Comments on: Anoka-Hennepin School District's Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 30 May 2018 21:08:42 +0000

Again .. in terms of Warren's initial post .. I think it would be good to see what the school is actually saying ... I give two links (here and here) to this in my post at 3:57 PM. The school is gong well beyond not giving any direction but appears to be avoiding any moral instruction. I also found some of the NEA information referred to in the one document to be informative. Dave

By: M. Worrell

M. Worrell — Wed, 30 May 2018 21:08:41 +0000

Ken# ~ Sep 15, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Ken, I think you’re assuming a few things that are not reliably true:
1) That teachers know enough objective factual information on subjects outside their area of concentration to competently correct a student’s assertions. In some cases they might, but as a parent who has on several occasions had to correct my daughter’s teachers’ false assertions about Christianity and other topics, my level of confidence is low. This isn’t a slam against teachers… why should they be expected to do such a thing?
2) That only false information is offensive. I can assure you that liberals, conservatives, gays and lesbians, Christians, Muslims, and nearly everyone else on planet earth is less than appreciative of the unadorned facts being presented to their kids by a third party.
3) I’m not an expert on homosexuality or Mohammed, but I was an Art Education major. Be glad that had I gone on to teach in the public schools, I would be teaching art, not theology or human sexuality.
I’m attempting to step out of the combat zone and say, “How can we protect every child without making moral value judgments or decisions about levels of exposure to facts that parents are better able (and entitled) to navigate?”
Everyone… I mean EVERYONE… loves to steer public school policy, and everyone has an agenda. So let’s just accept that and try to focus on the basics. One basic is that every kid… ugly, fat, gay, skinny, Christian, atheist, brilliant… whatever. They all deserve to be safe from bullying, and they don’t have to agree with their teacher.

By: M. Worrell

M. Worrell — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:30:32 +0000

I really do not think the teacher should say anything. Why do they need to respond to or correct the kid’s misconceptions on the spot? Can’t they just insist on a level of consideration for others that makes such remarks inappropriate for the classroom? Then take it up with the parents if required? I just think it’s a huge mistake to place teachers in the role of parenting or trying to correct the biases of the students. If a child from an irreligious household wants to believe that Christianity is dangerous or damaging, or that homosexuality (or a love for professional wrestling) is a sign of mental illness, is that really up to the school to address?
If a student insists on telling their fellow students that they are going to burn in hell forever, I don’t think the teacher should be insisting that they won’t. The teacher should just ask the student to discontinue making upsetting remarks out of simple politeness. Micromanaging the brains of kids just does not make sense to me.
No name calling, no hitting, no teasing, of any sort. Period. I don’t see the difficulty with that, except that it is completely free from agendas of any kind.

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:30:32 +0000

In a bullying situation, M. Worrell, you would be of some value but not to the degree necessary. You might say for a student to stop making disparaging remarks, but you would not support the bullied student.
Furthermore, the school is a place to learn facts. It is a fact that all mental health groups believe homosexuality not to be mental disorder. With your approach, political concerns about the matter keep kids from hearing facts. You may not like those facts but you are advocating keeping facts from kids. Strange move for a school.

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:30:32 +0000

M. Worrell# ~ Sep 15, 2011 at 1:51 pm
“Do we want to discuss certain objective facts about Mohammed in an 8th grade classroom where, say, a couple of Muslim students are in attendance?”
If the christian students were spreading false information about Mohammed and islam, and upsetting (or even threatening) the muslim students then yes, I would want the teacher to correct that false information with accurate information. And I’m sure the muslim students would appreciate it as well. Now, that doesn’t mean the teacher has to give an entire history of islam, just correct the false information being used to hurt other students.
And I suspect that what you, M. Worrel, think you know about Mohammed is probably about as accurate as what PAL knows about homosexuality.

By: Michael Christoph

Michael Christoph — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:30:32 +0000

The primary function of a school is, of course, education. Beyond that, schools are a social training ground to prepare students to be productive members of a larger community. It IS the schools responsibility to teach tolerance and acceptance. The current “neutrality” policy denies the school’s faculty the ability to be supportive of LGBT students who are facing harassement and, in essence, that reinforces a bully’s intolerance. Also note that this policy is not universally neutral.
Just because Jane is jewish, she is no less than you. Just because Roger is in a wheelchair, he is no less than you. Just because Aaron is black, he is no less than you. Just because Lindsay is gay…. well, just stop hitting her.

By: M. Worrell

M. Worrell — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:30:32 +0000

I believe the bullied student (and the teacher, honestly) can be better protected and supported in the context of every student having the unassailable right to attend school without feeling in any way unsafe. There is no room for a value judgment of any kind to impact that right one way or another. Every student should own it and be encouraged to count on it.
In terms of keeping facts from students, yes, I think that’s absolutely appropriate at times. Not all facts are appropriate to discuss as part of a public school education, and certainly not in every grade. Do we want to discuss certain objective facts about Mohammed in an 8th grade classroom where, say, a couple of Muslim students are in attendance? I don’t think so. It would be offensive, and it would actually make those particular students feel attacked and unsafe.
Regardless, a presentation of objective facts will not eliminate bullying.
Case in point: obese kids. Obese kids are, in fact, fat. They are probably unhealthy, and their obesity may even be a result of faulty thinking or even mental illness (compulsive eating, etc.). It doesn’t matter. They are entitled to attend school without being bullied no matter what the issue is. No one has to be convinced that being fat is good in order to assert that message.
Teaching kids that a knowledge of the proper facts about a person is what disqualifies them from bullying sends the wrong message. Either bullying is acceptable or it isn’t. I just think that’s a more appropriate standard to observe, and it eliminates the need for teachers to wade into deep waters as it relates to theology or even the most recent scientific facts related to human sexuality. Nor will they have to tiptoe around the boundaries of what should or shouldn’t be said.
Most public school teachers are frankly not qualified to speak authoritatively on matters of personal conviction and belief. They shouldn’t need to be, in my view.

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:30:32 +0000

To be clear the policy as worded is not that problematic. It does in fact acknowledge that teachers can (and likely will) deal with issues of sexual orientation:

If and when staff address sexual orientation, it is important that staff do so in a respectful manner that is age-appropriate, factual, and pertinent to the relevant curriculum.

Although the policy indicates the authors' lack of understanding about sexual orientation because:

Teaching about sexual orientation is not a part of the District adopted curriculum;

would mean there is no sex education in the curriculum or it is a very poor program. However, from what I've been reading the implementation of this policy is the problem. The SPLC and National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) lawsuit shows how the implementation of the policy is anything but "neutral." (I have a pdf copy as well, but I forgot where I got it from, if anyone wants it let me know and I'll dig up the link to the pdf).

By: Zoe Brain

Zoe Brain — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:28:32 +0000

Inserting parenthetically, as I don’t wish to de-rail….
There’s nothing about Intersex kids. Who have the same problems with gender nonconformance, suicide rate, death rate from assault etc. Too embarassing, I guess. Biology is taught poorly in the USA, and I conjecture that’s because of the influence of Creationists and others, to whom concepts like hermaphroditism in animal species are seen as dangerous, against family values, and must be suppressed.
Back to our original programming.
Things which it is NOT forbidden to do:
Tell the Gay child they’re going to burn in Hell.
Refer the child to a “Christian Counsellor” who uses Reparative Therapy, and even Aversion Therapy.
While the intentions of those policies are good, the record shows that those implementing them cannot be trusted to act in good faith.

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:58:14 +0000

In reply to A-H Teacher. Good to know. Has this been reported anywhere, A-H Teacher?