Ruling on MCPS LGBT curriculum case coming this morning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Unclear if SCOTUS requires an alternative option for every religious objection. Like if a parent didn’t want their kid to have female teachers.

Part of the request was to opt out, but MCPS stated if you do that it would be an unexcused absence. SCOTUS effectively stated if you opt out, it's an excused absence.

Work on your critical reasoning skills.

You can’t force a child to stay home, that’s unethical and illegal, use your critical reasoning skills.

No one's forced. They're welcome to come to school to participate in that day's lessons.

Not if the choose to opt out of the lesson. Are you stupid or just feigned ignorance? If a parent chooses to opt out you can’t force the child to stay home. That’s ILLEGAL!

In this scenario, the parent is choosing to keep the child home.

No in this scenario the parent is choosing to opt the child’s out of a specific lesson. This does not mean the child must stay home and miss all other lessons that aren’t woke. The school must provide an alternative lesson or at least a study hall type situation. This has been the case for many years for other opt outs, you don’t just get to say you now must keep your child home because they are opting out of lgbtq story hour. retaliation and exclusionary and discriminatory and thus illegal.

+1. Perhaps not exactly relevant, but my kids are in a DMV private school that tried this same level of shenanigans with their so-called "health ed class" for 7th graders. I asked to see the curriculum and when I learned that the instructors were brought in from Planned Parenthood, I pulled my kid from the class.

What’s wrong with planned parenthood?

They refused to use the words “boys” “girls,” “men,” “women” etc. I don’t want my middle schoolers taught with an ideology that refers to women as “the partner with eggs.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why are you not getting that MCPS lost a lot more by fighting rather than pulling down these books or allowing opt-outs for the elementary schoolers?

I’m glad MCPS put up a fight. Thank God. What happens next is these same parents want girls and boys to be separated. They want girls to dress “modestly” and taught different subjects because their religious values. They want non Islamists (or fill in blank of religion) to pray every morning to a certain God.

Thank God MCPS was fighting for our constitution and the right of students to learn.

You understand nothing about actually winning a cause. Bad facts make bad law. Congratulations on opening the door to all this future nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They need to remove all this social stuff from school and stick with academics.

So you’re good with more school shootings then right? Because it is the focus in connection and belonging that is preventative and improves school safety

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to remove all this social stuff from school and stick with academics.

So you’re good with more school shootings then right? Because it is the focus in connection and belonging that is preventative and improves school safety

Oh sure it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Yes, they are. You just have to keep your kid home on the days that you don’t like the book.

[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.

The other things kids were opting out for were for older kids, and they could sit quietly in a room by themselves, but five-year-olds can’t.

The ruling actually gave MCPS and now they don’t have to keep the kids in school and find something else for them to do. They can make them stay home.

[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.

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

Feel free to keep your kids home while my kids are learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Unclear if SCOTUS requires an alternative option for every religious objection. Like if a parent didn’t want their kid to have female teachers.

Part of the request was to opt out, but MCPS stated if you do that it would be an unexcused absence. SCOTUS effectively stated if you opt out, it's an excused absence.

Work on your critical reasoning skills.

You can’t force a child to stay home, that’s unethical and illegal, use your critical reasoning skills.

No one's forced. They're welcome to come to school to participate in that day's lessons.

Not if the choose to opt out of the lesson. Are you stupid or just feigned ignorance? If a parent chooses to opt out you can’t force the child to stay home. That’s ILLEGAL!

In this scenario, the parent is choosing to keep the child home.

No in this scenario the parent is choosing to opt the child’s out of a specific lesson. This does not mean the child must stay home and miss all other lessons that aren’t woke. The school must provide an alternative lesson or at least a study hall type situation. This has been the case for many years for other opt outs, you don’t just get to say you now must keep your child home because they are opting out of lgbtq story hour. retaliation and exclusionary and discriminatory and thus illegal.

+1. Perhaps not exactly relevant, but my kids are in a DMV private school that tried this same level of shenanigans with their so-called "health ed class" for 7th graders. I asked to see the curriculum and when I learned that the instructors were brought in from Planned Parenthood, I pulled my kid from the class.

What’s wrong with planned parenthood?

They refused to use the words “boys” “girls,” “men,” “women” etc. I don’t want my middle schoolers taught with an ideology that refers to women as “the partner with eggs.”

WHO CARES! Some of you need to worry about real sh!t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Unclear if SCOTUS requires an alternative option for every religious objection. Like if a parent didn’t want their kid to have female teachers.

Part of the request was to opt out, but MCPS stated if you do that it would be an unexcused absence. SCOTUS effectively stated if you opt out, it's an excused absence.

Work on your critical reasoning skills.

You can’t force a child to stay home, that’s unethical and illegal, use your critical reasoning skills.

No one's forced. They're welcome to come to school to participate in that day's lessons.

Not if the choose to opt out of the lesson. Are you stupid or just feigned ignorance? If a parent chooses to opt out you can’t force the child to stay home. That’s ILLEGAL!

In this scenario, the parent is choosing to keep the child home.

No in this scenario the parent is choosing to opt the child’s out of a specific lesson. This does not mean the child must stay home and miss all other lessons that aren’t woke. The school must provide an alternative lesson or at least a study hall type situation. This has been the case for many years for other opt outs, you don’t just get to say you now must keep your child home because they are opting out of lgbtq story hour. retaliation and exclusionary and discriminatory and thus illegal.

Nope, that’s the greatest part of this ruling. For younger child where there are no resources to have somebody watch the bigot child, they can stay home. The school cannot be compelled to make a separate place for that child and a whole staff to watch them. You get an excused absence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Unclear if SCOTUS requires an alternative option for every religious objection. Like if a parent didn’t want their kid to have female teachers.

Part of the request was to opt out, but MCPS stated if you do that it would be an unexcused absence. SCOTUS effectively stated if you opt out, it's an excused absence.

Work on your critical reasoning skills.

You can’t force a child to stay home, that’s unethical and illegal, use your critical reasoning skills.

No one's forced. They're welcome to come to school to participate in that day's lessons.

Not if the choose to opt out of the lesson. Are you stupid or just feigned ignorance? If a parent chooses to opt out you can’t force the child to stay home. That’s ILLEGAL!

In this scenario, the parent is choosing to keep the child home.

No in this scenario the parent is choosing to opt the child’s out of a specific lesson. This does not mean the child must stay home and miss all other lessons that aren’t woke. The school must provide an alternative lesson or at least a study hall type situation. This has been the case for many years for other opt outs, you don’t just get to say you now must keep your child home because they are opting out of lgbtq story hour. retaliation and exclusionary and discriminatory and thus illegal.

+1. Perhaps not exactly relevant, but my kids are in a DMV private school that tried this same level of shenanigans with their so-called "health ed class" for 7th graders. I asked to see the curriculum and when I learned that the instructors were brought in from Planned Parenthood, I pulled my kid from the class.

What’s wrong with planned parenthood?

They refused to use the words “boys” “girls,” “men,” “women” etc. I don’t want my middle schoolers taught with an ideology that refers to women as “the partner with eggs.”

WHO CARES! Some of you need to worry about real sh!t.

I care. Thus, I pulled my kid from the class. See how that works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I understand that some posters feel (strongly) that teaching kids tolerance is the “right” course of action and if parents disagree with the MCPS curriculum, it is because they are ignorant bigots and therefore their kids are the ones who most need the tolerance curriculum to overcome the intolerance that their parents are teaching them.

HOWEVER, what happens when the school thinks that the “right” curriculum does NOT agree with YOUR beliefs? Hypothetically, let’s say that Trump turns full dictator, imposes a new curriculum, and puts Elon Musk in charge of the new Family Life curriculum. Not only does he immediately throw out all of these “DEI” books, but he starts saying that women should be breeders and wants America to go full Handmaids Tale. While the school might claim that this approach is now the “right” curriculum, I suspect most of us would disagree. Should parents have the right to opt out their children from instruction that runs contrary to their own religious/moral/ethical beliefs?

This thread is oddly similar to the problem the Republicans are having because they prioritized their political goals over due process and adherence to the Constitution. The ends does not justify the means. Whatever specific goals you achieve, if you have infringed on someone else’s rights in the process, you have opened the door to have those goals reversed when an opponent uses those same methods to infringe on your rights. Thus, unless you intend to completely ignore all rights and allow your side to become a dictatorship, itself, you have to assume any gains you have achieved may be temporary and ultimately you could find yourself at a disadvantage. If you are prepared to accept a dictator, then you have bigger problems because history has consistently demonstrated that the dictator does not care for the people he claimed to represent, only himself. Regardless of what issues he embraced for his political advantage, the only issue he cares about is himself. Once a dictator has secured power, not only do official policies become subservient to his whims, but he will often turn against his biggest supporters lest they become a threat to his individual interests.

It is vital, now more than ever, that we ensure that everyone’s right’s are protected, ESPECIALLY those we disagree with. Even if their viewpoint is completely and utterly wrong, they have the right (at least for now) to be wrong. This is the social pact we are mutually bound by as a free society. We ensure the rights of others so that others are obligated to respect ours. (The fact that others may be violating their civic responsibilities does not excuse us from ours, but means we have to take on a greater burden to make sure that the rights of all are honored.)

Something that made a huge impression on me when I first learned about it and I think is worth reflecting on now is that John Adams, one of the driving forces behind America’s independence and known for his strong temperament, defended the British soldiers arrested for the Boston Massacre. Public opinion was so overwhelmingly against the them that most lawyers simply refused to represent them. Nonetheless, Adams not only took their cases, he argued them so vigorously that of the 9 British soldiers (all of whom had been charged with murder and were facing the death penalty), 7 were completely acquitted, while the other 2 were convicted of the reduced crime of manslaughter and were sentenced to the reduced penalty of having their thumbs branded.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/boston-massacre-trial.htm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre

Tldr

Thanks for posting an idiotic response to an educated analysis.

Your rant clearly shows you need to up your meds

[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"?

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.

The other things kids were opting out for were for older kids, and they could sit quietly in a room by themselves, but five-year-olds can’t.

The ruling actually gave MCPS and now they don’t have to keep the kids in school and find something else for them to do. They can make them stay home.

Nobody is going to leave kids of any age unsupervised in school. Are you familiar with school today? Kids of all ages can get sent to the media center/library.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"?

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.

The other things kids were opting out for were for older kids, and they could sit quietly in a room by themselves, but five-year-olds can’t.

The ruling actually gave MCPS and now they don’t have to keep the kids in school and find something else for them to do. They can make them stay home.

Nobody is going to leave kids of any age unsupervised in school. Are you familiar with school today? Kids of all ages can get sent to the media center/library.

Exactly. It’s a perfect compromise. Everyone should be happy.

So why isn’t the left?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t see how this is going to work. Mcps 4th grader social studies teaches the kids what it means to be “two spirited”.
This isn’t shared with parents beforehand or even after.

I guess you are going to have to understand social studies. Know what is being taught and figure out what is "against your religion"... but I'm not sure how learning Native Americans believe people may has a masculine and feminine spirit is against your religion but sure... go for it.

NP. Two-spirit as adopted by the LQTBQ+ community is considered a deeply colonialist and racist interpretation of the beliefs of a subset of Native American tribes. It should not be taught on that basis alone: it is the wealthy white bastardization of certain tribal beliefs.

I don’t think you and the people pushing “two spirit” care at all about Native American belief structures but you sound extremely racist here FYI.

This post is incorrect but is also a distraction.

It is not incorrect. Educate yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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"?

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.

The other things kids were opting out for were for older kids, and they could sit quietly in a room by themselves, but five-year-olds can’t.

The ruling actually gave MCPS and now they don’t have to keep the kids in school and find something else for them to do. They can make them stay home.

Nobody is going to leave kids of any age unsupervised in school. Are you familiar with school today? Kids of all ages can get sent to the media center/library.

Exactly. It’s a perfect compromise. Everyone should be happy.

So why isn’t the left?

Actually, the left is quite happy. The religious bigots stay home when they’re teaching elementary kids about everyone.

They can’t be sent to the library when they’re five years old. The librarian isn’t just sitting there waiting for your bigoted child to show up.

Parents will be notified and they will keep their kids home and get an unexcused absence.

The best of both worlds.