrace the beauty of human individuality not run from unique aspects of it in fear.
Hate and Intolerance ARE Hate and Intolerance no matter how you package it. I celebrate a school district that sees this and finds it irresponsible and unacceptable.
Parent 2/9/09
As of 2/10 I have received twenty two copies of the following EMail from separate individuals. For tallying purposes, each unique person is counted as supporting the curriculum.
I am writing in support of your new curriculum "Addressing Issues of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity".
Your mission to make our public schools safe and appropriate for ALL families including our LGBTQ families, their children, and LGBTQ youth is long overdue and inspired.
I believe this work is paramount to making our schools safe and supporting the diversity in our community and the world at large.
I would also like to share my concern that providing notification to families and/or giving them the opportunity to "opt-out" supports bias. I cannot imagine how offended the community at large would be if given notification on a unit about racism or the lessons of Martin Luther King. Teaching children about tolerance and how to respect diversity is not something that should be confused with a "moral issue" or "sex education".
To allow these issues to become entangled muddies your mission.
Thanks again for your extraordinary work.
TOP
Community Member 2/9/09
I am very grateful for the thoughtful working being done to make sure all of our students are safe and valued in our schools.
Please, as you move forward on this, keep your focus on the students, and what they need. Think of the child entering adolescence, or even at a younger age, realizing there is something different about themselves. They may get signals from their parents or their church that they are wrong, evil, deformed. Let the school be a place where they are accepted for who they are, so that they can focus on their education and their future.
As the sister of a gay man who came out as a young adult, my heart aches to hear how alone and shamed he felt in school.
TOP
Parent 2/9/09
As an Alameda resident and registered voter, I write to express how deeply disturbed and troubled I am by the news that AUSD is considering adopting a curriculum to promote the LGBT lifestyle and force our children to receive such propaganda. I understand the stated goal of the curriculum is to promote safety and tolerance, but it is apparent to anyone objectively viewing the material that there is a hidden agenda to normalize the homosexual lifestyle.
I agree we should create an atmosphere of safety and tolerance for all students, whether LBGT or not, but it is another thing to promote tolerance by teaching the kids that it is normal, healthy, and morally acceptable to be LGBT. All people deserve tolerance and respect; not all “lifestyles” or behaviors do. I am not homophobic; I have good friends and colleagues who are openly gay. Nevertheless, I do not condone the LGBT lifestyle because I have good reasons to believe homosexual activity is immoral and harmful, and it is the right of all similarly-minded parents to teach their children these moral values. In the same way, even though I think it is morally wrong to get drunk, I have friends and colleagues who do, and I “tolerate” them while disapproving of their lifestyle. We can, and must, teach kids to tolerate people who commit objectionable or immoral acts. In fact, in order to “tolerate” anyone, you must disagree with them. If you agreed with them, you would not be “tolerating” their point of view. We would achieve our goal of creating a safe and productive learning environment much better by teaching children how to agree to disagree with others, instead of subjecting them to LGBT proselytizing and forcing them to think there is nothing wrong with such sexual behavior.
After discussing this issue with some attorneys, I also believe there are serious questions as to the legality of this curriculum, especially if it does not allow parents to opt out their children from receiving this “instruction.” The curriculum, if adopted, will likely violate state and federal laws protecting children and parental rights. Regardless of how people may spin it, this curriculum is sexual and moral instruction, which parents have a right to control. The curriculum will also violate children’s free speech rights if they voice their moral beliefs against the LGBT lifestyle and are forced to shut up or recant.
There are many more aspects of this curriculum that I find to be offensive, troubling, and problematic, such as how the school board did not follow its own schedule for public comments and review and conveniently buried the issue until after the November elections; the blatant “divide and conquer” tactics used to “solicit” public comments at the forums so far; the strong possibility of reverse discrimination against kids and parents who do not thing the LGBT lifestyle is normal and acceptable; the fact that the curriculum does not teach the whole truth about the LGBT lifestyle (i.e. that numerous studies have proven the link between the LGBT lifestyle and high rates of depression, drug use, promiscuity, STDs, and shortened lifespan); the fact that the LGBT category is defined by sexual activity or the desire for it, thus there is no way to properly teach K-12 kids about LGBT persons (as is supposedly the curriculum’s goal) without sex ed; the clear bias in the unreviewed statistical “studies” done by pro-LGBT groups that the curriculum’s proponents are using to justify their efforts; and the fact that, again and again, studies have shown that a person’s environment (like the instruction she receives in school), not her genes, is primarily responsible for her sexuality. I can go on, but I plan to express all my concerns in another letter or petition.
Thank you for receiving and reviewing the community’s input on this issue. I deeply appreciate your work and the labors of everyone on the school board, as well as your sincere desire to help the children. Nevertheless, I hope you will consider and reject the proposed LGBT curriculum.
TOP
Parent 2/9/09
As a parent of 3 kids attending Alameda public schools I want it to be known that I very much support the Family Diversity Curriculum that is trying to be introduced in our elementary schools. It is essential to implement this curriculum early in education to hopefully eliminate any prejudices or future harassment in the schools.
TOP
Parent 2/9/09
As a straight parent of two Alameda elementary school kids, I attended the AUSD meeting at Washington School last week on integrating lesson(s) and teacher awareness of gay, lesbian and transgender issues into the broader Caring Schools curriculum. I am strongly in favor of this initiative happening and support the work you all have done to make this happen, which is clearly focused on acceptance and inclusion (not "pushing a gay agenda"), which in turn promotes a decrease in hate related bullying and an increase in students safe learning environment and test scores.
Unfortunately, during the meeting, the opponents of this initiative insisted that the discussion session be switched:
- from the planned and announced small group discussions format in which many people's voices could be heard and recorded by the many note takers in a dynamic conversations,
- to a full large group format in which individuals gave small speeches rather than engendering discussion.
The minority of the attendees were opponents of this initiative, but then took more than their fair share of the meeting's "air time" to voice their opposition, leaving the majority of the attendees voices unheard and hence unrecorded by the many note takers.
Since I did not get a chance to speak at the meeting, please consider this my vote of confidence in the initiative.
TOP
Parent 2/9/09
Thank you very much for compiling these letters and making them available for other parents to view. There seems to be a lot of legitimate questions posed by different parents in the emails. I know it's not possible to address each concern and email, but it would be helpful to know how and when the district will address some of the more commonly raised concerns. If there are answers already, please post them to this site. I'm sure it will be very helpful to the community.
Right now, there seems to be a lot of mistrust between the community and the district. I would like to propose a few things that would help me restore some trust:
- Don't allow any school official e to speak officially or unofficially about their thoughts on this matter. Right now, if you google "Alameda unified gender identity curriculum" one of the first results you get is http://www.alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3558&Itemid=10. It's an article from July 2008 and in it, Ms. Wong is quoted as saying "We know this is a very controversial topic but we know morally it is the right thing to do". Please don't allow anyone from the board or superintendent's office to speak about morality because my morals may be VERY different from yours.
- Don't allow your teachers to make comments about parents who raise concerns and questions. http://theislandofalameda.blogspot.com/2009/02/district-presents-proposed-sexual.html Here, Ms. Huhn is quoted as saying "Adults are very confused. They think we have to have a conversation about sex to have a conversation about sexual orientation. And it's not like that," I feel that this comment is very condescending and very divisive. It's not helpful. It does nothing to allay any concerns I have as a parents. Please don't tell me that I'm confused. Please help me understand. To resolve this issue, I'd like to suggest coming up with a pool of teachers across the district randomly selected to teach different lessons from the written curriculum as it is today. Let the parents get a diverse sample of what will be taught to our children, by different teachers who have different personal opinions and styles. I realize this imposes an inconvenience to our already hard working teachers, but I think it would do much to help the parents not be "confused" by this curriculum.
Your officials and teachers should realize that their comments and quotes polarize an already divided community. We're trying to teach our kids respect and diversity. There should be no reason why well-intentioned adults can't work together in a respectful and considerate manner. If we can't, there's nothing we can possibly teach our kids.
TOP
Parent 2/9/09
I received your reply to my original email in support of the Family Diversity Curriculum and I thank you. You encouraged me to look at comments from other community members and I did.
Please take the time to contemplate my more detailed account concerning the issues of family diversity. Please also forward my comments to the site you recommended so that other members of the community may hear.
I am at a point in my life when I must speak out to others who do not understand and / or value me as an equal human being. I am forced to share ideas and realities with others who do not see me as a being that deserves civil liberty. But share I must...
The Family Diversity Curriculum is just what it claims to be. A curriculum about family diversity. There is no "Gay Agenda" or hidden meaning behind the lessons. It is a response to the need for safety and dignity for all members of the Alameda Community. Not just those people who fit neatly into the box of what others define as properly human. It is a call to the people of Alameda to place value on all lives. Value to the understanding that people are in fact expected to be treated equally in the United States of America. That is what our country is founded on. There is an eclectic mix of cultures in our country that is to be honored and boasted of proudly. Cultures that see religion, traditions, people, and customs differently but are still one nation of people.
To the surprise of some people, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered people are also just what they claim to be. A cultural, biological group of people that are naturally so. Gay Lesbian Bisexual, and Transgendered people are not choosing to be what they are. They are simply who they are created to be. No hidden agenda. People are born as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual or Transgendered. If others see them as wrong, it doesn't make this judgement right. It it the moral obligation of the community to treat all people with respect equally no matter what their opinion is about the other group. There are so many cultural differences in our world and many I do not understand and some I personally do not agree with, but I know that I am to fairly participate with all people. It is no one's place to decide that some cultures should be repressed or reduced in social stature.
I am seeing others opinions as "appalled" or "shocked" by the curriculum that would actually talk about Gay Marriage. How can the children of our world, of our community, be expected to sweep ideas and whole groups of people under the carpet? Marginalizing human beings is not the process of Civil Rights. Claiming that the Gay Families of our community are wrong in their foundation is what is truly appalling. The entitlement of selected groups of people is indeed morally wrong. This is the hidden agenda that I fear is at the base of those who so vocally oppose the Forums from the Safe Schools Committee. Deciding that their cultures, ideas and beliefs are to be put first at the expense, (often times at the cost of human life) of the "others" is not the Civil Liberty that is America.
All children are a part of our society. They are active participants in the community we call home, Alameda, California of the United States of America. They see, hear, touch and experience the pulse of our world. They know who they are and they know who we are. They see things very clearly. Probably better that many adults because they are more pure. They look to us for our example. They wait for us to do what is good and right. They hope for our understanding as adults. As the leaders of of present time.
Give the children the ability to hope and dream for their future. The look of a community that works with all people: Black, Asian, Muslim, Buddist, Catholic, Transexual, Korean, Disabled, Aged, Infirmed, Young, Lesbian, Bisexual, Mentally Challenged, Pretty, Ugly, Weak, Strong, Peaceful, Assertive, People with Light Skin, Mexican, Hearing Impaired, People with Dark or Medium Skin, People from Mixed Heritage, Native Americans, Indians, Europeans, Gays and All the Beauty of the "Others".
Let us make this curriculum a work in progress. A growing, blossoming example of true Democracy. A curriculum that whispers to all the people that we are one in our differences. That there is no need to fear. No need to hide in order to be seen. That we are all safe and worth protecting. That we are all home.
TOP
Parent 2/9/09
I attended last Tuesday’s community forum on the proposed new LGBT curriculum for our elementary schools. I have also gone down to the district office to peruse the materials and curriculum more carefully. I have called and left a message on Kirsten Vital’s phone line and met with the principal at my children’s elementary school. After doing my homework on this new LGBT curriculum, I must say that I am greatly opposed to its adoption.
It seems as though the primary goal of this new curriculum is educating our children about the LGBT life, versus keeping things focused on tolerance for diversity. No one would disagree with the goal for safe schools for all children. No one should be teased or ridiculed for any reason, and it’s very important to provide our teachers with training in sensitivity on these issues as well as training in how to discipline students when they are caught in the act of teasing and bullying. I believe that is where this curriculum needs to begin and end. However, reading books that introduce the concept of gay parents and families (“And Tango Makes Three”) especially in a cute animal format (penguins) is teaching acceptance for this family style. Showing videos of children explaining how great it is to have 2 moms or 2 dads teaches children that all such families are ideal. On page 11, item #9 of the packet passed out at the community forum, there is a list saying what this curriculum is not trying to do, yet that is the very thing it is doing:
- Advocating or promoting a “lifestyle”
- Changing personal religious beliefs
- Discussing and encouraging sexual behavior
This clearly is in violation of many people’s religious beliefs. I think AUSD is overstepping their rights and role in the education of our children. I do not want the school to be educating children on family life issues: marriage, divorce, death, sexual orientation, religion, etc…. Parents and guardians have the right and responsibility to teach their children about family values and family life. Schools are crossing the line when they start introducing education on LGBT families.
The LGBT community probably wishes that everyone would not only tolerate their choices, but accept and promote their way of life as a suitable alternative for everyone. With this wish in mind, I do believe the committee that put this new curriculum together under the umbrella of “Ensuring Safe Schools” has more than just tolerance and safety as a goal. The LGBT community has an agenda that I cannot support. I hope we all can agree to disagree respectfully. I too have wishes for the world to accept my beliefs, but I would not force them upon any of your children, and especially not without notification or the ability to “opt out”.
How can the Board of Education in good conscience vote to adopt a curriculum (March 10th) in which so many people in the community are opposed to? I have been in communication with over 50 families in my circle of friends that are also concerned and upset over this new proposal. I hope you will hear us and respect our rights to raise our children in a “SAFE” school environment. There is a better way to teach tolerance and respect for others, without promoting one group’s agenda. The decisions you make will affect our ability to continue our support of AUSD.
TOP
Parent 2/8/09
My husband and I are writing this letter to let you know that we support the program at Franklin School for kids with gay/lesbian parents. We feel children that have same sex parents deserve to learn in a safe enviroment. We urge you to continue this program so all children can have the same quality of education that other children.
TOP
Parent 2/8/09
I am again speaking out for the Safe Care of our students, parents, teachers and other support staff in Alameda Unified School District. We need to have our Safe Schools / Family Diversity Curriculum Approved and in place. We have long gone without our civil liberties at the expense of the mental, physical and spiritual health of the innocent victims of prejudice.
Please approve the safe Schools Curriculum that is in place as a pilot program in AUSD. We need all people to understand that discrimination is never condoned. If some people do not like the culture of another, it does not give the right to take away safe practices and liberty. Please see the pressing urgency to to passage of this curriculum.
We must adapt and grow with the pulse of the community. We will always adapt to the love, care and need of the people.
TOP
Parent 2/8/09
Thank you for attending the Safe Schools meeting at Otis school last week! We appreciate your support for this TERRIFIC program!!! Keeping kids safe and teaching them to be responsible, caring citizens is VITAL to their educational experience. Don't let the radical conservatives get any ground on this one....it is too valuable a program to be put aside.
Please support this program!
TOP
Parent 2/8/09
Thank you for taking this important topic seriously and for listening to the many parent's concerns.
The REAL agenda of this curriculum is right IN the actual curriculum that will be taught and in the teacher's resource and training book. Please - please read them carefully for just a few minutes and you will see boundaries being crossed and the true agenda revealed.
For example: Curriculum Exercise: A mock-court with our children playing judge over a gay marriage (starting in 3rd grade)
It was in: 3rd-8th grade curriculum
Titled something like: Discussing Current Events
It was a Mock Court exercise where children play the judge, and before them are 2 women (or 2 men) who want to get married and the discussion is something like: Should they be able to get married?
Not only does that exercise clearly teach about "Safety and a Safe Environment" in the school (sorry for my sarcasm), the discussion guide goes on to talk about how the teacher should lead it... and when you read that portion, it's obvious that there's only one conclusion the judge should make. It's extremely leaning towards one end - well, actually, it leans ONLY on one end. It gives teachers many tools/pointers to argue FOR the legality for gay marriage and gives teachers no tools to argue against it in this mock court scene. Interesting. Isn't it strange that a highly political and moral issue is deceptively brought in under the umbrella of safety and tolerance? This is deception. This is indoctrination of our children - no doubt. This clearly reveals a special interest group's agenda behind this curriculum.
At the beginning, I thought this small group of teachers and parents who presented this curriculum really wanted to create a safe environment for our children - my children. But I guess they have "more important" agendas up their sleeves, or sadly, the LGBT activists have indoctrinated them without them even knowing. NOTE:
Please do not fall for the sympathetic and passionate stories of people who had difficulties growing up because of name-calling and therefore, we should accept this curriculum that teaches BEYOND tolerance and respect, and crosses over the boundaries into sex education and morality. Though I have sympathy for them, the majority of us were name-called growing up - especially if we were the minorities. I was name-called harshly as a chubby Asian: fat-so, small-eyes, chink, and much more crass words that I can't even mention here - ALL throughout my childhood and youth and sometimes even now. Many of us can tell real stories of how we have been traumatized by this - which led us to isolation, loneliness, depression, etc. I think many of us can relate to these stories - and none of them should have happened. But we need to stay focused on the issue. We are 100% for teaching tolerance, acceptance and respect so that this does not happen to our children... BUT NOT sex-education and morals (and what is "normal") curriculum disguised under the topic of "safety" to indoctrinate our children with LGBT agendas in the name of tolerance. This is unacceptable.
TOP
Parent 2/6/09
As parents of children enrolled in Alameda Unified schools, we are writing to voice our strong objection to the proposed curriculum on “Addressing Issues of Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity” for grades K-5. We have various complaints on this matter, including:
- Issues of Sexual Orientation should not taught under the topic of Tolerance or School Safety. Issues of Sexual Orientation involve behavior choices, unlike issues of race, ethnicity or gender. We believe issues of Sexual Orientation & Identity should be reserved under Sex Education, and as such, parents should be allowed to opt out of exposing their children to this kind of instruction.
- We do not want our children to be taught about behaviors associated with sexual orientation at such a young age, starting in Kindergarten. This is completely irrelevant to the stated goal of teaching school safety and respect for all people.
- We are upset that meetings to gather community input were not held as promised before this curriculum was developed, and that pilot lessons were already conducted with children. It seems that this committee’s intention was to limit the voice of the community as much as possible.
We are urging you, as President of the Board, to suspend this proposed curriculum, and to convene a new committee to develop a safe schools curriculum with greater community involvement and representation.
TOP
Parent 2/6/09
In response to the recent viewing about the new k-5 curriculum regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, I wanted to write to you anonymously. Given the current political situation around the bay area, I don't feel safe revealing my identity. People who have supported proposition 8 have lost their jobs and have been slandered various places. Certainly reverse discrimination is in full force in the bay area for those who hold traditional value systems, I am afraid.
I live in Bay Farm, and my children attend Alameda schools. I am opposed to the new curriculum for the following reasons. On one hand, the discrimination of gays and lesbians and bigotry is absolutely wrong. I think we definitely need to educate our children to learn to stop such acts of hatred over the years, which has led to current state of tension. However, learning to respect ones who are different from you is one thing - to force our children to accept the different values as "right" is another. Those who want to implement this new curriculum are forcing their value system upon us who hold more traditional values.
I teach my kids to respect and cordially treat everyone they interact with, no matter how different they may be from them. However, I have my set of values that I want to pass onto my kids - not of hatred, but, based upon my upbringing and my religious beliefs. I understand those in support of this have curriculum their set of values that they'd like to pass onto their kids - would they want me coming to their kids and forcing my traditional values upon them about family, marriage, etc.? I don't think so. So why is the reverse ok?
This curriculum forces my kids and others who are of traditional value systems to accept other value systems as being correct against their own tradition. It would make it seem as thou those who hold onto traditional value systems regarding marriage and sex are inferior. I think this will open up a slippery slope of more reverse discrimination in the future. I can see in the future my kids being fully disciminated against and being called names because they go to church (which is already beginning to happen)
The discrimination against gays and lesbians are wrong and they must be stopped. However, the reverse discrimination against those who hold traditional values are also wrong - this curriculum definitely discriminates against people like me and is just as un-American. We have to learn to accept each others' differences without imposing and forcing our views onto one another.
TOP
Parent 2/6/09
I attended last night's forum at Otis elementary school and I had some concerns regarding the meeting and the curriculum:
1. What provisions will you make for those parents that choose, out of their own personal volition and thereby exercising their right to freedom of choice/expression, to opt OUT of this curriculum? It appears that parents will not have a choice to opt out of the curriculum.
2. The meeting was very biased as there was very little time to field questions from the audience. Clearly, there were people who were for the curriculum that were imported into the meeting to create an atmosphere in favor of it. The facilitators were also pro-curriculum. This is NOT a forum for discussion but there was clear bias.
3. Curriculum doesn't define LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/Transsexual) in terms of sexual orientation. This is SO confusing to the children but the rest of the curriculum has no problems defining it in terms of a love relationship between same-sex genders and by redefining what a family is. First of all, as it is, children are exploring their nature-given biology as males and females. To introduce more sexually-related materials is confusing when it refuses to define it in those terms.
4. The curriculum clearly has a strongly-biased LGBT flavor that is using the school-safety issue as an Trojan horse. This is an issue about safety in schools and NOT about promoting awareness of LGBT. It's about respecting people and not about LGBT. If this isn't slick, deceptive marketing, then I don't what is.
5. My son was teased about bringing Korean food which consisted of rice and dried seaweed. Will AUSD come up with a curriculum as robust as this LGBT-flavored curriculum and talk about the awareness of Korean food? Will my ethnicity be talked about heavily? Are there going to be children books talking about Korea? And why stop there when the teasing of children arises from an infinite number of reasons like being fat, not being able to speak English, having a physical disability, being called four eyes for wearing glasses, the list goes on and on. Teasing happens…it's a fact of life and growing up largely involves accepting it. So the problem that needs to be addressed is respecting everyone in general and not coming up with curriculum dealing with single type of teasing under the sun.
6. So if my son has a best friend who is a male, are they considered gay? Do you see how utterly ridiculous the whole LGBT has hijacked society into unthinking ways that have taken down precious social institutions like the concept of 'best friends'? People can no longer view two same gender people who have a strong bond as just best friends. The first thing that comes to people's mind is wondering if they are gay. This is so maddening!!!
7. Passing this curriculum will force me to take my son out of Amelia elementary, which is a very fine school, and will force to look for other private schools where the education is clearly inferior to Amelia. Is passing this curriculum really worth it? Is this a battle hill that you really need to die on? Please consider more robust alternatives to dealing with harassment issue because, as I'll state later on, this curriculum actually is woefully inadequate in dealing with the problem.
I would like to begin by stating that I am strongly against any form of harassment, bullying, and taunting based on one's race, religion, creed, sexual preference, personality, disability, size, family makeup, opinions, physical traits, etc. In fact, I believe that the school does NOT do enough to provide a safe environment for children to grow into mentally and emotionally mature human beings. Like any other person, including those who have suffered physical and verbal humiliation based on one's sexual orientation, I wholeheartedly agree that we do have a very big problem of harassment that needs to be dealt with comprehensively.
My problem, however, is the WAY this curriculum is being presented to provide a safe environment.
Among other things, the curriculum attempts to legitimize the sexual orientation of a person with respect to the family. It strongly appears that, couched within the concept of family, one's sexual orientation is legitimate, if not normal. One of speakers from last night stated how the definition of 'family' is being augmented by including relationships between same-gender couples. This isn't a process of augmentation nor, as one would like to believe, a process of evolving and progressing towards a more robust definition of the word 'family.' It's a process of normalizing and legitimizing a difference in a person, which in this case is one's sexual orientation. Ironically, this process undermines the very essence of this whole project, which is to highlight the fact that there IS a difference, a distinction if you will, and that difference needs to be respected. If sexual orientation is normalized, as this is the intent of the curriculum, where is the diversity? It's almost like as if a curriculum, based on ethnicity, is trying to get everyone to believe my ethnicity as a Korean is the same as someone who is from Mexico, which is clearly not the case. The approach to resolving tensions between two ethnic groups isn't so much to eliminate terms and concepts like race and ethnic groups, which is what the normalization process accomplishes, but it is to highlight the differences through the awareness of their respective language, food, traditions AND respecting those differences. The diversity is, therefore maintained, because, in reality, there IS a difference the two ethnic groups.
This curriculum actually undermines its own efforts as it seeks to legitimize and emphasize that one's sexual orientation is part of the norm. From the children's perspective, it sends a conflicting message because on the one hand, there is the curriculum stating that one's sexual orientation is 'normal' (i.e. lacking any distinction) under the auspices of the family unit and yet, on the other hand, there is a clear, visible, empirical difference between the different types of sexual orientations (e.g. heterosexual, homosexual). The difference is obvious enough that those children with different sexual orientations are the subject of verbal and physical abuse from other children. The curriculum in question seeks to extinguish those very distinctions that is clearly demarcated in the law regarding discrimination. By stating that there is to be discrimination based on one's race, religion, or sexual orientation, assumes that, in reality, such difference DO exist. This curriculum, as previously stated, seeks to pretend, if you will, that such distinctions do not exist.
The law states that there is to be no discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, to which I wholeheartedly agree with. To normalize one's sexual orientation within the concept of family would, essentially, take away that distinction. It sets the precedent that is illegal for one to hold to personal beliefs and opinions regarding sexual orientation. This is, then, no longer an effort to celebrate diversity in hopes of creating a safe school environment but moral legislation. One is entitled to whatever beliefs and opinions that one wishes to hold on to BUT, irrespective of those beliefs, one is obligated, categorically, to respect another person's difference. This respect is essential to creating a safe environment that not only allows one to respect each other's difference but to learn and grow as a responsible, mature citizen of the American society, which owes its legacy and reputation as a pioneer for the rights of all largely through the embracing and celebration of the differences in each of the individual and not by normalizing and eliminating those very differences.
For the reasons stated above, I strongly oppose the passing of this curriculum. I would implore you to base your decision not on politics, religious beliefs, personal opinions but on the basis of reason and logic and your commitment to uphold the idea behind the very law against discrimination by upholding diversity and not eliminating it, which this curriculum aims to accomplish. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and hope that it will be strongly considered as you make your decision. Thank you again.
TOP
Parent 2/6/09
I am the parent of a xxxx first grader. I have found xxxx Elementary School to be an amazingly diverse, supportive, and nurturing environment for my child, since she started last year in kindergarten. I am also a lesbian, which means my daughter happens to have two moms.
Last night I attended a community meeting at Washington School to hear about the proposed Safe Schools curriculum that Alameda Unified School District hopes to adopt later this month. The planning committee that has worked on the development of this curriculum for the past 18 months presented a comprehensive overview of the curriculum itself, quoted alarming statistics signifying the extreme and immediate need for such a curriculum, and fielded questions and concerns from a wide variety of community members.
I believe very strongly that the proposed Safe Schools curriculum is vital to fostering a safe school environment for ALL of our children. As a mother, I want my child to be able to go to school that is safe and where she will be treated with respect. It is unacceptable to me that she has already had a few incidents in which she has been ridiculed and teased for having two moms. Fortunately, my partner and I have been able to have wonderful conversations with her about these peer interactions and have given her some tools and strategies for how to respond to them in the future. Unfortunately, her teachers do not have adequate tools to address these situations when they occur.
What is needed in my daughter’s school and in all Alameda schools is a framework for teachers to be able to work from to teach our children that there are all types of people and all types of families, and that ALL of them deserve to be safe and to be respected. Curriculum already exists and is in use to address issues of race and religion, but not to address issues related to lesbian and gay youth or children of lesbian and gay parents. Statistics clearly indicate that there are daily problems at all levels of the AUSD related to homophobia. Teachers and students have asked for years to have a curriculum to address this rampant problem.
This is not an issue of whether or not people understand me as a person or agree with my decision to have children with my partner. This is not about teaching our children “how to be gay” or what it means to be homosexual. It is about teaching children that all people, no matter who they are or how different they may be from who you are, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Period.
I urge all Alameda parents to become familiar with the proposed Safe School Curriculum, to support its adoption into the AUSD, and to talk with their children about the right that all children have to be safe in school, regardless of who they are or into what family they were born.
TOP
Parent 2/6/09
We just learned of the district’s intent to introduce the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Trangender) under the “ensuring safe school environments” umbrella onto the elementary curriculum education. While we support the school district staff should receive proper training on how to confront children with any behaviors that are discriminatory, we strongly feel that educating our children on this issue at elementary level by the AUSD is very inappropriate. Children at this age are too young to understand issues like this and at times may confuse them even more. Please leave the education of such sensitive and moral issues to each family.
TOP
Parent 2/6/09
1- One thing you must all do before any board meetings occur is that you NEED to spend only 5 minutes reading the actual curriculum and lessons. Even if you spend 1 minute IN the material, you will be shocked by what you find. For example: for a 3rd grade exercise, the teachers are encouraged to do a mock-trial of 2 gay men getting married in court... I wonder where this is going in the name of tolerance? Any political agenda here? No, of course not - it's teaching "respect" and "no name-calling". (sorry for my sarcasm)
2- I know about 250+ concerned parents/voters/residents of Alameda who agree with me completely on this. They are also alarmed and disturbed by the hidden nature of all of this though it is clearly a controversial subject. If you want their signatures and numbers, just let me know and I can get that list to you within a few days.
TOP
Parent 2/5/09
I am writing to express my concern over the AUSD Safe Schools curriculum. After attending three meetings and reviewing some of the materials, there are a number of points that I want to address. First and foremost, I want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the importance of safety and “no bullying” education in our schools. I am glad that my children are learning the values that we are teaching at home when it comes to loving other people despite differences in beliefs, race, gender, etc., and the importance of standing up for what is right (for instance coming to the aid of a teased classmate). Children need to learn to stand up for each other and what they believe even if it is uncomfortable and has the potential to open you up to attack, and that making fun of others is wrong no matter what.
The problem here is that the Safe Schools curriculum is not just teaching tolerance, it is teaching that the LGBT lifestyle is an appropriate alternative, and that being gay (or lesbian, bisexual, and transgender) is no different than ethnicity, race, or gender. Here we have an extremely controversial debate, and furthermore, we have the AUSD school system attaching a moral judgment on the LGBT lifestyle, namely that it is normal, healthy and good. There is a crucial difference between tolerance and advocacy.
First, I have to say that comparing sexual conduct and ethnicity, gender, or race is very flawed in it’s reasoning. Race, ethnicity and gender are physical attributes over which a person has absolutely no control. Sexual orientation on the other hand, is a behavior. And the belief that the homosexual lifestyle is normal, healthy, and acceptable is just that, a belief – like religious beliefs. Even if, and I accentuate if, person may not have a choice over who they are attracted to, they do make a choice about how to act on their sexual impulses. At this point, I am not even saying that they are right or wrong choices, I am simply trying to show the difference between sexual acts/orientation and gender, race, or ethnicity.
It is like a woman’s choice to act on an attraction to a man outside her marriage and have an affair. She made a choice; opinion about the moral implications of that choice will differ from person to person. Under the reasoning that sexual orientation is just like skin color, we cannot fault pedophiles who are attracted to children, sadistic serial killers, rapists, etc. My point is that we should not be pushing a belief system (namely that the homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable alternative) any more than we should be pushing the belief that the gay lifestyle is not acceptable - in schools. This, like religion, is a private matter between parents/caretakers and their children.
Furthermore, why exclude other types of “diverse families” including polygamous ones, incestuous ones, or ones where Mom and Dad have an open relationship. Following the AUSD philosophy to it’s logical conclusion, these families should be included in the materials as well. They are not, however, because we all have moral beliefs as to whether or not these lifestyles/behaviors are right and normal.
Before in my letter I mentioned children needing to stand up for what they believe is right in spite of opposition and opening yourself up to attack. In many ways, I myself feel like this child right now. It is not easy for me to come out and say such controversial things and open myself up to attack in front of a large group that includes many members of the LGBT community. I am getting a lot of religious discrimination here, with hostility and sneers from other parents, and even one of the members of the committee that came up with the curriculum getting downright rude, because what I believe is different. I do not hate them (the members of the LGBT community nor those who agree with the curriculum), or even think them to be unhealthy parents or members of the community as a whole. I simply believe that their choice in this one area is wrong.
What about the diversity, tolerance, love, and acceptance of all people? It is ironic that in a meeting where people are not only espousing, but championing tolerance, acceptance, and diversity, there is such a hostile reaction to those that don’t agree?
TOP
Parent 2/5/09
We just learned of the district's intent to introduce onto the elementary curriculum education on LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender) under the "ensuring safe schools" umbrella. These curriculum items will be added without the ability for parents to opt out. While we support the goal, "ensure all students will be in educational environments that are safe and conducive to learning" our family is in complete disagreement with your decision to implement this program especially at the elementary school level. While the school district should enforce any behaviors that are discriminatory, education on this topic is a family matter not the business of the school district. Please stick to educating our children and not indoctrinating them.
If you decide to implement politically driven items like this, please also allow our family to move our $6,000 per student to a private school
This is inappropriate and out of step with the majority of your constituents.
TOP
Parent 2/5/09
The tone of this email is not addressed to you, but at the issue at hand - so please understand my concerns and my tone is not directed at you.
I went to the meeting last night, and to be honest, I was a little frustrated. No new information. There was no time for "the community" to speak or express our concerns, except at the end to random people in small groups. I heard from many parents that they were not aware of this meeting. We heard different speakers, including speakers from outside of Alameda and from activist groups (interesting), as if to convince us how wonderful this curriculum is. The meeting was set up for one purpose, to sell - as if the parents didn't have any serious issues.
What I FULLY support, teach my kids, and FULLY AGREE with:
1. Teaching our children tolerance, kindness, and how to respect others: beliefs, sexual orientation, religion, race, etc.
2. Teachers and parents being intolerant to bullying, slandering, name-calling - and to take proper disciplinary actions at school and at home. Of course it makes sense that a "safe environment" promotes higher learning.
99.9% of parents FULLY AGREE with the above.
So let's move on from these basics of basics. It's like trying teach parents and the Alameda Board Members for 1.5 hours, what 1+1 equals. We AGREE! That IS the ISSUE. NOBODY has issues with these so let's make sure the above happens.
- Train our teachers and parents how to deal with the above
- Discipline our children who cross boundaries of respect and acceptance,/li>
So let's end the conversation - let's go home - let's sleep - we all agree.
But no we can't... LGBT have their agendas
What I (and most parents) have SERIOUS problems with is:
Again, it is NOT the main issue of tolerance and respect mentioned above. Those are the MAIN ISSUES - AND WE AGREE with it 100%.
*The problem ONLY lies within the NEXT part:
Sex-education and Morals curriculum disguised under the topic of "Safety" to indoctrinate our children in the name of tolerance. This is unacceptable. Once you start defining what a gay and lesbian couple is and what is "normal", it crosses the line from "respect and tolerance" to morals and sex-education. Yes, I see about 25% "respect and tolerance". I also see clearly about 75% inappropriate sex-education and morals embedded in there deceptively. Even many of our teachers and parents have fallen for this shallow humanistic thinking about "equality, tolerance, etc." Of course, we ALL agree with equality and tolerance, so let's stop acting like we're so smart. Equality and tolerance for LGBT, for Muslims, for Asians with small eyes (which I got bullied for when I was young), Christians, Hindus, Blacks, Yellows, Reds, Browns, etc. should be taught by parents and teachers. So what's the problem? Again, that is NOT the problem. That part is a given. People keep throwing out those words because they think it sounds so sophisticated and right - and it is. EVERYONE should be accepted and respected as precious people. The problem again is the LGBT hidden agendas: indoctrinating our children to their way of life and to accept their life-style and behaviors as "normal" and acceptable. Whether it is or not is NOT the question. That is a moral stance - is it not? Safety anyone?
Other additional problems I have:
- Teachers crossing boundaries from teaching basic educational subjects and teaching basic respect and tolerance, to trying to act like professional psychologists, priests, moral teachers. Crossing boundaries. No strict boundaries and disciplinary action for teachers who cross those boundaries...
- Hiddenness and lack of transparency: of this specific Curriculum group. Let's name them. Everyone knows that this topic is a controversial issue, and yet knowingly, keeping this quiet and under the radar from our community and parents "except on the web" as if we know what to look for. I did not receive one email or letter - and knowing this is a controversial topic, this is simply baffling and unacceptable.
- I heard that the curriculum was created by 99% non-parents. Baffling.
- Deception: Using the umbrella of "safety" to teach this curriculum when it's clearly sex education and morals. Just read through the teacher's manual for this curriculum for 10 seconds.
- Not giving the parents an option to opt-out of this is cultish, non-American, baffling, shocking, etc.
So let's STOP skirting around the main issue.
I see people talking about equality and tolerance, yet they are hypocrites and intolerant to others who have different beliefs, views or religions. Definitely no respect for them. So they are quite intolerant and judgmental and disrespectful to those who see things differently (though they would try to deny this) and desire to impose their ideas of their "tolerance" to others. Got Tolerance?
TOP
Parent 2/5/09
Thank you for opening up yourselves to the voices of different Alameda parents regarding the new curriculum adoption. It is a much-needed discussion, and I wanted to express my personal gratitude for your willingness to serve our community.
I, along with a dozen family friends, went to the curriculum review session yesterday (Feb 4). It was an enlightening meeting, and I felt that I got a better understanding of what was happening. And I just wanted to write this email expressing my concerns regarding the appropriateness of the entirety of the curriculum being placed under the Safe School program, and I believe that my concerns do capture the worries and thoughts of more individuals other than myself.
Briefly, my concerns / questions lie along this line of reasoning: While teaching about tolerance and no name-calling is perfectly appropriate to be taught in K-5, I believe that the teachers would be stepping out of their boundary of “safety” when they teach with the purpose of normalizing a particular sexual orientation to kids in that age group.
I am completely sold on the lessons regarding name-calling and teasing. I applaud the efforts made by the school teachers and administrators to teach their students the value of politeness, tolerance and kindness. It only makes sense that name-calling and bullying in schools will harm the school environment. Up to this point, we are in complete agreement. I believe that it’s a tragic thing that kids are made fun of for their mannerisms and called hurtful names. I am very supportive of lessons on tolerance, and I think we should do even more to control the excessive bullying that happens on the school playgrounds, and I do believe that it will create a safer environment in schools.
However, it seems that this curriculum goes beyond this point. Upon looking through the curriculum, especially the ones in the 3rd, 4th and 5th grades, it turns out that this curriculum doesn’t simply teach about politeness and respect of diversity. It starts to get into lessons on what gay/lesbianism is, and the implicit lesson is that we ought to look at the particular sexual behavior as a legitimate moral alternative. And if a child disagrees, then I’m afraid that the teachers would say that that’s wrong. Isn’t that moralization of a particular viewpoint? This point was made quite clear to me when I asked during yesterday’s small group breakout session, “If a child goes to the teacher and says that her parents told her that homosexual behavior is unnatural and wrong, will the teachers tell the child that their parents are wrong?” And the passionate response I got from a teacher in the group was an avid “Yes!!” And the nods from the some others told me that they wholeheartedly share this sentiment. I hope that you can see my concern; it looks like we’re going into territories that sound more and more like moralization of our children. It’s not about safety in schools. It’s about imposing a particular set of moral beliefs on our children.
Of course, if a child made racial slurs or believed that people of color were inferior, then I know that such beliefs should be challenged. But let’s not confuse this LGBT issue with the racial civil rights movement; color of our skin is an attribute not associated with any type of behavior. But LGBT, by definition, seems to be associated with a particular type of behavior. I don’t see how we could get around that association. I think that’s why so many people have a gut reaction against teaching this in school. It’s different from teaching about equality of races. In this case, it’s actually a particular behavior that the children are demanded to accept, and for that reason, these lessons (at least the part that goes beyond no name-calling) are moral in nature. What I see happening is that there are two parts to this curriculum. The first part is the lesson on politeness, on kindness and tolerance (which I’m very happy with). Then there is the second part – where the teachers talk about what words like gay or lesbian or transgender mean – and then implicitly and sometimes explicitly teach a moral lesson, saying that it “should” be a morally accepted behavior. Even if the lesson template does not explicitly state those words, it would be naive to think that the teachers would not impose such moralizations.
I believe the first part of this curriculum falls under the Safe Schools Act. I am not sure where the second part, the moral lessons, belong. If you are successful in teaching and implementing the first part of the curriculum, then you have achieved your goal – there will be no more bullying, no more name-calling. However, it seems like the second part of the curriculum seems to have been pushed by special interest groups to be tacked onto the curriculum.
To bring out the previously mentioned two-part nature of the curriculum, I draw an admittedly insufficient analogy. Let’s take other words that are hurtful.. such as “bastard” (please forgive my French). I believe that the teachers are right to teach their K-5 students that they should not use these words to hurt others. However, what would you think of a curriculum if it went a step further and started to talk about the meaning behind those words, and started to actually teach that to bear children out of wedlock or to bear children with your mistress is just as valid an alternative as the others? Proponents of such a curriculum could argue that they are not pushing any moral agenda, that they are just trying to teach tolerance and understanding. But here’s the point: Just because you are only proposing an acceptance of a behavior (as opposed to pushing a particular behavior), it does not mean that you are not imposing a certain moral viewpoint.
Of course, this analogy fails at a certain point because it’s not perfectly parallel to LGBT, but what I’m saying is that there are these two distinct steps. I am not drawing any parallels between LGBT and extra-marital sex. I am only drawing the parallel between the two to accentuate that there are these two distinct steps in the curriculum, and to hopefully communicate the sentiments of concerned voters like myself.
My main point isn’t to argue about the rightness / wrongness or naturalness / unnaturalness of different sexual orientations. I believe that such discussions should be had, and it’s a desperately needed one to attempt to bridge the gaps in our divergent and polarized culture that we seem to be living in. Teaching about bullying is fine and should be done. But when it comes to teaching about the value judgments of LGBT, I believe I speak for many conservative residents when I say that I am very concerned that this curriculum overburdens the teachers to teach this very sensitive topic.
Thank you very much for your patience in reading this and taking it into consideration. I hope that I was able to communicate the concerns that I am feeling, along with others that I have talked with
TOP
Parent 2/5/09
I have a child who has recently applied to enter Kindergarten. I am strongly opposed to this curriculum. Furthermore, I am absolutely horrified by your handling of the community forum last night. The Community Forum is not run with the purposes of gathering input from the community, but to pass this curriculum along by appealing to emotions associated with being excluded rather than focusing on the merits of the curriculum itself.
At the meeting held at Otis School last night, what is the intention of having small groups facilitated by only those who are trying to pass this curriculum, as it current is? Where is the open dialog to discuss both sides of this issue? You give a forum to be heard for those who don't even belong to our community, strictly based on the fact that she belongs to PFLAG and was a teacher and principal of a school? Was Helen invited to speak because she brought expert experience associated with having taught this curriculum itself or the fact that she has a family member who happens to be homosexual? Couldn't you find a teacher who has actually taught this material to come in and speak?
What are your intentions of having only one side of this issue be presented? You say this material is to provide diversity and safety in our schools. Where is the diversity you wish to incorporate in our schools when there is no representation or inclusion of the opposing side? Are you responsible only to include and defend minority views and view points? How is this objective and unbiased? Are you not responsible to represent the community as a whole?
If you're handling of the meeting thus far is any representation of how this or any other curriculum will be taught, I have absolutely no confidence in the board and superintendent's office to handle controversial issues in a fair and unbiased manner. I've always been a strong proponent in supporting my community schools. I've never considered sending my child to a private school, despite my financial means and my child's academic ability. However, this experience has absolutely made me feel that my child will be indoctrinated with view points, rather than teaching him to think critically and treat others with respect and dignity.
I try hard to raise my child to be respectful and kind. We do not tolerate any name calling or physical taunting of anyone based on any perceived differences. This is the basics I teach my child so that when he encounters a person of a different race, religion, creed, sexual preference, personality, disability, size, family makeup, opinions, physical traits he will know how to be treat that person with dignity and respect. My child feels insecure about a lot of things – some legitimate, some not. I don't teach him that the world is wrong. I teach him how to accept himself for who he is.
As I understand it, this is also the value you are trying to teach our children. However, there is a stark difference between teaching a child to be respectful despite differences and accepting that all things are equal and good. Name calling is wrong and damaging and absolutely should be controlled by the teachers. However, name calling is not limited to gender identity issues. You're trying to address a deep problem on a very superficial level by including LGBT curriculum.
What have you done to train teachers to combat hate-based behaviors in children prior to deciding to incorporate a topic, which is inherently divisive, as mandatory curriculum? If your teachers do not have the resources to currently teach a child what is and what is not acceptable behavior, how will the adoption of this curriculum change this? What will you do to make school a welcoming place for my child, in the event that our values at home are decidedly different from school curriculum?
You provided statistics, but they are national and high school level. How many young children in Alameda Schools actually feels unsafe because of gender identity issues? And how do those numbers compare with any other student who feel unsafe due to being the victims of cruel bullying? Just because we have incorporated lessons on cultural and racial diversity, has that prevented our children from being taunted and called racists names or becoming the subject of racial stereotypes?
My child should not be allowed to call his extremely overweight classmate "fatso" or "blubber" or "lard butt" – all of which are common play ground taunts. But, do I expect my school to include curriculum about how people choose to be morbidly obese and it's a good, valid choice or do I expect curriculum centered around good nutrition, physical fitness for the wellbeing of every child?
If my child uses the "f" word in class – would you then incorporate a curriculum to teach the child the proper names for sexual intimacy or would you teach the child that that word will not be tolerated under any circumstances. And reinforce that there are strong consequences of continuing to behave in an unacceptable manner?
There is a gamut of issues that kids face on the playground. Some have been mercilessly taunted, even physically abused as a result of these issues. Many people have deep psychological issues as a result. The bullying should stop. However, we should not normalize all behaviors and choices as being equal and acceptable. The issue of LGBT is a moral issue that should be left to the parents to teach. It is not for the school board to take on.
Not only do I have questions about the reasons why this curriculum is being implemented, I have objections to the curriculum itself.
I sampled the curriculum and it does not teach tolerance, as you purport that it does. It normalizes and presents the LGBT lifestyle as an equally right choice. I am deeply offended by any insinuation by your committee or board that the curriculum as it stands today teaches tolerance and not the legitimatization of LGBT. In addition, this topic cannot be clearly taught in absence to sexual relations. I do not want to be having these discussions with my 5 year old child.
Specifically, the story entitled "Tango Makes Three". This could easily be a story about friendship. However, because the zoo keeper in the story decided that the 2 male penguins must be in love, he created an artificial family. I use the word artificial because without the zoo keeper, it would not have been possible for the three to be a so called family. They did not choose. The zookeeper chose for them. The curriculum takes special pride in that this is based on a true story. But, the true story is that there were 2 male penguins which had a special relationship with one another. Any inference to what they felt and certainly them being in love was the zookeeper's. The curriculum takes this a step further and directs the teacher to specifically point out this is a story about a gay relationship and to reinforce this point by asking the children "What do we call parents who are of the same sex?"
The written curriculum and guide to teachers is pretty direct in making sure our children know the words and understand the definitions of what it means to be gay and lesbian. However the presenter last night didn't even use the words gay and lesbian. Why are the presentations not accurate to the written curriculum? If you decided that the written curriculum was not suitable, why have you not provided updated written curriculum for the parents to view? I want to see exactly what the curriculum will be. Please don't present something that is not as written down. And don't give us written curriculum that will not be presented.
Also, the curriculum suggests this to be taught to grades 1-3. However, in your lesson plan matrix, this book is on the list for K-2. What is the reasoning for this? The whole matrix has a very loose, rough draft feel about it – it seems up to the teachers to choose what to teach on. Why isn't this more well thought out and planned? If it is, why aren't we being provided with those documents? Is this curriculum something you intend to revise as you go along? What is being provided to the teachers in terms of what they should and should not teach? Parents are supposed to be partners with the teachers for children's education. What is being provided to parents to teach diversity, respect, acceptable words and behaviors at home?
There are many unanswered questions. Please do not hurriedly decide to implement a program for the sake of it. Please stay true to your commitment to make our schools better and safer for ALL our children.
TOP
Parent 2/5/09
Hello, I am an Alameda resident, and I am interested in finding out the exact procedure and guidelines that the Alameda Unified School District must follow in order to properly implement new school curriculum. It has been difficult for me to find this information with online research. I would appreciate any help in this matter as I am particularly concerned about the proposed curriculum for addressing issues of sexual orientation and gender identity.
TOP
Parent 2/5/09
Regarding the Ensuring Safe Schools In Alameda Unified School District, I personally believe it is too young to discuss gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender issue in elementary school. I also don't understand why parents can't opt out. I have no religion and hang out with gay and lesbian people, but I don't want my kids to have to take classes about religious or gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender issues while they are still in elementary school. Since we don't enforce our kids to take classes about certain religion, why we have to teach our kids about sexual stuff in such young age?!
Furthermore, since California is crying about no money for education. Why can't we spend those effort and funds on providing regular music, arts, and PE classes? I found it very sad and hard to believe that as a full time working mom, I had to take times off to be an art docents for my son's class. Too bad that I don't have the talent or time to be a docent on other got-cut subjects. I enjoyed my music, PE and arts classes so much when I was in school. Why can't we see the big picture for all, but instead enforcing something is smaller?
Enforcing that in middle and high schools are enough already.
Please let me & other parents know how we can vote our objections on such curriculum to be teaching in elementary school.
TOP
Parent 2/5/09
I attended yesterday's forum at Otis school. I am very uncomfortable with the books, the example class "this is family" and the movie that the proposed curriculum will introduce to our children. There are so many types of families, single parent, foster parent, children living with grandparents, children with a parent in jail, children with widow mom/dad, children from different religious families...
Does this new curriculum cover each type of family intensively and have respective movies and books? If it does not say the details of other family types, for example, how religious families lead their regular day to day life, then why this curriculum emphasizes and introduces the only one type family --LGBT so much? With this, I feel other special types of families are not equally respected.
We celebrate the public holidays and the whole country observes, and we celebrate our personal birthdays and family occasions at home. If a teacher emphasize a birthday of one specific child in the class while ignoring others, how other children would feel? They feel that one specific child is favored and everyone wants to be him/her. We don't want to see this kind of result with the new curriculum in our children.
I am very concerned to let our children exposed/influenced too much on LGBT topic. Frankly I start to doubt if Alameda is a SAFE place for our children to attend public schools and to grow up.
If the school district has to implement this curriculum, I would ask what actions we concerned parents can do or options we have to protect our children from this new curriculu
TOP
Parent 2/5/09
I am a parent of two elementary school students, and I do NOT want this new curriculum taught in our schools to our children.
Having made that clear, I just want to say several things.
1. I attended the "community forum" tonight, in which I was told that the committee coming up with this curriculum would present the curriculum and we would have a chance to give feedback good or bad and comment on the curriculum to the committed, which would then give you, the board, our feedback. I was quite disturbed at the bias I witnessed at this supposed forum. It was not a forum for the community. It was a forum for the curriculum committee to present the curriculum, and no chance for the community members to give feedback at all, seeing as the presentations ended right at 8pm and if we wanted to give feedback, we were split into small groups (I'm sure so that we could not have one voice all together), to write down our concerns and questions. I hope at least those questions and concerns will be addressed at the meeting on Thursday (2/5) night at Washington Elementary, or if not addressed, at least given voice to? At the end of the presentation, three "community" members, one of whom wasn't even an Alameda resident, came up to give the "parent's perspective." Unfortunately, all three parents were for the curriculum, and so there was not even one person against the curriculum who was given a chance to speak, save one brave gentleman at the end, who raised his hand to get a question in in front of everyone before we were split into small groups. This was a rather unfair forum. And I think it was rather unfair that this curriculum almost got passed right under our noses without proper notice, without proper review of the curriculum by the community, and without proper input. PLEASE, please consider the other side.
2. I have major problems with the curriculum presented. I browsed through some of the curriculum and was absolutely appalled that they would try to teach this stuff to kindergartners and 1st graders, who don't even have the mental or emotional capacity to process what they will be hearing. A boy will learn the word "partner" in kindergarten or 1st grade, and come home saying things like, "I have a special friend who is a boy, he's my best friend, that means we're partners Mom." Or a girl will learn the word lesbian in 2nd or 3rd grade and the definition she will hear is that "a lesbian is a woman who likes another woman, they have a special relationship." This little girl will come home and say to her parents, "Guess what, I'm a lesbian because I have a special relationship with my best friend!" It is not right that our children are going to be taught these words and issues that they do not have a the capacity to properly process and understand at their tender ages.
3. I have more major problems with the curriculum presented. In the 4th grade curriculum, we were shown a video tonight of a bunch of same sex parented families, with short testimonials from their children. In one of the scenes, three girls with two moms were sharing their story. The girl said something like, and this is paraphrased of course, and I'm assuming also that you know and have seen this curriculum too, "My mom had a friend and they wanted to be more than friends, they became special friends, and then they wanted to have kids, so my mom went and got pregnant and had me, and my other mom got pregnant and had my sister, and that's our family." And you're telling me this is NOT sex-ed? Come on, who are we kidding? The definition of what constitutes sex-education according to Senate Bill 71 is that anything that does not mention human reproductive organs and their functions is not considered sex-education. So, after seeing this, if my 4th grade daughter comes home or worse yet, if in class, if she asks, "teacher, how did the moms get pregnant," how would her teacher respond? Would she skirt around the issue and say, "dear, you'll learn that in sex-ed, wait until 5th grade." If you're going to teach tolerance, then please teach it right! And if you're going to teach sex-ed, then let's teach it and call it that! I would be ok if the curriculum taught our children that how people usually have children is that a man sleeps with a woman, has sexual intercourse, and the woman conceives and is impregnated by the man. Now, this is how most people have children and build a family, but there are such things as same sex marriages or families or relationships in which the parents are two of the same gender. Now, they obviously cannot have children in the natural way, but they have other means. Sometimes, they adopt, sometimes the woman has her eggs fertilized by the sperm of another man, but through medical means and not through sexual intercourse. And it's a different way of living, and you should accept everyone as they are, but still, we live in a free country, thank goodness, and you should decide what is right and wrong for yourself. And I'm not saying don't teach them about homosexuality. I'm not homophobic. I have had several homosexual and bisexual friends. i just want it to be taught properly, in the right context, to children who would be capable of processing what they hear. But to couch what is actually sex-ed under the umbrella of school safety. Come on. Please see that the reality of what this committee and this curriculum are trying to do is to sneak in their own agenda, under the umbrella of school safety. And to sneak in another side point on that is that kids will be kids. Even if the words "gay, lesbian, bisexual, partner, etc." were taught properly, kids have called each other names since who knows when. They will continue to do so. My children are made fun of for what they believe as well, not even their life styles, but what they believe. They are made fun of for not owning a television set at home. They are made fun of for bringing rice and seaweed to school for lunch. They are made fun of for the spelling of their names, made to rhyme with "P U" for instance. To teach tolerance and acceptance is one thing, but this curriculum clearly teaches on an issue of morality, which, I believe should be kept out of the school system.
I could go on, but I'm sure I've taken up enough of your time if you've even read this far. And if you have, I thank you deeply for having read it all. I know my letter drips with sarcasm and criticism, but I think we need to be honest about what's really going on here.
PLEASE do consider the implications of approving that this curriculum be taught in our schools. And please do not pass it.
TOP
Parent 2/4/09
I’m a very concerned parent of two boys in grade K and 1st. I have heard about the new curriculum to address gender identity and sexual orientation for grade K-12. It has been presented to the parents that this curriculum is to provide safe school environment for Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT). As a parent of 2 young boys, I know how kids at this young age can observe, be moldable, and soak up any new things without much discernment. Each day they come home from school with new things they learned and observed. Knowing this I have taken time off from work to review this new curriculum at the district office this past Monday. After reviewing the curriculum, I am very concerned about what will be taught in this curriculum.
My concern is that these new curriculums are teaching our kids that homosexual is a right thing. These curriculums are pushing the gay rights movement. These lessons are to teach our kids that homosexuality is to be accepted in our society. It is basically trying to brainwash our kids from young age to accept homosexuality when they can not comprehend this social issue yet. It is trying to teach moral value to accept homosexuality rather than to teach our kids to respect one another as a person. I believe that the curriculum should teach our kids how to respect each other as a person and as a human being. It is not about having heterosexual, homosexual, mixed race, or single parents, but about teaching our kids to respect another person as a human being. This is very deceptive of committee members to try to push gay right movement on to our kids.
My concern with lesson 2 is that it’s defining family through illustration from the book called “Who’s in a Family” using animals. I understand that in our society family can be very different than traditional family but we do not call animals as family. One example from the books is illustration of lion “family”. It talks about how lion family has one dad and many moms and cubs. Are we trying to teach our kids that polygamy is an acceptable family? Like I have mentioned above, kids at this age are very observant and soak up like a sponge.
In lesson 3, this is teaching our kids homosexuality is right thing and we are to accept it. This is again trying to teach our kids the moral value on homosexuality. In this lesson it introduces “Sense of Love Vocabulary”: love, thrive, partner, lesbian, caretaker, “in love”, couple, gay, belong, family.
Definition of word “Gay” from the curriculum: Being gay means that a person loves, in a very special way, someone who is same gender. A gay man loves or want to be involved with another gay man. A gay person might choose to have a special relationship with someone and share their home and have a family together.
The definition is describing person loves, in a very special way. Just by the definition above, I really believe this curriculum is inappropriate to the age group.
From lesson 4-7, I really believe it is no longer teaching about inclusive. It’s is reinforcing and teaching our kids to accept homosexuality as something that is right. I believe this whole curriculum is inappropriate for the age group and it’s trying to push gay rights movement to younger kids. In conclusion, I would like to ask the board members to vote against this particular curriculum.
TOP
Parent 2/4/09
I was glad that you were there tonight at the meeting. I am a parents of 2 boys, 1 in K and 1 in first grade.
I went to the Community forum today and I was very disturbed to what I saw. I expected equal representation of both sides tonight. It was mainly for the committee to present the case and 'sell' the curriculum to the community. The entire presentation went on until 8 p.m. and we had small group question time and that was it. I was not able to hear what others think of this curriculum and what issues are to be raised. Rather, it was a lecture that I could have listened to at home if it was pod-casted. This should not have been called a "community forum" but rather a "presentation".
At the end of the presentations, the committee or the office of superintendent, introduced 3 community members to speak on this issue. I expected once again unbiased and balanced perspective of the community. All 3 of them, were all for this curriculum and one was NOT even an Alameda resident. How can this be a "good" representation of the community that the Board and the superintendent represent and serve? What I saw tonight was the committee desperately wanting to push this along, sugar coating it as much as possible, only showing the "pro" side of it. But this was supposed to be open to the 'Community'.
The teachers were excellent in their presentations and they knew what they were talking about. The lessons that they taught were based on the curriculum that were present at the meeting and I had already reviewed them earlier this week at the education office. The lesson for the first grade clearly says that words such as gay and lesbian will be taught in the class. The teacher did not even mention these words. If these words are in the written curriculum, why would any teacher not teach about that? This is what I mean by 'sugar coating' and they were very deceptive. I had lost almost all faith in my school district to teach my kids fair and square. The lesson about the name calling also has words such as homosexual and heterosexual in the written lesson. But the teacher never mentioned them. If these lessons are about sexual orientation, then let's bring them out and let the parents hear what will be actually taught in the classes. This is outrageous that the teachers, who are supposed to teach our kids values such as honesty, courage, and integrity will whim out like this for whatever the reason.
One teacher said that one of the words taught in the class was 'partner' b/c it was mentioned in the book. I don't know what she exactly said, but she told us the kids' response. The kids said something to the effect that since they are partners in school activities with other kids, that they made a positive connection to the word 'partner'. Then, would these kids grow up thinking that their play ground partner is like a homosexual partner? Is that what the curriculum is intended to teach? Is partner just like your friend? How do you distinguish a friend from a partner if the definition is so blurry? How can you distinguish these two ideas unless you bring in sexual relations? If you extrapolate that idea, then you are a gay since you and your 'partner' are of the same sex. How outrageous this curriculum can get! I just cannot see why such well educated and experienced teachers would not see the long consequences of teaching such materials at such young age, and how it can have a negative impact on certain kids. Are they willing to suffer that entire generation of kids based on the survey of the current high school kids?
One of the committee members is an "expert" in this topic b/c he had helped SF, Berkeley and San Leandro adapt this curriculum for elementary schools. He concluded from the survey with Alameda High school student on page 6 of the handout, that this survey showed that they would not have experienced such things if they were trained at earlier age. How did he conclude that? What studies is he citing to prove that things that the high school kids experience WILL be different or better if they were trained at an earlier age? I know it and you know it that if kids don't use those particular words to tease or bully other kids, they will come up with something new. That's the nature of things. Just b/c the younger kids know what gay and lesbian mean, it does not necessarily mean that they will not hear such words used inappropriately. Sexual orientation is not a physical attribute that the kids can identify easily at a younger age. If this is not "brain washing", I don't know what I would call it.
I really hope that tomorrow's meeting will have more time for community input and that we will be able to share our concerns and hear other's concerns as well. I hope you will be present tomorrow night as well.
TOP
Parent 2/4/09
This is the very first time I am writing to any of you because I am deeply concerned, baffled, and disturbed about some recent news about a curriculum change proposal.
I am a father of a first grader, and I have also been a proud resident of Alameda for over 15 years now after moving from Berkeley after graduate school. I have been recently informed (like 1 week ago) by another school parent about some inappropriate curriculum changes that might go through for our children -- that should NOT belong in our public education system. I have been very concerned, baffled and deeply disturbed as the communication for these curriculum changes have been minimal, if not, unacceptable to notify adequately ALL the parents, in a timely way. I, personally, have not received one email, a letter, or anything regards to these proposed changes to our curriculum and I would like an explanation as this is a major and controversial change (as you know... just ask the gay and lesbian evangelists and rights groups). So is that why it's been kept silent and under the radar of most parents?
I propose that we start over, and this time, include the voters and parents of Alameda ONLY in these meetings, and notify all parents in writing and by email - which is standard communication. If not, I need a convincing explanation. I, as well as most parents, have not been adequately informed about these gay and lesbian agendas which has very little to do with "safety". Sexual beliefs/faiths/religion should NOT be taught or talked about in our public schools - period. Books or curriculum that were created for the purpose of evangelism (religions including straight/gay/lesbian beliefs and agendas) should be banned - period. Our public tax-funded schools are NOT the playground for Gay and Lesbian rights groups to teach their beliefs and their religion (what they believe) on MY children and other parent's children. Personal beliefs (including straight and gay/lesbian beliefs - which includes sexual orientation) should NOT be forced upon our children. That is the role of parents. Most of all, we should not allow these activists to use deception (like saying it's for "safety" - give me a break!) to bring into our schools their agendas and beliefs.
I will start coming to our meetings (not because I heard it from our school district, but from another parent). I also heard from another parent that there were NON-Alameda residents (actually from a Gay and Lesbian activist group) coming to these meetings. I wonder why? Why on earth are non-Alameda residents coming to our community school meetings?
I have many friends and parents in Alameda who share my concern.
Thank you for listening and I hope I can hear from one of you.
TOP
Parent 2/2/09
First of all, I would like to thank and commend the AUSD Board for their hard work on this immensely important project. As a lesbian and as a parent of two children who attend an AUSD elementary school, I know from personal experience that a learning environment free from harassment, discrimination and violence is critical to the well-being and safety of LGBT families. A review of the statistics that were reported in the AUSD handout "Issues of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity" confirms my personal experience that harassment of LGBT people does occur and can be extremely hurtful. So it is with tremendous gratitude that I applaud the AUSD Board for their commitment to creating a safe learning environment for all students.
Based on what I saw at the Earhart parent meetings last week, it is clear that direct and succinct responses to concerns raised will be critical in gaining the trust and backing of parents on such an emotionally charged issue. Clearly it will be impossible to please everyone, but many parents just need to see enough of the age appropriate curriculum to be reassured that this program is about safety and inclusion of diverse populations, and not about sex or promoting LGBT ways of living.
I recommend that you do a power point or somehow present to the whole audience at the forum a sampling of the kinds of language, discussions, text and films that will be introduced at perhaps the kindergarten, 3rd and 5th grade levels. Don't try to pass the textbooks around the room unless you have lots of them because few people will get to see them. Presenting some specific examples of language used in the curriculum would be constructive, like how would you introduce the word "gay".
The handout called "Addressing Issues of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity" does a great job of explaining why AUSD must incorporate the Caring Schools Curiculum. However, many parents will not have read the handout, and there is very little information available about the curriculum for parents to review. Thus it is likely that you will hear the following objections and questions at the forums.
It will be important to give informative, succinct responses to calm fears and alleviate parent frustrations of not being involved in the decision-making process. While parents should have an opportunity to voice their opinions about the curriculum to the Board, the Board will make the decisions regarding curriculum development because they have the professional expertise and are charged with oversight responsibilities.
I have listed below in bold print the concerns that I have heard in previous PTA meetings. Under each concern, I wrote some notes, based mostly on information provided in the AUSD handout, that I thought would be appropriate to use when responding to these concerns.
Why put special emphasis on LGBT bullying? The additional emphasis will only make LGBT people the focus of more teasing. Everyone gets teased. LGBT people just need to get thicker skins.
The statistics presented in the handout make it clear that harassment of students perceived to be LGBT is frequent and harmful. Students who were harassed based on sexual orientation were at greater risk of being victims of violence, missing school because they felt unsafe, having lower grades, not planning on going to post-secondary education, being depressed, drinking alcohol and using drugs, being homeless and making plans for suicide.
AUSD must comply with legal mandates (AB537, Board Policy 5145.3, Education Code Section 2000, Penal Code Section 422.6(A), which require public schools to prevent discrimination and harassment based on all legally protected categories, including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students and staff.
LGBT lifestyles are against my personal beliefs or faith.
Families may hold any beliefs they choose about homosexuality and gender, as long as they do not harass or threaten other students. Addressing issues of violence, name calling and other harassment, and ensuring that all students are treated equally, does not violate any student's relgious beliefs or disrespect any student's cultural background.
If you define the LGBT terms, it's sex education and you need parental permission. You can't talk about this without talking about sex so I have the right to have my children opt out of this.
A discussion about equity and respect for differences is not a conversation about human sexuality. As you will see in the Lesson Matrix handout, and in the texts and film, a discussion about heterosexual families is not a human biology lesson; a discussion about sexually diverse families is not about sexual acts.
Senate Bill 71 states that instruction and materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation or family life and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions are not "sex education". Therefore parental permission is not required.
The teachers and administrators need to intervene to stop kids from bullying, rather than teach this curriculum.
The California Safe Schools Coalition conducted surveys to determine what steps schools could take to promote school safety for LGBT students. They identified a multifaceted approach and made recommendations consistent with the 2005 National School Climate Survey findings, including the benefits of: publicizing a harassment policy, training teachers and staff to intervene when they hear slurs and negative comments (which AUSD has already begun), ensuring that students know where to go for help, having a Gay/ Straight Alliance organization, and introducing curriculums that includes information about sexual orientation and gender identity.
LGBT issues should not be taught at the elementary school level. It is not age appropriate.
Use of derogatory terms and put downs based on sexual orientation and gender identity begins in elementary school so elementary school teachers need skills and curriculum that will help them intervene when they encounter incidents of harassment.
Some research indicates that LGB youth report first becoming aware of their sexual orientation at age 10, while another study indicates that gay adolescents reported becoming aware of a distinct feeling of "being different" between ages 5-7. (these stats are on the AUSD handout)
The AUSD Lesson Matrix "Addressing Family Diversity/ Bullying/ Violence Prevention", outlines the progression of an age appropriate curriculum and examples of age appropriate lessons will be/ have been presented here tonight.
The Board is trying to sneak something past the parents. The Board said that they were going to involve parents in the curriculum development, but they did not. The Board should have made this curiculum available for parental review. Parents should be able to vote or decide on the curriculum.
In the future, be more clear about communicating the decision-making process, and don't make promises that you cannot keep because it erodes trust.
You could mention that this curriculum like other curriculums are not decided by parental voting, but rather curriculum development is the resposibility of educators who are given that charge. I recommend that you post your handout online because it really does address most of the concerns apt to be raised. It might be a good idea to follow up online after the forums if there is a need to address any common additional concerns raised at the forum.
Tell parents where they can go to review the curriculum in more detail, or better yet put the curriculum outline online to enhance transparency and trust. Give email addresses of the Board so that people can send their input and concerns, and assure folks that you will give their input serious consideration. Even if it doesn't change the curriculum, it will give you a better sense of how to make the materials best received and it's important to be responsive to the community.
TOP
Parent 2/1/09
Last week I attended both of the PTA meetings at Earhart School regarding the proposed change to the Alameda Unified School District curriculum which will address issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. To be frank I feel that not enough parent input was placed into the curriculum and that it severely lacks sensitivity stop-gaps as a result. Only 1 parent out of 20 people was active in the curriculum design that produced this work and it shows. For instance, as early as the 2nd grade children may be introduced to the terms gay, homosexual, transgender, lesbian, and transsexual. When I questioned what resource teachers were to be given in explaining these terms the book "It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School" was passed out. The definition section of this reference clearly states that gay means "for one man to have a sexual relationship with or be attracted to another man". When I asked if this definition would be given I was told that the resource guides for teachers was not yet developed and would not be developed until after the curriculum was approved. I find this to be completely unacceptable for a few reasons.
First, this curriculum has been placed under the umbrella of the safe school program so parents do not have the right to have their children opt out. Parents were told this at both PTA meetings and the developers are going to recommend to the Alameda School Board that it remain under the safe school curriculum. If this curriculum is approved next month than the only way that you as a parent can prevent your child from taking this course is to remove them from school for the day. This of course can only be accomplished if you are made aware of the day these lessons will be taught, which is not a requirement of the safe school program.
Secondly, this curriculum has complete disregard for the beliefs of the general public, be they secular or religious. There is no way of avoiding the fact that teachers will be given the power to project their own personal beliefs about homosexuality onto my children when they are confronted with questions on the morality of the subject. The teachings on the morality of homosexuality has always been and should remain in religious institutions and or the family. I believe this is a blatant attempt to wrestle that power away from parents and religious institutions and nestle it into the hands of the state. The fact a curriculum representative stated that there is a lot of "mis-education being taught in the world" clearly highlights my suspicions.
Thirdly, this curriculum goes far beyond what is called for in AB 537 Student Safety & Violence Prevention Act of 2000, which is designed to prevent discrimination and harassment based on all legally protected categories. This goal can be accomplished by clearly informing students in elementary school that multiple types of families can and do exists and that harassment or threatening behavior toward other children of non-traditional families will not be tolerated. Then enforce the policy. Injecting what these actual lifestyles are onto young children through videos, books, and discussion groups will only lead to my already stated conclusion, that it will be ultimately teachers, and not myself, who will be indoctrinating my children in what their personal beliefs are about homosexuality. This is unavoidable.
Lastly, "state law requires parental notice concerning instruction on HIV/AIDS prevention, venereal disease, sexually transmitted diseases, sexuality, or family life and provides that parents be given the opportunity to keep their child from receiving such education". As soon as the terms heterosexual, homosexual, gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender and so on are introduced into the curriculum then it enters the realm of sex education. At this point parents do by law have the right to opt out no matter what the AUSD says. These terms describe a persons sexuality and nothing else. If you do not believe me then look it up. If this curriculum is to be taught then it should not be taught before the fifth grade level, which is when sex education first begins, and all parents should have the right to opt out for personal or religious beliefs which are also protected under California law.
I do not and will not endorse this curriculum in its current form. This is why I am asking you to not support this curriculum in its current state. Please consider the private rights of Alameda's parents before you endorse this curriculum. Feel free to email or call me with any questions you may have. Thank you for your time.
TOP
Parent 1/30/09
I was in attendance on Thursday, Jan 28th at the parent information meeting. I would like to take a moment and share my impressions and concerns over what was and was not shared at the meeting. I think the entire meeting got of on the wrong foot because the parents were urged to attend and share their questions.concerns so the district would know what parents tought about this new proposed curriculum. However, that was not what the meeting was about. We were told us that our concerns were heard, but it was ultimately not up to us and what her committee was going to suggest to the district was already decided.
There were a few questions, that while heard, were never answered. Questions that, I myself must have answered before I can feel comfortable with any changes to my child's education.
1. Is the district teaching homosexuality as just a different lifestyle choice, such as different religious views are currently taught? Or is the district purposing a curriculum that teaches homosexuality as a biological fact? That people are born that way, just as people are born with different color hair or eyes?
This question I believe underlines the concerns on both sides of the argument. It is not a question that can be side stepped. One cannot teach tolerance of differences without a basic understand of why people are different.
2. Giving parents the choice to take their kids out of class during these lessons, much like the option we are already guaranteed under US law, is also in question. Parents already have the right to opt their children out of objectionable curricula. (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972); Moody v. Cronin, 484 F. Supp. 270 (C.D. Ill. 1979)). It was made is very clear on Thursday that her committee was going to recommend that such a option not be given to parents with this new curricula.
Giving parents this option also allows those who would otherwise contest the new changes to simply not participate in the lessons.
There were of course may other questions, but the two I listed were really the underlining questions that lead to the others. Are there clear and concise answers available for parents?
Furthermore, I was quite offended at how anyone who had an opposing view was anti-gay and somehow supported bullying.
TOP
Parent 1/30/09
As a parent of two AUSD students and being a local resident, I am concerned about some of the curriculum additions proposed for responding to the "Safe Place to Learn Act" and the "Student Safety an Violence Prevention Act" . What concerns me is what relates to our youngest students – those below grade 4 or 5. I wanted to express my feelings and what I heard at two meetings held at Earhart this week on this issue.
I am always skeptical when a motivated party presents a table of statistics. In fact the statistics presented seem to all be responses from high school surveys. I have not gotten a feel for what surveys were done or how they may have been conducted, to reinforce the concept that all K-5 students need instruction addressing issues of sexual orientation and gender identity.
From the statistics presented and the discussions which followed, it seems evident that AUSD staff needs to be trained to better deal with bullying and harassment of any kind to meet present BOE policies.
As a Berkeley Unified employee I spend most of my time on school grounds, and I am fairly observant. Elementary school age kids seem to be the most accepting of all school age kids, and there is very little "bullying", physical or verbal. I don't think I have heard any gender based slurs directed toward others at elementary level, or at least not K- 2 or K-3. At that age level, any words they use that have a connotation of gender identity is most likely used out of context, and without malice. Their innocence is likely the key. In my opinion, forcing them to focus on gender identity / sexual orientation, and explaining related vocabulary is not appropriate for most kids in those early grades.
Even just entering into brief lessons on those issues for K-3 could bring whole new concepts to their otherwise blissful ignorance of the same. Any bullying they do – ANY - should be dealt with immediately. Repeat offenders should have escalated follow ups, parental consultations, or the "class meeting" format (of the proposed Safe Schools curriculum) could be used.
I think the most vital step is training, - not just teachers but all school site staff; secretaries, administrators, maintenance, custodians, TA's, lunch and yard volunteers, (any adult on school grounds on behalf of the District), training on how to immediately deal with any harassment they witness or is reported to them.
That alone is a huge deal, but I believe there is BOE adopted policy specifically requiring immediate intervention when any district employee observes bullying or harassment. I believe that policy is in addition to another Nondiscrimination/Harassment policy AUSD BOE adopted over 8 years ago. (BOE Policy BP 5145.3) This policy was enacted in accordance with a state requirement created at the time. (AB537 – the Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 which also extended the ED CODE to include sexual orientation and gender identity as legally protected characteristics from discrimination.) Most CA districts must have mishandled that task or we would not have needed AB394, or the current AUSD staff recommendations. Before taking a new curriculum to the classroom, let's see how well we do training all AUSD staff this time.
I know and somewhat agree with the intent of the suggestion to adopt these new elements to the Safe Schools policy, but I have serous doubts of the practicality of the proposed program and concerns about the perceptions and negative consequences.
Despite what the head of Alameda Point Collaborative, Doug Biggs, says in local blogs about all the parent involvement with putting this curriculum together, we know this wasn't true. This agenda was not "day-lighted" any more than the writing of Measure H was open for parents or the public to participate. In fact, according to Debbie Wong, AUSD Assistant Superintendant, only 1 district parent was involved with putting together the curriculum. http://www.alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3558&Itemid=10 Related article from July 4th Sun.
There were 20 committee members who collaborated in putting the proposed curriculum together including teachers representing the 10 elementary schools, AUSD administrative staff, and the outside "coach" the District employed, Barry Chersky. Barry is a gay parent and long-time, self-labeled, LGBTQ activist, who has been promoting that agenda at Bay Area school districts, including the San Leandro school district for over 5 years, and worked with Debbie Wong there. According to Barry's website his child has 2 gay fathers and 2 lesbian mothers, and I agree his child has a right to feel safe in school. This however does not provide Barry or AUSD the right to promote or discuss his lifestyle in our schools any more than parents with other beliefs and lifestyles. Some parents could be comfortable with their 'Militant Christianity' lifestyle, or even a 'White Supremacy' lifestyle. There are children whose families have drug and alcohol problems, obesity, crack addiction and prostitution or persistent problems with incarceration. AUSD would also have the obligation to ensure the safety of those children, but I hope the lifestyle of their home life would not become a part of K-5 curriculum.
This curriculum issue came as a shock to Earhart parents this past week. PTA executive board members I spoke to said they just heard about this, and yet they wanted to be involved with forming the curriculum, and made that known last spring. Like with the adoption of Measure H, parents will have a chance to comment, but that is very different from having meaningful input on what would or would not be included in a LGBTQ segment of the curriculum to be taught to our kids. I heard that other elementary schools in the district are just now informing parents. This could be very damaging to the trust issue between the community and our school district.
For dealing with future issues I strongly urge the Superintendant's Office to immediately request and collate the e-mail contacts for all parents from every facility, every PTA and school, and that the District office take the lead role when it is appropriate to contact all district parents rather than leaving it up to the sites independently to represent the District Administration.
For me, feeling blind-sided by this agenda, the breech of trust is paramount.
For many others at the Earhart meetings on this issue, the need is to enable or allow parents to opt out their kids; for the District to respect and honor their religious and moral beliefs.
Many parents also voiced that they felt it is impossible for an instructor not to initiate a moral value on, or teach about sexual orientation & gender identity without raising the concept of human sexuality – and opening that proverbial can of worms long before many parents want it part of their children's paradigm.
Parents also recognized that at the elementary level kids are still just learning the power of words – the power to hurt or comfort others. Many young children are also more expressive or less repressed – they will retaliate with words especially when hungry, cranky, or tired, and teaching them new vocabulary will have little affect other than broadening the scope of words they choose to use. Kids will still be kids, but how much more blissful ignorance will be stripped from them too early in life?
Despite considering myself extremely tolerant and sensitive to gay rights, I don't place gay rights above the rights of any other group. That is another sticky point with this new curriculum – why does it seem the LGBTQ views are being handled separately from other bullying issues?
All the selected teaching material comes not from an established publisher of academic or civil rights material but is from an activist-oriented nonprofit based in SF. That is not a statement on the quality of the material, but it is clearly an agenda-based publisher.
At the District office I looked at the teaching materials to be used, and there is too little regulation on what, how, and when, issues could be brought up by teachers without parental consent. Many parents do care about these hot-button issues and what information and opinions their young children are exposed or subjected to, especially at such an early age.
It is also about being able to trust the District to be their word. They did not follow what they promised last spring – that in the fall there would be staff and parent meetings from which a curriculum would be decided and planed. The District unilaterally reversed itself without bothering to tell the community. In fact the 7-4-08 Sun article reads differently from what Earhart PTA officers say they have in writing regarding the promises of AUSD to foster parent or community involvement before a curriculum is created.
Suggested reading: http://www.mikemcmahon.info/orientation.pdf too bad the district did not follow the pointers for them at that site.
While it may be too late for the District to make a good 1st impression on this topic, I was encouraged to learn that the District has decided to place this on the BOE meeting agenda as an "informational item" on 2-24-09, and delay the BOE vote until the following meeting. It will be interesting to see how our new Superintendant and new BOE regard our community with our incredible diversity in backgrounds, needs, and expectations. This may give some idea of the willingness of the board to listen to the community in the fiscal struggles that lie ahead.
Personally, I hope our elected representatives play a firm steady hand and go forth and approve to start the adult training components for district staff, to enable them get materials and training leading to practical experience without the program being K-5 curriculum based for specific issues. Maybe some materials should also go on-line for parents to be informed and to educate parents how to reinforce the non-judgmental understanding the District wants to promote. Because the District lacks sufficient funds it will be a lengthy process to have all staff adequately trained. It seems prudent to focus on staff training, and to determine classroom curriculum for the hot button issues by holding a sufficient number of parent workshops, and getting at least a majority of parents on-board, and allowing concerns to shape the program, and for the understanding of the program to trickle thru the community. This could be done while improvements are being made throughout the District as a result of any bullying, or 'playground issues', allowing staff an opportunity to model their training.
While this is certainly not an exhaustive list of concerns for the proposed curriculum, it does express some of the concerns I have regarding this agenda item. I have always felt very fortunate that our community has such a quality educational system for us to send our children to, and I understand that much of this proposal is promoted as benign. I have always felt comfortable sending our children to our schools. My youngest child will be entering the 4th grade next year, and our family has participated in supporting our friends in the SF Pride Parade several times, walking with or riding in 'Marriage Equality' floats, and my wife was a part of the birth of the child our some of our closest lesbian couples. I want to make it understood that my concerns are not homophobic in origin, and I feel my family will not really be affected by the outcome of the Board decision. My concerned is about the affect on our community and our school district.
Many years ago, before my older child entered the AUSD system, I was appalled that one teacher ultimately lost her position for having her students watch an episode of "Ellen", a talk show with a lesbian host. While I applaud the change of direction and progress AUSD had made, I caution 'over-swinging the pendulum."
Because this continues to be such a divisive issue AUSD can and should get each lesson vetted by the community for acceptance. This could be very beneficial for the district. It should be fairly easy if the lessons are as helpful and benign as promoted, it will open the channels of communication between the district and the community and also teach participants how to improve social dialogue which will be helpful as the district will likely need further support and sacrifice from the community. This process could develop into a win-win for the further development of the district.
TOP
Parent 1/30/09
Tonight was the first time I have seen any of the actual materials, and what I saw appeared to be appropriate for K-3. What I didn't see is what has me concerned.
You asked for specific criticism of the curriculum materials, and I have two. The first is that they are too broad. It is impossible to anticipate their application from one classroom to the next. Second, the vocabulary list for K-5 needs to be presented by grade level with the words and definitions teachers will be trained to use.
Despite the diverse opinions expressed last night, there was some common ground. Parents want lessons in diversity and tolerance for all groups. They want these lessons embedded in the current Anti-bullying and Caring Schools Communities curriculum. They do not want lessons on lesbian and gay issues to address sexuality in the primary grades.
As you heard tonight, there is a lack of trust between the community and the district. This concerns me deeply. Whether we like it or not this district is financially dependent on the community and will be far into the future unless difficult changes are made. The conduct of the committee thus far has done little to earn the trust or respect of the community. This has to change before the greater community meetings. I caution you not to be so condescending when you face them next week. Respect the fact that this is uncomfortable for many and don't assume that anyone who questions the curriculum or the process is narrow-minded and intolerant. This issue will be divisive enough without taking an "are you with us or are you against us" approach. Regardless of the outcome, we will be a community. At the very least 66.67% of us need to be on board.
I believe these materials were created with the best intentions and look forward to the outcome.
TOP
Parent 1/29/09
I have three children currently in the Alameda School system and two more entering soon. I recently learned of the initiative to introduce material on LGBT into the elementary curriculm to support the goal of "Ensuring all students will be in educational environments that are safe and conducive to learning." The LBGT curriculm will be introduced without an opt out option for parents. The attached document overviews the thinking behind this initiative and references a student administered research project from October 2008 called "School Climate Survey."
I implement market research and develop business plans as a part of my job. If I could see the actual survey questionnaire and overview of the survey methodology, including the tabulated results, maybe I could better understand the conclusions and recommendation for the new curriculm.
Will that information be made available to the public and or how do I obtain that information?
TOP
Parent 1/28/09
I am shocked to learn that my child is likely to have the class to learn LGBT under the topic of family in the next school year (or near future). I have read the document of "Addressing issues of sexual orientation & Gender Identity". I am not comfortable to let young children to be exposed to the sexual topic. Even sadly to face the situation if school teaches our innocent children that LGBT is an acceptable family choice. If it is the thing the school board has to implement, I hope parents can have the notification before such topic is taught and our children can be opt out during the class, related movie watching, and avoid such books in school library. I hope school board can take more time to let parents well informed about this issue and let parents vote.
TOP
Parent 1/27/09
Is there anything specific regarding the wording of the proposed curriculums for the sexual orientation discussions to take place in the classrooms? What grade levels will be taught the curriculum?
I understand the Board's position that parental consent is not required because the ultimate goal of the curriculum is safety, not sex-education, however, how a teacher presents the material and answers questions could result in a very sex-related discussion.
TOP
Parent 1/26/09
In our school's PTA meeting, there were some people who were either against this or wanting to know more details about this. I was a bit confused about what their controversy actually was. I am a true believer in accepting all people - regardless of ANYTHING and teach my children the same (which is why I have taken them with my husband to anti Prop 8 rallies). This helps me understand what you are trying to accomplish with the new curriculum and I'm 100% behind it!
TOP
Parent 1/26/09
Will parents be allowed to give feedback at these meetings? Will this feedback be taken into account before final grade level lesson plans are finalized?
TOP
Parent 6/28/08
After further consideration, if it is considered vital by the BOE, and if there is the available funds in the AUSD general fund, I am not at all opposed to the advancement of teacher facilitation skills, through seminars or workshops, for the purpose of further training all or part of AUSD staff, including classified staff, to better learn how to prevent, or intervene whenever there is the slightest perceived harassment of anyone, by anyone on school grounds or during any school activity.
This training should include all aspects of harassment recognized by law or decency, not just those based on perceived or actual sexual identity.
In fact I feel it is important that all adults in the employ of AUSD set a good example, and get all reasonable training to demonstrate common decency and to methodically intervene when others violate the legal code of decency as prescribed by the BOE and protected by CA anti-discrimination laws.
Far too often adults don’t step in to intervene on behalf of common or legally required decency. Training is likely in order.
Within all realms of AUSD activity, no discrimination, bullying, or harassment should ever be tolerated. I think it would be excellent if all AUSD employees were taught how to comfortably intervene using an established protocol, wherever they perceive acts of harassment. If any student is a “repetitive offender” perhaps they and/or their parents should be required to complete online workshops that would not be at significant cost to the District.
I still see no reason for the District to go overboard addressing issues of sexual orientation & gender identity when there are a myriad of personal characteristics of equal importance.
I have not yet been able to find Board Policy 5145.3 which is referenced in the PowerPoint Presentation on District Goal # 3:
“Ensure all students will be in educational environments that are safe and conducive to learning”
As I read District Goal #3 I see nothing about teaching Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (and common sense I believe dictates it would not be a curriculum to kindergarten and primary grades.)
In fact, perhaps out of context, I thought District Goal #3 was related to students’ physical safety as covered in the “Field Act”.
When I looked up Education Code section 2000, as reference in the PowerPoint slide on District Goal#3, here is what I found:
EDUCATION CODE SECTION 2000-2011
2000. The county superintendent of schools of any county contiguous to an adjoining state may grant permission to pupils residing in the county to attend elementary school or high school in a school district of the adjoining state and may provide for the transportation of the pupils to the school.
When I read this as referenced in the PowerPoint Presentation presented to the BOE June 24 regarding the proposed new curriculum for teaching Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, I see nothing about teaching Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. Why was this referenced?
Another source referenced in that PP slide on District Goal #3 is Penal Code 422.6 (A):
California Penal Code
PENAL CODE SECTION 422.6-422.95
422.6. (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States because of the other person's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or because he or she perceives that the other person has one or more of those characteristics.
When I read this I see nothing about teaching Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
Why are GLB interests elevated in priority over all the other protected human characteristics?
The last referenced material related to the slide on District Goal #3 is AB 537.
Basically this Assembly Bill added two new prohibited forms of discrimination to the existing prohibitions against discrimination and harassment in California public schools: actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Bill’s Advisory Task Forced also included the following non-binding recommendations:
The task force reviewed state data, researched the issues, and held many discussions to develop recommendations in five theme areas: providing access to resources for students and staff about sexual orientation and gender identity issues and hate violence; developing research to identify issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity and hate violence; creating accountability and enforcement guidelines at schools; providing advisory committee and staff support to monitor AB 537 provisions; and formulating state policy.
When I read this I see nothing about teaching Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, and certainly nothing about teaching it to as part of a curriculum to kindergarten and primary grades. Could it be that despite the lack of an adequate basic education budget someone is trying to sell AUSD and the BOE the idea of stepping up the Bill’s intent to include far more than is the intent of AB 537?
My natural curiosity forces me to ask “Who and why?”
TOP
Parent 6/26/08
I have taught my children about tolerance. I am very proud of them.
As 3rd & 6th graders they have their own gender identity, but they don’t give a hoot about sexual preferences of others. Sexuality, especially transgender is not part of their life experience, nor do I want it to be at their age. They don’t need to form concepts or hold opinions on such issues. They are young kids, not young adults. We have gay and lesbian friends and it is a non-issue for them, - total acceptance. We’ve taken them to the Pride Parade, and they had fun. (Parades are fun for kids of all ages.) One year we even rode with some of the grand marshals. That year, and the prior year we were helping friends working on “Marriage Equality.”
My kids probably don’t even recognize sexual preference issues, let alone transgender issues. Sexual identity or transgender concepts are just too much for kids of elementary school age.
My understanding of this particular AUSD issue is that it started at Franklin because one 5 year old boy came to school wearing a dress.
Then the school put on a special seminar to encourage acceptance of transgender, which needed to be coupled with an explanation of sexual identity.
DO PARENTS HAVE TO WAKE UP TO WHAT IS CONSIDERED SCHOOL PRIORITIES DESPITE BUDGET PROBLEMS?
I LEARNED THAT THE SEMINAR ALREADY HAPPENED WITHOUT PRIOR NOTIFICATION TO PARENTS wHICH IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE
WAS THIS SEMINAR APPROVED BY AUSD BEFORE IT HAPPENED?
The boy’s behavior is called “Dress-up”, or “pretending”, and “play”. Kids do that.
Well most kids do – perhaps some parents were not aware of that as they are wrapped too tight and blinded by their own perceptions.
This is not a call to label the boy as trans-gender, or gay. For god’s sake let kids be kids. Even if this was to “raise awareness”, how will most other kids now perceive the boy this issue became an issue for? Did the parents want all other kids to be “transgender trained?” Will they now sue because they were not informed by AUSD counselors that this action could stigmatize their child?
If this is an example of how our tax dollars get spent why would we want to support such BS?
Franklin PTA should focus their resources on a reality check for the school’s parents. AUSD should take action to protect our District’s reputation.
This idea of teaching kindergarten and primary schoolers about transgender is not a right wing or left wing, left coast, or a corn-fed philosophy – it is the bazaar sub-basement of “Political Correctness”. Get a grip.
If the issue was pursued by AUSD because of the ‘Risk Management’ office, let’s eliminate that office if it can’t be infused with common sense.
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO TEACH ABOUT SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR TRANSGENDER, TO TEACH ABOUT HOW TO BE NICE TO EACH OTHER
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO TEACH ABOUT SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR TRANSGENDER FOR ANY REASON TO LITTLE KIDS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
You don’t have to drag sex, straight or queer, into lessons on acceptable behavior or tolerance of others especially to a crowd so young that I believe most parents would say “What gives you the right…?”
The components of sexual, non-hetero, relationships and the people who display them, have nothing more to do with need for tolerance of others than does alcoholism, cancer, racial differences, language differences, heroin addicts, wealthy Saudis, indigent Indians, military kids, Eskimos, children of famed cricket players, obesity, homeless, Irish, lotto players, people who wear glasses, dog owners, cat owners, Asians, rednecks, physically or mentally impaired, heterosexuals, rappers and cappers.
If we all agree that kids should be taught tolerance will we have a special program designed for each issue that could possibly invoke taunting, or do we just not allow taunting or ridicule period?
While I strongly agree with the ‘tolerance lessons’ or acceptance assemblies that have been ongoing for years - see http://www.soulshoppe.com/services/assemblies.html for some of the programs currently used in AUSD, which my kids told me about.
I vehemently reject basing any kind of teaching on sexual identification, sexual preferences, transgender awareness, hetero or homosexuality while the kids are so young that they barley even grasp what gender identity is and what it fully means. Just think of the terms parents use to try to talk with them about sexual predators and how not to be a potential victim.
If any Alameda public school teacher or official tries to install such a program to especially at any elementary school, AUSD will face accusations that it is being done by principals or staff trying to create support their own sexual identity, or to encourage certain views from very impressionable young children most of whom do not yet HAVE a sexual identity.
I will be on that line to sign the class action lawsuit if a program is started at elementary school level on sexual identity, transgender tolerance etc.
TOP
Comments. Questions. Broken links? Bad spelling! Incorrect Grammar? Let me know at webmaster.
Last modified: , 2009
Disclaimer: This website is the sole responsibility of Mike McMahon. It does not represent any official opinions, statement of facts or positions of the Alameda Unified School District. Its sole purpose is to disseminate information to interested individuals in the Alameda community. FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
