CA Schools Curriculum: Inclusive of Historical Accomplishments of Gay Men & Lesbians

[Kimberlyd125]

Gay people aren't the ones who are causing this issue. it's the groups of people who still feel the need to categorize people by who they have sex with and discriminate against them because of it.

If they were never ostracized because of their sexual preference there wouldn't be a need to undo that tragic bigotry.

It's a solution needed because of bigotry. Gay people aren't trying to recruit people.

Not sure why you quoted my post.

I could care less who anybody sleeps with.

But, I would like the choice of teaching my child at home about this issue the way I see fit.
Especially a 5 year old.

If it must be taught in school, there should be an option for the parents of young kids to opt out.

 

[Charlie09]

NOTE: when I wrote in post #133 that "I was the first one to mention the complicated relationship between Harvey Milk and Dan White...", I meant I was the first poster in this thread to do so. I regret my lack of clarity.

I certainly wasn't the first to write that history. I lived in New York at the time and it seemed like two more assassinations in a long line that began with JFK.

Yeah, I had talked about it earlier in the other thread as well.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Yeah, I had talked about it earlier in the other thread as well.

I get confused as to what was said on which thread. Hard to keep up.

 

[Emma Peel]

Everything is an agenda from some point of view and everyone has many agendas. What do you think will be taught to kindergarteners?

There are plenty of opinions around the web about what this law's "gay agenda" is, exactly.

Some opinions are, IMO, are intentionally over-the-top and grossly exaggerated that even the opinion has a clear agenda.

Apparently, many opinionators want Californians to believe the law's "real agenda" is to indoctrinate k-6 students into the homosexual, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered lifestyle.

Unfortunately, there is not a lot of talk with regard to, now, that it's law, what is proposed to be included at each grade level. The state needs to get busy providing this info, since plenty of grossly exaggerated assumptions are being made in place of actual curriculum info from the state.

Here's a quick sampling:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/california-adds-gay-rights-advocates-to-history-books.html

Opponents of the bill argue that the curriculum changes are one-sided and prevent teachers from presenting any negative information about homosexual people.

“We feel it represents essentially a decision to inject pro-homosexual ideological propaganda into our schools,” said Peter Sprigg , a Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at Family Research Council which advocates for Christian-based family values.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...story-bill-push-begins-overturn_n_900799.html

SACRAMENTO, California -- A family advocacy group is already challenging a new California law that adds lessons about gays to social studies classes.

http://www.rescueyourchild.com/The_Problem.html

Parents alarmed about new homosexual indoctrination laws

A raft of recent California laws will eventually require all public school instruction and activities to positively portray transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality to children as young as kindergarten.

What’s more, beyond these school sexual indoctrination laws

1. There is no California statute prohibiting public school teachers from promoting any legal sexual lifestyle or sexual practice.

2. Schools can and do hold lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender “diversity day," "week" or "month.”

3. Schools can and many do permit the pro-“LGBT” “Day of Silence” every April.

4. Districts must permit “Gay-Straight Alliance” clubs on high school and junior high campuses. In California, there are more than 850 of these clubs, with a staff sponsor, promoting homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality on campus to the entire student body. In 2011, these "GSA" clubs sponsored "Harvey Milk Day" forced indoctrination.

The Problem Facing California Public School Parents

What your child is guaranteed in California public schools <snipped for relevance>
:

1. Homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination
...
<snipped>

5. Political correctness
...

7. Negative socialization and peer pressure

...

9. Anti-Christian indoctrination and widespread rejection of religious and moral values

10. Anti-parent sentiments

:sigh:

 

[Emma Peel]

Not sure why you quoted my post.

I could care less who anybody sleeps with.

But, I would like the choice of teaching my child at home about this issue the way I see fit.
Especially a 5 year old.

If it must be taught in school, there should be an option for the parents of young kids to opt out.

The law leaves grade-level inclusive curriculum specifics up to the school districts.

Would it be helpful for parents to know what the "diversity/tolerance/social studies/history" curriculum was to include exactly at each grade level.

Would that make parents more comfortable?

 

[Charlie09]

I get confused as to what was said on which thread. Hard to keep up.

I'm still not sure why someone felt compelled to start a new thread when they were apparently posting on the other thread...but I guess it doesn't matter.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

The law leaves grade-level inclusive curriculum specifics up to the school districts.

Would it be helpful for parents to know what the "diversity/tolerance/social studies/history" curriculum was to include exactly at each grade level.

Would that make parents more comfortable?

That's the problem Emma. It's leaving too much control to the individual systems.

Why not just start this later for everyone.

K-5 aged children are too young IMO.

I would also like to see an opt out option.

 

[Emma Peel]

That's the problem Emma. It's leaving too much control to the individual systems.

Why not just start this later for everyone.

K-5 aged children are too young IMO.

I would also like to see an opt out option.

Would some families still wish to opt out of a learning unit on "there's many ways to be a family" at k-5 level - assuming they were provided curriculum and materials in advance?

I'm not really understanding objections to that - but my understanding is based on my own experience.

The minute my little ones hit public school, I recall wanting/needing to talking about different kinds of families.

I realized I had to, because it was the right thing to do for them.

The families in their classes were often so different than ours - I wanted my children to ask ME and not their classmates why they didn't have a daddy, or why they lived with their grands - for example.

After a matter of fact chat, they accepted that kids could have different kinds of families. And that was that. No biggie.

I guess I don't understand why parents would feel compelled to opt their children out of a learning unit or age-appropriate story in the classroom on this topic. Parents enroll their children in school... then they have to expect it's going to come up naturally as the children get to know each other... and that's how their world begins to expand and that's how they grow and learn their place in their community.

 

[Chewy]

Not sure why you quoted my post.

I could care less who anybody sleeps with.

But, I would like the choice of teaching my child at home about this issue the way I see fit.
Especially a 5 year old.

If it must be taught in school, there should be an option for the parents of young kids to opt out.

"IT" ? They are sharing the accomplishments of members of the LGBT community? Do you really think they are going to teach a bunch of five year olds how gay men have sex?

I love how (not you) but most people opposed to this are trying to spin it like they are going to force little children to learn about gay sex!! When you teach the accomplishments of heterosexual people do you break it down from the start by teaching them how to have sex the straight way?

I swear if it wasn't serious it would be so amusing.

 

[Emma Peel]

Will they include bad gay people in the history classes? There are a lot of bad people in our history books.

Just wondering since this was marketed as a way to stop bullying.

There are no bad gay people.

But there have been people who insist that gay people are bad. In a civil rights unit, it makes sense one or two of them would be included the history classes. :yes:

More to your point, while nobody's perfect, role modeling typically assumes the role models fall in the good people doing good things category...

 

[Charlie09]

"IT" ? They are sharing the accomplishments of members of the LGBT community? Do you really think they are going to teach a bunch of five year olds how gay men have sex?

I love how (not you) but most people opposed to this are trying to spin it like they are going to force little children to learn about gay sex!! When you teach the accomplishments of heterosexual people do you break it down from the start by teaching them how to have sex the straight way?

I swear if it wasn't serious it would be so amusing.

I think the point that is missed on the other side is that people are going to be picked SOLELY based on their sexual orientation, and it's a fairly broad definition. So if there's a requirement to teach kids about a famous transgendered person...and we can only find a recent examples, are we going to choose RuPaul? Because he's black and transgendered? so because he's "an American actor, drag queen, model, author, and singer-songwriter" ??? (and may even be responsible for introducing some of us to the Pre-Estee Lauder MAC make up line....)that's who gets chosen to fit a criteria?

Of course I'm being extreme, but the law is completely ambiguous and allows for teaching to kinders and up about transgender, bi, and gay people who are famous solely for their sexual behavior.

 

[MargotKidder]

I'm still not sure why someone felt compelled to start a new thread when they were apparently posting on the other thread...but I guess it doesn't matter.

Hi Charlie,

I think, but am not 100% sure, that the political pavillion in which the other thread was started, is just viewable to the members of websleuths. This thread is viewable to anyone on the internet. Am I correct, or am I wrong? I think that is why, maybe?

 

[ziggy]

When I look at the lists of names some have provided, many of those people don't need to be singled out as gay or bi for us to recognize they have made a contribution in our culture or history; it's not really a factor. As for the mandatory nature of the bill, I find it overreaching. Young people can learn about great gay history makers in college. Bullying isn't a gay issue...it's braces, being flat chested (or the opposite), a ginger, too short, a Jehovah's Witness, a poor kid, a "" etc. I feel the bullying issue is narrowed by the mandatory teaching of gay history with the premise of curbing bullying. Am I making any sense? The intent seems misplaced as does the venue for the courses.

I feel great people who contribute don't have to be categorized by who they chose to love or sleep with. Hey, I thought Paul Lind, Liberace, Elton John etc. were "eccentric". We love them for their talents and it doesn't matter if I knew or should have known whether or not they were gay or bi.

 

[Donjeta]

Why it matters IMO is, because if someone doesn't know that some of the people they love are gay, they may assume they are all straight. We need to hear some good things about gays to balance the negative opinions that are everywhere.

 

[Emma Peel]

I think the point that is missed on the other side is that people are going to be picked SOLELY based on their sexual orientation, and it's a fairly broad definition. So if there's a requirement to teach kids about a famous transgendered person...and we can only find a recent examples, are we going to choose RuPaul? Because he's black and transgendered? so because he's "an American actor, drag queen, model, author, and singer-songwriter" ??? (and may even be responsible for introducing some of us to the Pre-Estee Lauder MAC make up line....)that's who gets chosen to fit a criteria?

Of course I'm being extreme, but the law is completely ambiguous and allows for teaching to kinders and up about transgender, bi, and gay people who are famous solely for their sexual behavior.

Ru Paul would be a poor choice as a black transgender. Primarily Because he is not transgender. He is a gay man. And an entertainer.

As you say you are being extreme.

Absolutely nothing suggests that for any practical purpose, the requirement for gay history inclusiveness means that "people are going to be picked SOLELY based on their sexual orientation".

Well nothing except perhaps the conservative Christian "agenda".

:cow:

 

[Charlie09]

Why it matters IMO is, because if someone doesn't know that some of the people they love are gay, they may assume they are all straight. We need to hear some good things about gays to balance the negative opinions that are everywhere.

This is not the job of schools teaching history though.

 

[Donjeta]

Absolutely nothing suggests that for any practical purpose, the requirement for gay history inclusiveness means that "people are going to be picked SOLELY based on their sexual orientation".

Anyway, it wouldn't work as legislated if they do it that way. The law says they are to study the role and development of these people in the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America and they bring up someone saying, "so this guy was gay", and the kids ask, "Okay but what did he do?" and the teacher responds, "Um, I don't know, nothing I guess, he was just gay." It won't do anything for the children's understanding of the economic, political and social development of California.

 

[Donjeta]

This is not the job of schools teaching history though.

I was talking on personal level, why it matters to me if I know Elton John and Liberace are gay or not. I don't think they're going to be mentioned in history lessons for a while.

But as far as history lessons go, if something good in the world history is related to gay people, I don't know why it wouldn't be the school's job to tell the children that. They're there to share pertinent facts with the children and help them understand what's been going on in the world and that's part of it. They also tell them some good things related to straight people as well as a great deal of bad things that have gone on in the world history concerning all the groups.

 

[Emma Peel]

When I look at the lists of names some have provided, many of those people don't need to be singled out as gay or bi for us to recognize they have made a contribution in our culture or history; it's not really a factor. As for the mandatory nature of the bill, I find it overreaching. Young people can learn about great gay history makers in college. Bullying isn't a gay issue...it's braces, being flat chested (or the opposite), a ginger, too short, a Jehovah's Witness, a poor kid, a "" etc. I feel the bullying issue is narrowed by the mandatory teaching of gay history with the premise of curbing bullying. Am I making any sense? The intent seems misplaced as does the venue for the courses.

I feel great people who contribute don't have to be categorized by who they chose to love or sleep with. Hey, I thought Paul Lind, Liberace, Elton John etc. were "eccentric". We love them for their talents and it doesn't matter if I knew or should have known whether or not they were gay or bi.

Many have posted similar feelings.

As for bullying being a gay issue, you can refer to my 2 posts above with all the video you-tube links.

Or try these links:

http://www.thetrevorproject.org/

http://www.itgetsbetter.org/

Consider asking an adult gay relative or friend (who has lived it) how gay history in their secondary education would have made a difference in their life. You might be surprised to hear what they have to say.

The loneliness that some gay students experience in school is completely different than having braces or red hair. The recognition that they are to the core, completely "different" - can trigger a profound loneliness that they are not sure they'll ever escape.

It's not about being bullied and teased for looking different.

It's about knowing you are undeniably different and not actually knowing of there's life after different.

To be able to watch your peers react positively to info about gay history - when you were wondering if they'd ever accept the real you - to learn, along with your peers, about gay history & historical characters - well, that's what we're talking about.

The law requires curriculum inclusiveness for gay (and for disabled) in secondary education. It brings awareness on a timely basis in student's social development (both gay & straight/able-bodied & disabled) by providing a more complete depiction of the lives of historical gay people (and disabled people), and the validation of their struggle to acquire civil rights.

It's not over-reaching. It's presented naturally, in the same time frame as other minority group civil rights story discussions.

Helps offset what they will inevitably hear on the bus, IMO.

:cow:

 

[Whisperer]

Just jumping in w/o reading the thread...

What in the world has happened to teaching Amercan History? Our kids don't know anything about the Founding Fathers or the Constitution? How in the world can they put gays in perspective w/o even understanding the history of the country. They don't even know anything about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and suddenly we want to hit them up with Gay Heroes.

Call me old-fashioned but this is crazy...Teacher need to lay a foundation...not preach about political polarizing issues.