Monday, October 17, 2011

California Public Schools to Teach Homosexual Curriculum to Children as Young as Kindergartners

This was in the news when the legislature authorized teaching homosexual studies some time back.

And now at LAT, "California schools scrambling to add lessons on LGBT Americans."

If this were being introduced when kids are in, say, 5th or 6th grade, I personally wouldn't have an issue with it for my own kids. But as it is, kindergarten or 1st grade, and so on? God, that's almost obscene in its assumptions. It's understandable why parents would object. I recently asked my 10-year-old if he knew what homosexuality was. He didn't have a clue, so I explained it to him. He didn't seem to care that much about it, but the point is I'd prefer it was my wife and I talking about these things with him, especially in the moral context. I would not teach my child that all family structures are equal, for example. My position is that the traditional household with one father and one mother is the most healthy and prosperous for children. Schools will teach kids that all alternative family arrangements are equally valid, and that's a radical curriculum.

In any case, from the article:
At Wonderland Avenue Elementary School in Laurel Canyon, there are lesson plans on diverse families — including those with two mommies or daddies — books on homosexual authors in the library and a principal who is openly gay.

But even at this school, teachers and administrators are flummoxed about how to carry out a new law requiring California public schools to teach all students — from kindergartners to 12th graders — about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans in history classes.

"At this point, I wouldn't even know where to begin," Principal Don Wilson said.

Educators across the state don't have much time to figure it out. In January, they're expected to begin teaching about LGBT Americans under California's landmark law, the first of its kind in the nation.

The law has sparked confusion about what, exactly, is supposed to be taught. Will fourth-graders learn that some of the Gold Rush miners were gay and helped build San Francisco? Will students be taught about the "two-spirited people" tradition among some Native Americans, as one gay historian mused?

"I'm not sure how we plug it into the curriculum at the grade school level, if at all," said Paul Boneberg, executive director at the GLBT Historical Society in San Francisco.

School districts will have little help in navigating this sensitive and controversial change, which has already prompted some parents to pull their children out of public schools.
Well, yeah. I don't have kids that young, kindergarten or 1st grade, but my youngest would still be introduced to these topics as a 4th grader. I don't think he's ready. He barely knows that much about sexuality at all. We talk about it when he has questions. He's more worried about Beyblades.


Anonymous said...

I vividly remember back in Michigan in the 80's, a brochure being used in public schools entitled, "Daddy's New Friend", which told the story of a divorced daddy who now had a very close and special male friend who was living with him.


Guess what grade level this brochure was targeted at? 3rd grade.

Our children are under attack. If it isn't Planned Parenthood gunning for them, it's the homosexuals. God save this nation.

Adrienne said...

What exactly does the manner in which someone engages in sex got to do with history? Are these children to be taught that Jefferson only had sex in the missionary position, or that Lincoln liked - well, I think you get the idea.

Teach 5th graders about homosexuality? How about teaching them to read first. The schools need to stay out of sex and stick to academics.

Bruce Hall said...

Why stop there? Shouldn't those young children be taught about those adults who want them to be "special friends?" Maybe they could be given example lessons.

At what point does the right of minorities become more important than the right of majorities? Protecting the sexually fringe from harassment is not the same as the state promoting the sexual fringe's behaviors. The argument that it is the duty of the schools to educate small children about the sexual fringe in order to protect the sexual fringe is no more valid than saying it is the duty of the schools to expose small children to sadism or bondage or any other manner of behavior other than treating people with respect until such time that those people fail to treat you or your family with respect. Do unto others... even if they are different from you. Beyond that, it is indoctrination.

No further explanation is required... or healthy... or of historical significance... to a 4 or 5-year old... or 10-year old... or adult.

AmPowerBlog said...

Bruce: If the schools were simply making reference to the struggle for civil rights for gays, I wouldn't have that big a problem with it. My kid had sex ed in 7th grade. I attended the orientations. I could handle it, because we covered most of the bird and bees at home. And we could monitor how it was going. My problem is the extreme young age, and the essential replacement of parents by the schools. In sum, if there's some proper context to it I'm not automatically opposed. Of course, in the big picture, we probably can't trust the schools to do the right thing, as far as maintaining proper age and perspective, so yeah. This is a big problem.