Ruling on MCPS LGBT curriculum case coming this morning

[Anonymous]

My kid is at a Christian school at a K-8. She’s just finished 7th. We are Christian but the kind accepting ones, not the ones who pick and choose from the Bible what they want to like and dislike.
Anyway. In one class this past spring a teacher forwarded thru certain scenes in a documentary because there were lgbt themes. One kid “ came” out to a parent and another kid “ mentioned a boyfriend”
In another class they were allowed to watch the 1954 movie Through the Window with no forwarded scenes. This movie includes sex before marriage, suicide, and promiscuity.

Both films are rated PG.
I have no issue with my kid watching either, but the hypocrisy is astounding.

This is what pisses me off when people use religion as an excuse for bigotry. It’s not your religion, it’s your ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at a Christian school at a K-8. She’s just finished 7th. We are Christian but the kind accepting ones, not the ones who pick and choose from the Bible what they want to like and dislike.
Anyway. In one class this past spring a teacher forwarded thru certain scenes in a documentary because there were lgbt themes. One kid “ came” out to a parent and another kid “ mentioned a boyfriend”
In another class they were allowed to watch the 1954 movie Through the Window with no forwarded scenes. This movie includes sex before marriage, suicide, and promiscuity.

Both films are rated PG.
I have no issue with my kid watching either, but the hypocrisy is astounding.

This is what pisses me off when people use religion as an excuse for bigotry. It’s not your religion, it’s your ignorance.

Totally agree.

[Anonymous]

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.

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

How is this a significant burden? They tell the child to pick a book of their choice and go to alternate location (reading corner, library, cafeteria, gym, etc.). If the child can’t read yet, they give them some paper and crayons and have them draw pictures. They could let kids work on homework or play educational games on the computer. Basically, they just need to provide minimal supervision and instructions on which self-directed activity they want the kids to do.

If they can make alternate arrangements for field trips when the teacher is off-site for the entire day, they should be able to arrange for kids to occupy themselves for the much shorter length of time that the teacher spends reading.

[Anonymous]

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.

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

How is this a significant burden? They tell the child to pick a book of their choice and go to alternate location (reading corner, library, cafeteria, gym, etc.). If the child can’t read yet, they give them some paper and crayons and have them draw pictures. They could let kids work on homework or play educational games on the computer. Basically, they just need to provide minimal supervision and instructions on which self-directed activity they want the kids to do.

If they can make alternate arrangements for field trips when the teacher is off-site for the entire day, they should be able to arrange for kids to occupy themselves for the much shorter length of time that the teacher spends reading.

The ruling just says those kids should stay home in those days so the school doesn’t have to provide an alternative. That solves the resource issue. Parents can be responsible for watching their kids in the days they opt out their kids.

[Anonymous]

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.

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

How is this a significant burden? They tell the child to pick a book of their choice and go to alternate location (reading corner, library, cafeteria, gym, etc.). If the child can’t read yet, they give them some paper and crayons and have them draw pictures. They could let kids work on homework or play educational games on the computer. Basically, they just need to provide minimal supervision and instructions on which self-directed activity they want the kids to do.

If they can make alternate arrangements for field trips when the teacher is off-site for the entire day, they should be able to arrange for kids to occupy themselves for the much shorter length of time that the teacher spends reading.

Exactly. This is not a logistical problem, MCPS and the BOE have a philosophical problem with parents opting out and want to use the logistical argument as cover.

[Anonymous]

It is a logistical problem but we don’t have to argue about it bc the Supreme Court decided. Kids don’t get an alternative provided by the school.

[Anonymous]

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.

The ruling states that the parents can keep their kids at home (or pulled out), which means the absence is excused.

[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.

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.

Can you point out where it says that the school does not have to offer alternatives and that parents opting out will keep kids home? I’m just reading “opt out” but the decision is very long so maybe I’m missing that part about staying home.

[Anonymous]

You can't be serious that this is not a burden. The teacher is still responsible for teaching the lesson's objectives to the child opting out, and as such, must create an alternative lesson. Plus, elementary school students can not be casually sent to another location where they will get "minimal supervision." Do you think all children are able to quietly self-direct for the length of a reading lesson? In a room which is filled with children doing something else? And who is to provide that supervision - all adults already have their hands full with their own responsibilities. Clearly anyone who thinks this won't put yet another burden on teachers has never been a teacher themselves.

[Anonymous]

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.

The ruling states that the parents can keep their kids at home (or pulled out), which means the absence is excused.

Where does it say they can keep kids at home as an excused absence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can't be serious that this is not a burden. The teacher is still responsible for teaching the lesson's objectives to the child opting out, and as such, must create an alternative lesson. Plus, elementary school students can not be casually sent to another location where they will get "minimal supervision." Do you think all children are able to quietly self-direct for the length of a reading lesson? In a room which is filled with children doing something else? And who is to provide that supervision - all adults already have their hands full with their own responsibilities. Clearly anyone who thinks this won't put yet another burden on teachers has never been a teacher themselves.

The question is whether MCPS can just allow the kids to stay home that day rather than providing alternative placement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at a Christian school at a K-8. She’s just finished 7th. We are Christian but the kind accepting ones, not the ones who pick and choose from the Bible what they want to like and dislike.
Anyway. In one class this past spring a teacher forwarded thru certain scenes in a documentary because there were lgbt themes. One kid “ came” out to a parent and another kid “ mentioned a boyfriend”
In another class they were allowed to watch the 1954 movie Through the Window with no forwarded scenes. This movie includes sex before marriage, suicide, and promiscuity.

Both films are rated PG.
I have no issue with my kid watching either, but the hypocrisy is astounding.

This is what pisses me off when people use religion as an excuse for bigotry. It’s not your religion, it’s your ignorance.

“God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

But it's not what they asked for, they asked for an alternate education or at least a place for the kids to go during that portion of the education.

What the ruling said was NO you can't get an alternate school setting, but you can stay home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No it's not illegal.

[Anonymous]

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.

Can you point out where it says that the school does not have to offer alternatives and that parents opting out will keep kids home? I’m just reading “opt out” but the decision is very long so maybe I’m missing that part about staying home.

The original ask was that kids can opt out, be it leave the classroom or not go to school that day as an excused absence. MCPS initially agreed but then six months later rescinded that due to the many requests from parents.

Initially, the Board compromised with objecting parents
by notifying them when the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” story-
books would be taught and permitting their children to be
excused from instruction involving the books. That policy
was consistent with the Board’s general “Guidelines for Re-
specting Religious Diversity,” which at the time provided
that “[w]hen possible, schools should try to make reasona-
ble and feasible adjustments to the instructional program
to accommodate requests from students, or requests from
parents/guardians on behalf of their students, to be excused
from specific classroom discussions or activities that they
believe would impose a substantial burden on their reli-
gious beliefs.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 220a–221a

If you keep your kid at home due to your objection, that's an excused absence.