Ruling on MCPS LGBT curriculum case coming this morning

[Anonymous]

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.

You are free to read all of these books to your children, at home.

[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.

Do you think we are better off with this decision? If you don’t, then it was irresponsible of MCPS to push this issue that was clearly an issue. Part of winning is actually winning, which requires being strategic about the fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[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.

MCPS statement: "we are disappointed in today’s ruling."

[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.

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.

Truancy is about unexcused absences. These absences would be excused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in a neighboring district and am livid MoCo made decisions that led to this SCOTUS case. They should have seen this risk and backed down. Now we have a decision that is going to make life so much harder for public school teachers and administrators. This new complexity will distract from teaching fundamentals and so is bad for kids. As a democrat I am embarrassed moco dug in on this.

I’m not. They were trying to protect teachers. They lost.

If they took Puppy Pride out of the curriculum or kept opt-outs, the teachers would actually have been better protected, as it turns out. There were lots of points to end this issue.

I kind of doubt it since puppy pride wasn’t even the thing scotus focused on — it was the book about a gay man’s marriage.

[Anonymous]

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.

That’s illegal now. You need to find an alternative placement, and notify the parents each time this will occur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in a neighboring district and am livid MoCo made decisions that led to this SCOTUS case. They should have seen this risk and backed down. Now we have a decision that is going to make life so much harder for public school teachers and administrators. This new complexity will distract from teaching fundamentals and so is bad for kids. As a democrat I am embarrassed moco dug in on this.

I’m not. They were trying to protect teachers. They lost.

If they took Puppy Pride out of the curriculum or kept opt-outs, the teachers would actually have been better protected, as it turns out. There were lots of points to end this issue.

I kind of doubt it since puppy pride wasn’t even the thing scotus focused on — it was the book about a gay man’s marriage.

They still focused on Puppy Pride at oral argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has been claiming for years that LGBTQAEIOU is not embedded in the curriculum. They’ve claimed that it’s just sex ed. They doubled down on grooming. They lost. Badly.

How were they "grooming"? Be specific.

Cambridge Dictionary definition:

grooming noun [U] (CRIME)

the criminal activity of becoming friends with a child in order to try to persuade the child to have a sexual relationship

[Anonymous]

This thread has some amazing homophobia and I see all you democrats are saying nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree here.

People can make lifestyle choices, but let's not try to push a viewpoint.
I am kid of fed up with non-stop LGBTQ stuff hapening in MCPS to be honest.
I am don't care for religion or LGBTQ, but I don't want this stuff happening with kids who are 5-6 years old.
It's just absurd.

[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.

That’s illegal now. You need to find an alternative placement, and notify the parents each time this will occur.

Unclear whether they have to figure out an alternative placement. Unless you mean the alternative placement can just be home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Opinion is out. Conservative majority no surprise

Thanks God. It’s been a good day at SCOTUS for POTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It most certainly sends a message to the LGBT community. And it is a negative one.

[Anonymous]

MCPS was asking for it and they got it.