Parents say school undermines their authority over kids

[fgoodwin]

Parents say school undermines their authority over kids

 

http://www.startribune.com/191/story/737084.html

 

Last update: October 11, 2006 11:42 PM

 

Katherine Kersten, Star Tribune

 

The scene last Saturday at the Interdistrict Downtown School in Minneapolis was straight out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. A group of black mothers and their supporters stood shoulder to shoulder, demanding what they called a decent education for their kids.

But the story has a 2006 spin.

 

Gena Bounds, a mother of three, described it this way: "On September 15 I gave my kids a big hug after school, but something was clearly wrong."

 

Bounds' 7-year-old daughter, Darriell, explained the situation to her mother. "She told me that her teacher had read the class a book about a girl with two moms," says Bounds. "Then he told them that he's gay and that he and his partner are adopting a child, and the child will have two dads. Now Darriell thinks the school is telling her she needs to believe that two daddies or two mommies is the same thing as a mom and a dad."

 

Was this just a little detour from reading and math? No. "Asha's Mums," the book that Darriell's teacher, Peter Sage, had read, is part of a diversity curriculum called the "Families All Matter" book project.

 

"I don't object to the teacher's sexual orientation," says Bounds. "But my 7-year-old is too young to understand these issues. I teach my children about family matters myself, and this isn't what we believe. "Families All Matter" encourages children to "explore diversity issues through reading." It includes children's books on topics such as racism, disabilities and "GLTB family members," according to aMaze, the organization that sponsors it. Mary Ann Bradley, the organization's director, says that aMaze has sold curriculum guides to schools in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Stillwater, White Bear Lake, Edina, Duluth and many other districts.

 

She adds that she is often unaware of how they are used.

 

"Families All Matter" suggests that children should learn about homosexuality at an early age. For kindergartners, there's a book called "Daddy's Roommate." For first-graders, there's "King and King," in which a prince unsuccessfully searches the world for a princess. After he experiences "love at first sight" for another prince, they marry and live "happily ever after."

 

Laura Bloomberg, the school's principal, says that teachers choose the books they want to use from the curriculum, and may not read them all.

 

FeLicia McCorvey Preyer, who has second-grade twins at the school, was also incensed about "Families All Matter." Before the school year began, she told Sage and school officials that she didn't want her children reading books with homosexual themes, she says. "They knew my wishes and they defied them," she adds.

 

"Families All Matter" is supposed to teach tolerance. In fact, says Bounds, her daughter has learned that people who believe that a mother and father are best for a family are discriminatory.

 

After Sage read "Asha's Mums," he "told the class that his grandfather had believed that black people are stupid," she says. "He said that other adults had helped him see that his grandfather was a bigot." The implication? That parents who don't share Sage's views on family matters are bigots too.

 

Sage touched a nerve by claiming the mantle of the fight against racism for his own agenda, says Preyer. "I'm appalled that he, a white man, would use that tactic to push his views on African-American children."

 

But Bounds and Preyer are most upset at the school's message that kids don't need to listen to their parents when the school and the parents disagree. "The school is undermining my authority as a parent, at a critical, formative stage of my daughter's life," says Bounds.

 

School officials reacted with indifference, even "arrogance," to their concerns, say Bounds and Prior. Administrators failed to inform them of their legal right to review the curriculum, and refused to reassign their children to another classroom. Officials told them to consider withdrawing their children or enrolling them in a private school.

 

Bloomberg, the principal, says that data privacy concerns prevent her from commenting on individual family situations at the school. She said that the school has a diversity mission, and that she often assumes that families who choose the school are aware of it.

 

There's a real irony here. Bounds and Preyer are battling to instill a sense of respect for their authority as parents, and to pass on their sense of right and wrong to their children.

 

But they say the school does not appreciate that. Preyer puts it this way: "They treat me as if my beliefs are the problem."

 

Katherine Kersten kkersten@startribune.com

[Gonzo1]

Parents are the ULTIMATE authority for child rearing.

 

Parents have the right, duty and obligation to get that nonsense out of the schools.

 

These types of books prove once again that the love that once dared not to speak its name is now the love that won't shut up.

 

I submit that tolerance is indeed a virtue, but it seems that gays can't (and won't) be tolerant of heterosexualtiy.

 

Schools should stick to teaching math, art, science, reading, etc. not their BS.

[Beavah]

Yah, right there with yeh, Gonzo.

 

Any teacher or school official with modicum of common sense would do everything possible to avoid turnin' public schools into a social battleground.

 

Stay out of the quagmire until there is a societal consensus.

 

Otherwise you undermine public schooling by making it an unwelcome and unfriendly place for a large part of the public.

 

 

[packsaddle]

I'll begin by stating something on which 'W' and I agree. You can all climb back into your chairs now.

In his 'No Child Left Behind' legislation, one of the goals was for every teacher eventually to have a degree in the SUBJECT that was taught, and also the teaching credentials. This, in my mind, is a wonderful goal that spells the end of history majors teaching math and being called, "coach". It is one of the goals that seems to have been, well, 'left behind'.

 

I mention my agreement on this point because it goes to the comment by Gonzo1, who I think is correct in some ways but not all.

The issue here crosses several levels. At one level, it affects a child and the child's family. At the other extreme, it is an issue for the district, possibly the state, regarding curriculum.

At the level of the family, I agree with Gonzo1. Every concerned parent SHOULD exercise their 1st amendment right and become more involved in the education of their child. And at the level of curriculum, all families should be engaged by taking the time to understand what a curriculum is, how it is created, what limitations and requirements are imposed on it, and how it is implemented. And if they have concerns, make those known at that level as well.

I have never met an educator who, if approached objectively, did NOT welcome this parent's input and interest in classroom and curricular matters.

 

However, in some subject material, including some mentioned by Gonzo1 such as math and science, the educator who has a degree in the subject material may actually be better prepared to judge curricular needs than parents. In those cases, parents must be willing to honestly admit their limitations and be willing to defer to the educator. This is not always the case.

 

Regarding this particular issue, I don't know why the book was chosen, whether it was an individual choice by the teacher, the school, or the district as part of a curriculum. However, the fact of gay couples is reality that, classroom instruction notwithstanding, the child will learn about no matter what. Some of their classmates may well have gay parents. They need to understand this fact and be able to live in this society. IF the parent has not, or will not, provide this information and understanding, and IF the information and understanding is not allowed to be acquired somehow in a deliberate and controlled classroom environment, THEN this information (perhaps disinformation and prejudice) WILL be acquired on the street.

The latter option seems to be the preferred way for many families. It is an inescapable problem.

[DanKroh]

I have a lot of mixed feelings about the use of these books in public schools. On the one hand, I think that gay couples and gay parents are part of the reality that all children have to face, even young ones. My 2nd grade son has a classmate with two mommies. But then again, he's been raised on my knee to understand that love isn't and shouldn't be bounded by gender. I read "Daddy's Roommate" to him myself when we were visiting his (married) godfathers.

 

I guess what it comes down to is that, however distasteful I may find it personally, parents do have a right to teach their children to be prejudiced. And I don't think it is up to the school to tell them that their parents are wrong. Parents should have an option to not have their children read these books, although I don't think they should be banned from children whose parents think they are just fine.

 

Anymore than I think it should be up to schools to teach Christian mythology in a science class, especially when they put a thin coat of paint on it and call it "intelligent design".

 

However, there are a couple of statements made here that I would like to comment on:

 

"These types of books prove once again that the love that once dared not to speak its name is now the love that won't shut up."

 

Interpretation: Hey, you gays-shut up and get back in the closet! I thought this the first time you wrote it in another thread (and didn't think it was witty enough to bear repeating a second time, but that is neither here nor there). Even if that is not what you are intending to say, Gonzo, that is what it comes off sounding like, at least to me.

 

"I submit that tolerance is indeed a virtue, but it seems that gays can't (and won't) be tolerant of heterosexualtiy."

 

Now that is a completely nonsensical statement. See a lot of gays trying to get laws passed to redefine marriage to exclude heterosexuals, do you? Or maybe it is all those gays who beat up heterosexuals, then try to use a "Straight Panic" defense? There is a difference between being intolerant of heterosexuals and being proud their own gay identity. Similar statement were made (and perhaps continue to be made) about the "Black Pride" movement, that it is really anti-white racism. While there are no doubt a few individuals who do feel that way (surprise, having a certain skin color or sexual orientation doesn't make one immune from being a jerk!), it is unfair and untrue to paint the vast majority with that brush.

[Gonzo1]

interesting comments,

 

Packsaddle, I knew we could agree on some things.

 

At the grade school level, teachers teach all subjects. Inhigh school, the History major should stick to teaching history, not math, unless maybe that person has a minor in math or relevant work experience or there is a shortage and is teaching math temporarily. The history major will likely know more about history than the average parent, but maybe not all parents. By the way, teachers should leave out "hisotry revisionism", you know, changing the 'perspective' to suit today's "poolically corect" agenda.

 

DanKroh,

I have indeed made the comment on another thread, becasue it's true. I'm tolerant of gay people, I don't think the SCHOOL SYSTEM should be teaching that homosexualtiy is OK, it isn't. When put on the ballot for the people to vote on, gay marriage FAILS. Inother owords, the majority of people think it's wrong too. I really believe that gays are intolerant. They are trying to force us to accept them. It kind of goes back to comments I made about gays in scouting. In BSA, it's not allowed. In society, gays can't get married. They want to domestic partner benefits, they want health insurance, acceptance, etc. It's not allowed by law be gay and be married to a gay person.

 

By the way, I opposed to changing state and federal constitutins to allow it. Pass (and enforce) laws that are constitutional.

 

Since you think some of my comments are nonsensical, let's try this. The following is hypothetical and for this thread only: If gays want to redefine the gender in marriage, I think we should redefine the quantity in marriage. Instead of one wife, how about 3 or 4? You see, we can't always have want we want. No I really don't want 3 or 4, Mrs. Gonzo wouldn't like that.

 

Here's the bottom line: parents should be involved in the kids education. Ask the teacher and principal about the cirriculum. Heather has two mommies, daddy's roomate, etc. have no place in the classroom. It has nothing to do with educationg our children, only indoctrinating them. Let;s not waste our kids time on that nonsense. How about more chemistry, math, real history.

 

My kids prinicpal got an earful when the school didn't mention 9/11 or last year didn't mention Dec 7th.

 

Gonzo

 

[DanKroh]

"If gays want to redefine the gender in marriage, I think we should redefine the quantity in marriage. Instead of one wife, how about 3 or 4? You see, we can't always have want we want. No I really don't want 3 or 4, Mrs. Gonzo wouldn't like that."

 

Nope, the whole slippery slope thing doesn't impress me either. Especially the polygamy part. Polygamy is not a biologically defined state. Homosexuality is.

 

So advocating for what you see as a civil right is "forcing" someone to "accept" you, and is therefore, intolerance? Well, it is certainly an interesting piece of reasoning, and I completely disagree with it. Based on your reasoning, I also question your "tolerance" of gays, since you seem to want to force them to accept your opinion over theirs. Seems like a pretty intolerant position to me.

[Beavah]

Polygamy is not a biologically defined state. Homosexuality is.

 

Yah, I always love this specious argument.

 

There is no sound evidence that homosexuality is biological. Natural selection would virtually preclude a genetic basis for homosexuality. Unless of course yeh think that humans were the product of intelligent design, eh? Even within the homosexual community there is considerable belief that it's substantially dependent on nurture.

 

By contrast, polygamy is highly present in nature.

 

Regardless of its origin, there's no doubt that most homosexuals can't help their tendency of attraction in any conscious way, so the tendency is to be treated with understanding and compassion; just as an attraction to multiple women should be treated with understanding and compassion, or alcoholism should be treated with compassion. Acting on such tendencies, however, is wrong / sinful / etc. Whether it's the choice to have sex or the choice of the alcoholic to pour himself a Scotch, we can condemn the choice to act, eh? People can make poor choices.

 

 

 

[DanKroh]

"There is no sound evidence that homosexuality is biological."

 

I completely disagree. There is debate over whether it is "genetic" or whether it is due to maternal factors present during gestational development. But either way it's biological. Slews of evidence about brain structure, hormone levels, etc. being different in gay men and straight men. Hmm. Sound biological to me.

 

"Natural selection would virtually preclude a genetic basis for homosexuality."

 

Um, no, not really. Natural selection doesn't wipe out all genes that prevent successful reproduction. If it did, we wouldn't have cystic fibrosis, as just one example. And what makes you think being homosexual reduces reproductive success?

 

"Unless of course yeh think that humans were the product of intelligent design, eh?"

 

Gods no. But then again, I have a good grasp of what natural selection and evolution really mean.

 

"Even within the homosexual community there is considerable belief that it's substantially dependent on nurture."

 

Not really, unless you are talking about what I mentioned above about genes vs. developmental factors during gestation.

 

"By contrast, polygamy is highly present in nature."

 

So is homosexuality. Many animal species have a minority population that engage in homosexual behavior.

 

"Whether it's the choice to have sex or the choice of the alcoholic to pour himself a Scotch, we can condemn the choice to act, eh?"

 

So homosexuality is like alcoholism, huh? Love for another human being equates with compulsive partaking of a substance that leads to violence, anti-social behavior, and liver disease. Truly sad.

[Gonzo1]

It's not a slippery slope.

Marriage isn't a civil right, it actually is a priviledge. You have to get a license to get married, that means permission. You have to right to worship as you wish, that's a right.

 

I'm not advocating polygamy, mearing using the positin of Devil's Advocate here to show that if one group (gays) want their position legalized, another group may want their position legitimized.

 

I'm tolerant of gays. Let them live together, do what they want, etc. Can't join BSA, Episcopals don't want them as priests, probably other groups don't either. Just quit ramming into our society.

 

The point here is that scholls should teach, not indoctrinate.

 

[ScoutNut]

There are definitely studies that show a biological component to homosexuality.

 

Modern Psychologists have discovered that there is very little out there (if anything at all) that is 100% nature or 100% nurture. Most things have elements of both.

 

[Gonzo1]

Studies can be altered BEFORE they are coducted. How do I know? I'm a doctor, I read enough studies to know.

 

For example, if I want to show that left handed people had a particular trait, I ask the questions to guide the response I want.

 

Bias plays a MAJOR role in studies. Double blind studies tend to be less so.

[DanKroh]

"It's not a slippery slope."

 

That type of argument of "if gays get marriage rights, then next it will be the polygamists, and then the people who want to marry animals, blah, blah, blah" is called the "slippery slope" argument. Any it doesn't fly with anyone who can see it for the hyperbolic and fear-mongering strategy that it is.

 

"Marriage isn't a civil right, it actually is a priviledge. You have to get a license to get married, that means permission."

 

Actually, the Supreme Court in 1967 reaffirmed a 1942 ruling that marriage *is* a right (From Loving vs. Virginia):

 

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survive. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)."

 

Seem pretty clearly stated, even to this non-lawyer.

 

When was the last time you heard of *any* heterosexual couple that had to actually get "permission" to get married? See a lot of marriage license applications denied to heterosexual couples these days?

 

Gonzo, if you don't want them in "our" society, where exactly are they supposed to go? Canada? Or maybe you just want them all to go quietly back into hiding in the closet? Do you truly not see the intolerance of that position?

 

Edited to add: Gonzo, I am also a doctor, btw (Psy.D.) I read lots of studies, too. And I happen to specialize in sexuality and gender identity.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[Beavah]

Yah, Gonzo.

 

Many studies can be intentionally or unintentionally biased, especially when you "go off looking" for some conclusion or another. There's political hay to be made by declarin' homosexuality to be physical / genetic. Any time there's political hay to be made, extra skepticism is in order.

 

The availability for funding of studies is part of the bias, too. How many studies are funded to examine social/nurture causes of homosexuality? None, eh? Too sensitive a question to ask on large scale surveys or even small-scale interviews.

 

Implied causality can also be a bias. We all recognize now that learning causes physical and chemical changes in da brain and its operations, eh? So it's difficult to tell whether brain processes are a cause or an outcome.

 

But there's no way around the fact that true homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end and therefore not genetically transmitted, eh? By contrast, aggressive sexuality can persist genetically, and may manifest itself as many-partner polygamy, or as bisexuality, homosexuality, and even beastiality in some environments. That would be consistent with da research that suggests a very large number of partners among gay men compared with straight men, eh? It would also be consistent with the strong taboo on all these behaviors, as sex with a lot of partners could be very disruptive to the social fabric of an agrarian (vs. hunter/gatherer) society, and can become a strong vector for disease.

 

None of this changes our response, that all people, including us when we make poor choices, should be treated with dignity and respect, eh? Just that science, like schools, should stay out of da culture wars.

 

So homosexuality is like alcoholism, huh? Love for another human being equates with compulsive partaking of a substance that leads to violence, anti-social behavior, and liver disease. Truly sad.

 

Yah, it is truly sad, eh? It often leads to violence, anti-social behavior, and disease, especially among men. The two are quite similar, with some genetic, early developmental, and nurture connections.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

But there's no way around the fact that true homosexuality is an

evolutionary dead-end and therefore not genetically transmitted, eh?

 

I'll stick with the opinions of real scientists, thanks.

 

You might want to reconsider your pronouncement in the face of genetic diseases that kill before puberty - they can't exist according to your simplistic reasoning.