Ruling on MCPS LGBT curriculum case coming this morning

[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

Do you praise moco for digging in and having lead to this problematic decision? That is the part that is nuts. If they couldn’t manage all the opt outs. They should have backed down. No good was going to come from continuing to litigate this.

[Anonymous]

Now all clear to file a big lawsuit against teachers and admins individually whenever they try to push LGBTQ agenda to keep kids intentionally out of school as stated by one horrible teacher in this thread.

2-3 big monetary damage will stop that horrible practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in two-parent families. I need to opt my child out of reading any book, including those of historical fact, if a family is mentioned or described that has two parents. My child will also not refer to any teachers as Mrs, since this signifies that they are married and could be a part of a two-parent family!

Sure, keep them at home if that's what your religion teaches you. SCOTUS says you have that right.

Right, so this means I can exclude my child from virtually ever social studies class. How will they apply the curriculum?

How do children who opt out of Sex Ed get graded on that unit?

But in this case, it's not a whole subject matter (social studies) that these kids are being opted out of. It's the reading of a handful of books. They can read other books, but they wouldn't be able to participate in the class discussion of the objectionable book.

[Anonymous]

MCPS was really asking for it, and got it.

I am mildly concerned about the ramifications of this ruling, but I cannot argue that it is unfair. Parents should have an opt-out in elementary when it comes to explicit content. LGBTQ+ wasn't actually the problem here. Some of the specific book choices were, because there were too explicit. I would have had a problem with it regardless of the sex of the couples in question.

If MCPS had kept this content for the secondary level, I bet it would never have been challenged, and if it had, it would never have made it to the Supreme Court.

MCPS has worked well for my children, and I am grateful they did so much for my eldest with special needs, who is now in college. But I need to point out discrepancies where they exist.

[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 child can’t be in the same room while the teacher discusses homosexuality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Parents rights assume parents are always right and quite simply they are not. Parents rights also assume a silo around their own children which is impossible is real world practice and so my right as a parent for my kid to get taught about accepting all families is going to be trumped by the loudest bigots.

Unfortunately, the government can't tell parents how to raise their children, short of physical harm.

Parents can teach their children to be hateful, racist, religious, vegan, lgbtq friendly. Public schools can't decide how to raise children.

And that's why I disagree with public schools putting the Bible and 10 commandments in the school, even though I'm a Christian.

+1

Certain thigns should be kept out of school. Many activists claim that LGBTQ exist so it shouldbe taught. That's a poor logic. Far bigger numbers exists for many things and they don't get taught in elementary schools.

I am not religious at all, but I don't want my 6 years old kid to read about trans parade or something like that. That's not the age to get exposure for something like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
MCPS was really asking for it, and got it.

I am mildly concerned about the ramifications of this ruling, but I cannot argue that it is unfair. Parents should have an opt-out in elementary when it comes to explicit content. LGBTQ+ wasn't actually the problem here. Some of the specific book choices were, because there were too explicit. I would have had a problem with it regardless of the sex of the couples in question.

If MCPS had kept this content for the secondary level, I bet it would never have been challenged, and if it had, it would never have made it to the Supreme Court.

MCPS has worked well for my children, and I am grateful they did so much for my eldest with special needs, who is now in college. But I need to point out discrepancies where they exist.

+1

Explicit content in young elementary. Not sure why it was that hard to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
MCPS was really asking for it, and got it.

I am mildly concerned about the ramifications of this ruling, but I cannot argue that it is unfair. Parents should have an opt-out in elementary when it comes to explicit content. LGBTQ+ wasn't actually the problem here. Some of the specific book choices were, because there were too explicit. I would have had a problem with it regardless of the sex of the couples in question.

If MCPS had kept this content for the secondary level, I bet it would never have been challenged, and if it had, it would never have made it to the Supreme Court.

MCPS has worked well for my children, and I am grateful they did so much for my eldest with special needs, who is now in college. But I need to point out discrepancies where they exist.

+1

Explicit content in young elementary. Not sure why it was that hard to understand.

What was explicit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d like the kids that want to opt out have to prove a serious religious commitment with teachings specific to not seeing material about gay or trans kids/people.

The opt out shouldn’t be open to anyone, since the case is purely about religion.

Communist

[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.

"Tolerant" teachers like you are the exact reason this Supreme Court decision is necessary.

I learned my lessons from the "loving God" people very, very accurately.

Love doesn't mean letting people do whatever they want, as a teacher, you should be very familiar with that concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d really like to keep sexual orientation out of the curriculum. Kids have no problem with the concept of love and marriage and will do whatever is in the culture happily. There is such broad support for gay marriage that I see no reason to keep beating the drum.

Does that mean keep heterosexuality out of the curriculum? It's going to be hard to find books where children have neither same sex nor opposite sex parents.

This. FFS, it isn't ramming it down their throats or beating a drum to have a regular old story book where a kid just happens to have two moms. But imagine the kid with two moms who sees story after story after story with a mom and a dad. That starts to feel isolating.

Well, when your family has chosen a minority lifestyle, that is a natural outcome. Same for immigrants, member of small religions, etc. Not everything is going to be about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This case isn’t about “celebrating” anything. It was literally whether if teachers are including books that have gay or trans characters a parent gets to opt out. So if a teacher reads Prince and Knight. That book has nothing different than any other fairytale other than both characters are men.

Thank God there’s an opt out option now!

[Anonymous]

The message that mcps just sent out to staff and families shows that mcps continues to miss the point.
I’d really like to know who drafted it.
“Chilling”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the person asking where in the decision it says that opt out kids stay home with excused absences. I think that is the best solution, and I hope that is available for MCPS to implement. I would just like to confirm that it is an availability.

It's gonna depend on the kids age. a 16 yo can opt out in school a 5 year old can't.

Why can't a 5 year old kid to the library to watch a wholesome heterosexual film about the prophet Mohammad and his 9yr old wife?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The message that mcps just sent out to staff and families shows that mcps continues to miss the point.
I’d really like to know who drafted it.
“Chilling”

I didn’t read too much into it. What are they going to say - sorry taxpayers, we overshot here!