Ruling on MCPS LGBT curriculum case coming this morning

[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.

Why do you fell that at the secondary level it would have been any different? I saw all the elementary books and had no objection with the content. They same way I didn’t need to opt out my kid of the any of the sex-ed units.

[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.

So, you are just as judgmental as many. We are "the kind, accepting ones."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, Kristin Mink really is made to look like an idiot in the opinion:

The Board member went on to suggest that the objecting parents were comparable to “‘white supremacists’” who want to prevent their
children from learning about civil rights and “‘xenophobes’” who object to “‘stories about immigrant families.’”

If you say idiotic things then you look like an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Groomer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not the OP, but Yes I do. At a time when every part of our society is being attacked particularly tolerance and diversity and what is taught, I applaud people and institutions who dig in when needed.

The president of UVA just resigned, not because he did anything wrong, but because somehow making sure all people feel included and not pretending history is sunshine and roses is somehow bad.

[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 thought their message was fine. What's the problem with saying "It also sends a chilling message to many valued members of our diverse community"?

[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.

Why do you fell that at the secondary level it would have been any different? I saw all the elementary books and had no objection with the content. They same way I didn’t need to opt out my kid of the any of the sex-ed units.

DP. Based on the question at oral argument, I think it would have been a harder issue for the Justices. Also as a practical matter, I think there would be fewer complaints.

Cool that you don’t object, but can you read the bigger picture?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bookmarking this for when the fraction of children with only white parents is below 50% so we can burn all those books with only white parents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we’ll somehow return to a reading, writing and arithmetic sort of learning like we used to have.
Says someone who is accepting of all.

You you can learn to read using books with both heterosexual and lgbtq characters. The books were embedded into the curriculum

Not anymore they aren’t!

[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”

Person drating these letters should be fired. It reads so bad.

MCPS needs to realize that they are not political activists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not the OP, but Yes I do. At a time when every part of our society is being attacked particularly tolerance and diversity and what is taught, I applaud people and institutions who dig in when needed.

The president of UVA just resigned, not because he did anything wrong, but because somehow making sure all people feel included and not pretending history is sunshine and roses is somehow bad.

DP. If there were so many opt-outs from a curriculum that teachers and the school board couldn’t manage, I cannot imagine the thinking that caused the board to double down rather than rethink the curriculum. We have managed pre-K for decades without this level of dissension and kids have learned the alphabet/reading.

[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.

Parental consent is not a defense against truancy in Maryland, so this won't completely resolve the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If my problem is with any teaching that features or even acknowledges a two-parent family, then there are basically no books out there my child can read. What now, MCPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What on God‘s green earth are you talking about? Sexual orientation has nothing to do with love and marriage. There’s no need to “teach” sexual orientation. Just live your damn life!

The case is about whether parents should be able to opt out of teachers reading books to their students that feature LGBTQ characters. Ones that fall in love and get married.

We should also opt out of teachers reading books about hetero couples getting married.

Or germ theory. Or interracial couples.

Can we please?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 thought their message was fine. What's the problem with saying "It also sends a chilling message to many valued members of our diverse community"?

You are failing to see the issue here.

MCPS = LGBTQ lobby

Court simply said that parents have right to opt out. MCPS allows opt out for lots of things. It does nto send any message to LGBTQ community. Only a LGBTQ lobby group will interepret court ruling like that.