Ruling on MCPS LGBT curriculum case coming this morning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-sides-religious-parents-145321464.html

parents won.

If you don't want your kid to learn about science or see female teachers, then you can keep your kids at home, just like these parents.

No no the SC says that my kid can opt out of anything I find religiously objectionable. That includes female teachers. The school must make a male-only space for mg child.

No, SCOTUS said they can keep the kids home. You can too.

MCPS’ argument here was that it is excessively burdensome to notify every time a potentially objectionable book would be read and then to accommodate those who are opting out. The effect of this is going to be they just stop including these books.

But how will our kids survive without having "Pride Puppy" read aloud to them??

Not everyone wants curriculum choices driven by the lowest common denominator of what doesn’t bother nutjobs

I think the nutjobs are the ones who want pre-K children taught that doctors "guess" whether it's a boy or girl when a baby is born.

what the actual f are you talking about ?
-mcps pk teacher

I see you haven't looked at the opinion.

And if a student asks “[w]hat’s transgender?”, it was recommended that teachers explain: “When we’re
born, people make a guess about our gender and label us ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ based on our body parts. Sometimes they’re right and sometimes they’re wrong.” Ibid. The guidance document encouraged teachers to “[d]isrupt the either/or thinking” of their students. Id., at 629a, 633a.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS and the BOE overrreached and they deserved this ruling.

MCPS had no reason to extend and the. Revoke the opt-out. If they had just left their original approach intact, this wouldn’t have gone to the Supreme Court.

Yup, cocky and woke as usual. They won't learn and will spend more of our tax $ on pointless avoidable lawsuits.

MCPS didn't want to provide alternate classes, so in a way they won. Stay home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-sides-religious-parents-145321464.html

parents won.

If you don't want your kid to learn about science or see female teachers, then you can keep your kids at home, just like these parents.

No no the SC says that my kid can opt out of anything I find religiously objectionable. That includes female teachers. The school must make a male-only space for mg child.

No, SCOTUS said they can keep the kids home. You can too.

MCPS’ argument here was that it is excessively burdensome to notify every time a potentially objectionable book would be read and then to accommodate those who are opting out. The effect of this is going to be they just stop including these books.

But how will our kids survive without having "Pride Puppy" read aloud to them??

Not everyone wants curriculum choices driven by the lowest common denominator of what doesn’t bother nutjobs

I think the nutjobs are the ones who want pre-K children taught that doctors "guess" whether it's a boy or girl when a baby is born.

what the actual f are you talking about ?
-mcps pk teacher

I see you haven't looked at the opinion.

And if a student asks “[w]hat’s transgender?”, it was recommended that teachers explain: “When we’re
born, people make a guess about our gender and label us ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ based on our body parts. Sometimes they’re right and sometimes they’re wrong.” Ibid. The guidance document encouraged teachers to “[d]isrupt the either/or thinking” of their students. Id., at 629a, 633a.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf

You realize that is actually what happens and sometime doctors get it wrong.

[Anonymous]

I think there’s a lot of hyperbole here based on allowing parents to opt-out based on their religious beliefs, considering that as far as I can tell is allowed on EVERY other point parents wish to opt out of.

For example:

Sex Ed
Field Trips
Required Vaccinations (and I’m not talking about COVID)
Dissections
Attendance on religious holidays
Class parties
Saying the Pledge of Allegiance
Watching R-rated movies for instructional purposes

Parents can opt their kids put of dissections, but that hasn’t destroyed science education or eliminated instruction about evolution.

As for not having representation and having LGBT kids feeling alien, allowing an opt-out does the opposite. MCPS can have as much LGBT representation as they want, that can be the normal. Those whose parents opt out would be the ones alienated by having to separate themselves from the rest of the class doing the main activity. Do students in the standard sex-ed classes feel alienated if some students leave because their parents don’t want them to participate? If the other students notice at all, they probably think the kid opting out is the one whose family isn’t normal and may feel sorry for them, but I don’t think they view it as any sort of indictment on themselves.

These parents aren’t asking for anything other than what has long been the standard practice in education, the ability to opt their specific child out of activities that violate their moral/religious principles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-sides-religious-parents-145321464.html

parents won.

If you don't want your kid to learn about science or see female teachers, then you can keep your kids at home, just like these parents.

No no the SC says that my kid can opt out of anything I find religiously objectionable. That includes female teachers. The school must make a male-only space for mg child.

No, SCOTUS said they can keep the kids home. You can too.

MCPS’ argument here was that it is excessively burdensome to notify every time a potentially objectionable book would be read and then to accommodate those who are opting out. The effect of this is going to be they just stop including these books.

But how will our kids survive without having "Pride Puppy" read aloud to them??

Not everyone wants curriculum choices driven by the lowest common denominator of what doesn’t bother nutjobs

I think the nutjobs are the ones who want pre-K children taught that doctors "guess" whether it's a boy or girl when a baby is born.

what the actual f are you talking about ?
-mcps pk teacher

I see you haven't looked at the opinion.

And if a student asks “[w]hat’s transgender?”, it was recommended that teachers explain: “When we’re
born, people make a guess about our gender and label us ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ based on our body parts. Sometimes they’re right and sometimes they’re wrong.” Ibid. The guidance document encouraged teachers to “[d]isrupt the either/or thinking” of their students. Id., at 629a, 633a.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf

You realize that is actually what happens and sometime doctors get it wrong.

LOLZ amazing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS and the BOE overrreached and they deserved this ruling.

MCPS had no reason to extend and the. Revoke the opt-out. If they had just left their original approach intact, this wouldn’t have gone to the Supreme Court.

Yup, cocky and woke as usual. They won't learn and will spend more of our tax $ on pointless avoidable lawsuits.

MCPS didn't want to provide alternate classes, so in a way they won. Stay home.

I agree that this is a win for MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-sides-religious-parents-145321464.html

parents won.

If you don't want your kid to learn about science or see female teachers, then you can keep your kids at home, just like these parents.

No no the SC says that my kid can opt out of anything I find religiously objectionable. That includes female teachers. The school must make a male-only space for mg child.

No, SCOTUS said they can keep the kids home. You can too.

MCPS’ argument here was that it is excessively burdensome to notify every time a potentially objectionable book would be read and then to accommodate those who are opting out. The effect of this is going to be they just stop including these books.

But how will our kids survive without having "Pride Puppy" read aloud to them??

Not everyone wants curriculum choices driven by the lowest common denominator of what doesn’t bother nutjobs

I think the nutjobs are the ones who want pre-K children taught that doctors "guess" whether it's a boy or girl when a baby is born.

what the actual f are you talking about ?
-mcps pk teacher

I see you haven't looked at the opinion.

And if a student asks “[w]hat’s transgender?”, it was recommended that teachers explain: “When we’re
born, people make a guess about our gender and label us ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ based on our body parts. Sometimes they’re right and sometimes they’re wrong.” Ibid. The guidance document encouraged teachers to “[d]isrupt the either/or thinking” of their students. Id., at 629a, 633a.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf

You realize that is actually what happens and sometime doctors get it wrong.

LOLZ amazing!

So you don't know that doctors get it wrong sometime. Okay. Would you like a link to educate yourself on XXY and XYY and the plethora of other chromosome combinations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS and the BOE overrreached and they deserved this ruling.

MCPS had no reason to extend and the. Revoke the opt-out. If they had just left their original approach intact, this wouldn’t have gone to the Supreme Court.

Yup, cocky and woke as usual. They won't learn and will spend more of our tax $ on pointless avoidable lawsuits.

MCPS didn't want to provide alternate classes, so in a way they won. Stay home.

I agree that this is a win for MCPS.

It's actually awesome. Teacher don't change curriculum, schools don't change their procedures. Parents stay home with kids during these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the game here. So the main implication is that parents can keep kids home on the days any LGBTQ books are read? I'm a teacher and my worry is that schools will have to figure out a place for kids to be during that particular lesson. But heck yeah, if parents want to keep their kids home, then fine. I'll plan to do same sex family read alouds every Friday and the horrible families can find childcare for 20% of the year. Hope it bankrupts them.

You are a garbage teacher.

No, they're a great teacher, teaching kids that people of various types exist. You're a garbage person.

Why teach kindergarteners and 1st graders about sexual orientation? Do they do sex-ed at that age?

Yeah, why teach kids that some kids might have same-sex parents, and that's okay? You just want your kids to grow up as hateful as you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t agree with parents who want to remove their kids from this portion of the curriculum, but I don’t think we should be limiting parents’ rights either. Honestly if you are shielding your kid this much from the true facts of how the world is, you’re not doing them any favors but it’s your right.

Comments like this show you don’t know all the policies in MCPS. They already allowed so many various types of exemptions but got hung up on this narrow pointless category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a lot of hyperbole here based on allowing parents to opt-out based on their religious beliefs, considering that as far as I can tell is allowed on EVERY other point parents wish to opt out of.

For example:

Sex Ed
Field Trips
Required Vaccinations (and I’m not talking about COVID)
Dissections
Attendance on religious holidays
Class parties
Saying the Pledge of Allegiance
Watching R-rated movies for instructional purposes

Parents can opt their kids put of dissections, but that hasn’t destroyed science education or eliminated instruction about evolution.

As for not having representation and having LGBT kids feeling alien, allowing an opt-out does the opposite. MCPS can have as much LGBT representation as they want, that can be the normal. Those whose parents opt out would be the ones alienated by having to separate themselves from the rest of the class doing the main activity. Do students in the standard sex-ed classes feel alienated if some students leave because their parents don’t want them to participate? If the other students notice at all, they probably think the kid opting out is the one whose family isn’t normal and may feel sorry for them, but I don’t think they view it as any sort of indictment on themselves.

These parents aren’t asking for anything other than what has long been the standard practice in education, the ability to opt their specific child out of activities that violate their moral/religious principles.

Now this is a common sense post on the actual facts!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the game here. So the main implication is that parents can keep kids home on the days any LGBTQ books are read? I'm a teacher and my worry is that schools will have to figure out a place for kids to be during that particular lesson. But heck yeah, if parents want to keep their kids home, then fine. I'll plan to do same sex family read alouds every Friday and the horrible families can find childcare for 20% of the year. Hope it bankrupts them.

This was my question too. The original ask was for MCPS to find and alternate lesson for the kids during this time, but if they are to stay home "unexcused"... I'd read same sex books every day.

We know the MoCo attorneys that represent MCPS are notoriously slow learners, but I really doubt even they are going to countenance retaliatory harassment against plaintiffs that just won at SCOTUS.

Reading books is not against the ruling.

Specifically reading LGBTQ books every day so that kids who are from religions you have animus towards don’t come to school is illegal. You will likely be fired well before it ever becomes a court case. Come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-sides-religious-parents-145321464.html

parents won.

If you don't want your kid to learn about science or see female teachers, then you can keep your kids at home, just like these parents.

The parents that demanded the school abide by their religion? They aren’t keeping their kids home. That’s the point.

The Supreme Court on June 27 sided with a group of parents who want to withdraw their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read, another move that favors claims of religious discrimination over other values, like gay rights.

So I don't think supreme Court Justice is really understand the logistical challenges of having to offer compensatory educational opportunities every time a parent opts out

[Anonymous]

The reason we teach kids about sexual orientation is so they don't mistreat the kid who was born biologically male when they want to wear a pink dress. I teach kindergarten and some kids say, "but he's a boy! why is he wearing a sparkly dress?" That's fine, a five year old might have questions. But what I teach is this: Anyone can wear any color they want. Colors don't belong to boys or girls, they belong to everyone. Dresses don't belong to boys or girls, they can belong to anyone. Everyone gets to tell their own story, and we don't get to tell other people's stories for them. We are kind to everyone. I don't get into the biology of it. Respect is respect and kindness is kindness. I mean, heck, I manage to be kind to the extreme conservative radical fringe families in my school. It can be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know they’re going to rule against MCPS but I personally really praise MCPS for trying to create an inclusive environment. Kids need windows in curricula to become tolerant and respectful of their peers

Yay suck it MCPS!!