Ruling on MCPS LGBT curriculum case coming this morning

[Anonymous]

The children still go to school like normal, they aren’t forced to stay home, that is not legal. Assuming it’s just sex ed curriculum this won’t be a major issue and some parents may choose to keep their kids home, but that’s their choice but can’t be forced legally. The problem is that the lgbtq agenda has been so deeply embedded into the curriculum that MCPS will now have to review everything and also pay to retrain teachers on sticking to the curriculum. Huge loss for MCPS today, but they really were wasteful when they doubled down on the this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s actually been a case about how religious parents didn’t want any books read to their child where a woman was working. Keeping female teachers employed is arguably supporting their lifestyle.

Sure, you should keep your kid at home. I think everyone would appreciate that.

No, religious freedom requires that MCPS offers an alternative track that satisfies my religion.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1. It was the wrong hill to die on. MCPS fafo.

[Anonymous]

I would love for MCPS to have the opt out kids stay home but that’s not in the ruling and is not clearly legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So when can the taxpayers know how much money was spent on legal fees for this???
Let’s talk about the budget again…

I’m a taxpayer and good with the money spent on sensing a message of support to an extremely marginalized community.

Responses like this are why people note that the school curriculum, particularly at the elementary school years, is about reading, writing, and math. I don’t want money spent on sending a message. Please hire more teachers so kids can get more individualized attention on academics.

[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"?

Very tone deaf in light of the judgment, like they still think they’re right, and they lost. Some humility would’ve gone a long way. They just sound even more stupid now.

Not tone deaf at all. The message was meant for the diverse MCPS community, and signals that they'll figure out how to move forward under the constraints of this BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The children still go to school like normal, they aren’t forced to stay home, that is not legal. Assuming it’s just sex ed curriculum this won’t be a major issue and some parents may choose to keep their kids home, but that’s their choice but can’t be forced legally. The problem is that the lgbtq agenda has been so deeply embedded into the curriculum that MCPS will now have to review everything and also pay to retrain teachers on sticking to the curriculum. Huge loss for MCPS today, but they really were wasteful when they doubled down on the this.

You aren’t listening to teachers and the issue with resource constraints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"?

Very tone deaf in light of the judgment, like they still think they’re right, and they lost. Some humility would’ve gone a long way. They just sound even more stupid now.

Not tone deaf at all. The message was meant for the diverse MCPS community, and signals that they'll figure out how to move forward under the constraints of this BS.

+1 I appreciated it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So when can the taxpayers know how much money was spent on legal fees for this???
Let’s talk about the budget again…

I’m a taxpayer and good with the money spent on sensing a message of support to an extremely marginalized community.

Responses like this are why people note that the school curriculum, particularly at the elementary school years, is about reading, writing, and math. I don’t want money spent on sending a message. Please hire more teachers so kids can get more individualized attention on academics.

And by having teachers have to sort kids by religiousness and teaching multiple tracks is hurting the teachers ability to focus on academics. Why are you guys not getting this? They should just have the opt out kids stay home for anything they find objectionable.

[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"?

Very tone deaf in light of the judgment, like they still think they’re right, and they lost. Some humility would’ve gone a long way. They just sound even more stupid now.

+1

It was tone deaf message given the judgement.

[Anonymous]

The slippery slope here is immense and just leads to removing material that the most religious object to. The ruling gives the religious extremes control over school content.

[Anonymous]

To the teacher that said they’ll deliberately read an LGBTQ+ book weekly and tell objecting students to stay home, this could be interpreted as circumventing the Supreme Court’s ruling. Forcing students to stay home instead of providing an opt-out accommodation (e.g., alternative activities or removal from the specific lesson) may still impose a burden on religious families, potentially violating the injunction. The Court’s opinion emphasized that schools must accommodate religious objections without penalizing students, and requiring absence could be seen as coercive or punitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The slippery slope here is immense and just leads to removing material that the most religious object to. The ruling gives the religious extremes control over school content.

You’re correct- MCPS lost because these lgbtq extremes don’t get to control school content.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the teacher that said they’ll deliberately read an LGBTQ+ book weekly and tell objecting students to stay home, this could be interpreted as circumventing the Supreme Court’s ruling. Forcing students to stay home instead of providing an opt-out accommodation (e.g., alternative activities or removal from the specific lesson) may still impose a burden on religious families, potentially violating the injunction. The Court’s opinion emphasized that schools must accommodate religious objections without penalizing students, and requiring absence could be seen as coercive or punitive.

This is what I figured. Probably best to group the religious kids in a single class or school to limit the resource issues imposed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The slippery slope here is immense and just leads to removing material that the most religious object to. The ruling gives the religious extremes control over school content.

You’re correct- MCPS lost because these lgbtq extremes don’t get to control school content.

…reading comprehension is poor