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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just let them stay home with excused absences. as long as they aren't creating a strain on school resources, go nuts. it's their education that they sacrifice.

yes, exactly. It's a win/win. Not sure why MCPS fought it so hard. There are kids who opt out of Family Life. Not a big deal.

i think it is because the religious were demanding alternative programming and babysitting for kids who can't be by themselves. If MCPS doesn't have to
provide that, then it's all good.

Another person didn’t bother me o read the case but still shoots off anyway. Doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what relief the parents sought. Allowing an excused absence would have saved so much time and money but now the County allowed things to be made much worse.

The county is not teaching respect and tolerance and this is segregation to separate kids. Parents have rights. You’d be upset if they choose a different direction to teach and you wanted different. The curriculum should be inclusive and it’s not.

You have no idea what I think about the curriculum because I didn’t post it. I observed that the poster doesn’t actually know the case details. It was a loser case and now makes things much more difficult for everyone.

The case showed how intolerant MCPS and some of the parents are about tolerance to others. They want tolerance and acceptance when it comes to their beliefs but not others. Thats not healthy for our kids. We live in a community with a huge amount of diversity and all that diversity should be respected, just not select groups.

What's up with these talking points about "if you don't welcome and support my bigotry you're intolerant"? I see this a lot... but it's just gotcha phrasing, and people don't actually believe this, do they? Like, obviously "I don't like Christians and don't want them in my school" is intolerant, but do these people actually honestly think it's "intolerant" to not accommodate everyone's prejudices by erasing the existence of people they're biased towards from schools, and if is somehow more "tolerant" to exclude any mention of certain kinds of people because someone doesn't like them?

The parents weren't asking for anyone to be erased, nor where they asking that the books be banned; they simply asked that their children be able to opt out, as they had previously, and still can for some classes.

That's it - the books aren't being banned.

Yes but the challenge that presents is that means folks can opt out of books for any reason. Which then means teachers have to prepare double lessons.

If a teacher is using the books they are reading then, using them to teach literary elements, comparing and contrasting. Families would be opting out of all those lessons.

Where do you think that would lead next?

An artificial problem created by activists in MCPS. A vast majority of non-regious families don't want all this LGBTQ talk for 5-6 years old kids. If any doubt, MCPS should run a survey about it and it will be clear.

Simple solution is to fire activists who are using taxpayers money for their agenda.

What about the books that just have married people… gay or straight? Or interracial couples? Why do you get to opt out of that?

What about books about child rape? Do we start showing that as well becaue it exists? There are tons of things not appropriate for 5-6 years old and just becasue it exist in world, we don't need to start teaching them.

There is time and place to talk about LGBTQ. 5-6 years old don't need to know individual lifestyle choices made by some folks.

I started teaching my kids about sex abuse early on, but like anything you do it in an age appropriate way. They’ve always know cousin likes boys and never cared or thought much about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In essence, yes it is. Parents had wanted to opt their kid out, but MCPS stated that if they do, it would be an unexcused absence. SCOTUS said, basically, it would be an excused absence.

First, "In essence" is meaningless in a court case like this. The only time "excused absence" is even mentioned is when the facts of the case as presented to the district and appeals courts are being discussed; that term is never used as part of the actual decision.

Second, if you read Justice Sotomayor's dissent, it's very clear to her that this means alternative instruction for those students who opt out.

Third, unless MCPS forces parents to keep their kids home under excused absence for other opt-outs, they can't do it for these students, as that would constitute not only discrimination but reprisal based on religious beliefs.

which of the other opt-outs deal with groups of people?

The opt-out (under Maryland law) allows parents to opt their children out of instruction on family life and human sexuality.

As for "groups of people", it doesn't matter - handling opt-outs for family life and human sexuality one way but opt-outs for religious based concerns another way is discriminatory.

"humans" are not a group of people. the opt out is saying they object to hearing about how others live their lives. different from learning that you don't pee out of the period hole.

What you seem to be missing, intentionally or not, is that the reason for the opt-out is irrelevant in relation to how it's handled.

If MCPS allows students who opt out of family life and human sexuality to go to the library or otherwise take part in alternate instruction, they can't tell religious parents who opt out of LGBTQ content that they have to keep their kids at home that day.

in practice it might be irrelevant, I'll give you that. but I would imagine that the motivation it isn't the same is because the religious activists are objecting to the behaviors of other people right next to them.

Peoples beliefs should be respected regardless of if you agree. You want tolerance but are preaching the exact opposite. There is no need to integrate it into every subject and handle it in health ed, which it’s aready a huge focus and families can opt out. Pick books that meet all families views and stop being so intolerant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In essence, yes it is. Parents had wanted to opt their kid out, but MCPS stated that if they do, it would be an unexcused absence. SCOTUS said, basically, it would be an excused absence.

First, "In essence" is meaningless in a court case like this. The only time "excused absence" is even mentioned is when the facts of the case as presented to the district and appeals courts are being discussed; that term is never used as part of the actual decision.

Second, if you read Justice Sotomayor's dissent, it's very clear to her that this means alternative instruction for those students who opt out.

Third, unless MCPS forces parents to keep their kids home under excused absence for other opt-outs, they can't do it for these students, as that would constitute not only discrimination but reprisal based on religious beliefs.

which of the other opt-outs deal with groups of people?

The opt-out (under Maryland law) allows parents to opt their children out of instruction on family life and human sexuality.

As for "groups of people", it doesn't matter - handling opt-outs for family life and human sexuality one way but opt-outs for religious based concerns another way is discriminatory.

"humans" are not a group of people. the opt out is saying they object to hearing about how others live their lives. different from learning that you don't pee out of the period hole.

What you seem to be missing, intentionally or not, is that the reason for the opt-out is irrelevant in relation to how it's handled.

If MCPS allows students who opt out of family life and human sexuality to go to the library or otherwise take part in alternate instruction, they can't tell religious parents who opt out of LGBTQ content that they have to keep their kids at home that day.

in practice it might be irrelevant, I'll give you that. but I would imagine that the motivation it isn't the same is because the religious activists are objecting to the behaviors of other people right next to them.

Peoples beliefs should be respected regardless of if you agree. You want tolerance but are preaching the exact opposite. There is no need to integrate it into every subject and handle it in health ed, which it’s aready a huge focus and families can opt out. Pick books that meet all families views and stop being so intolerant.

There also has to be a way for teachers to handle kids who disagree without making a value judgement one way or the other.

A lesson is about a family with two dads or two moms, and little Susie says "There can't be two dads or two moms, there has to be one dad and one mom". The teacher's response shouldn't be "No Susie, you're wrong", it should be "Susie, some families have two dads or two moms - you may think it's wrong, but everyone needs to be treated with kindness and respect, even if we disagree with them."

It's really not that hard.

[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.

We don't push 1 month of regular marriage celebration like MCPS does for LGBTQ. That's simply counter productive.

This issue has gone extreme in our county and MCPS going till suprement court is a wake up call that let;s not county be highjacked by nut cases. That's how some one like Trump gets elected.

I'm a Democrat who is glad Trump won because of the trans nonsense that infiltrated our schools
MCPS public statement after they got handed the loss shows they learned nothing

Trump will win a third term and our schools will continue to suffer

[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!

+1

Live your life. No one is bothering you, don't bother others with your agenda.

The point is we are teaching heterosexuality every day. The princess marries the prince. The mom and dad have a baby. There is implicit messaging if that is all you see.

Exactly. All 12 months are a celebration of heterosexuality.

Why celebrate sexuality at all? Esp in schools. It's dumb

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pictures included in the opinion (starting on page 42) really show how insane some of this stuff was that they were teaching.

MCPS said opt outs were too burdensome. So they scrapped them. Maybe they should have looked at their wacko curriculum instead. Fools

[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.

And hooray the suicide rates are going to go up! And bullying rates! Exactly what we want for our kids.

Hyperbole. Yawn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pictures included in the opinion (starting on page 42) really show how insane some of this stuff was that they were teaching.

MCPS said opt outs were too burdensome. So they scrapped them. Maybe they should have looked at their wacko curriculum instead. Fools

I looked at the pictures and you have to be smoking crack to think any of those are alarming.

[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.

They actually get an extra recess. It's better for my kid than to be read Pride Puppy and Drag Queens Bonanza. This isn't Provincetown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes the best way to normalize things is to *not* make such a big deal about it.

Like others have said, it’s 2025. Everyone on the planet can rattle off a long list of beloved gay celebs and many know a gay person IRL. Our state embraces gay marriage.

The fact that kids feel comfortable enough identifying as LGBTQ or non-binary or even as a furry demonstrates that our MoCo community is in fact a safe place.

So why drill down sooooo hard in the schools?

It’s not necessary…particularly at the K-5 level.

As a Gen X’er, I was raised in MoCo to embrace and celebrate diversity…and it seemed to work. My Gen X friends and coworkers have diverse friends groups and a “live and let live” mentality. It wasn’t until the post-George Floyd era that race and then gender identity became some bizarre tribal thing where everyone decamped into strictly defined—and let’s face it, self-segregated—groups followed by a hard push to drill down on special interest everything…including curricula.

Enough already.

Embrace and celebrity diversity. Easy peasy. But please focus on academics, civics, and just treating everyone with the same respect you would expect.

+1

Activist taking over MCPS made it a big issue. It's a non-issue in our county.

Nicely said. A few lessons on it is fine, just like lessons about other groups and beliefs. But it is in every class, the priority and kids are fine with it in this area and don't care. The heavy push makes some families and kids uncomfortable. We've had teachers who condemn the kids for using he/she as their pronouns and want kids to change them. Teachers, Admin and MCPS need to get back to teaching and not keep politics outside. Many teachers think the kids are their friends and way over share. What ever is going on right now since they changed things and took away books isn't working as you can see the scores drop with all the changes.

If true, this is appalling.

Mine just change the pronoun to make the teacher happy but it’s not reasonable to also not be mindful of kids who are not LGBT and support them as adolescent and teen years are hard enough and when teachers send these messages, kids don’t feel it’s ok to have opinions or thoughts outside the norm. We’ve only seen it with a select group of teachers but teachers need to keep their personal thoughts, beliefs and personal lives out of the classroom. Our kids don’t need adults to be their friends they need authority figures.

This is also appalling.

[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.

You are a garbage teacher.

No, they're a great teacher, teaching kids that people of various types exist. You're a garbage person.

Why teach kindergarteners and 1st graders about sexual orientation? Do they do sex-ed at that age?

Can't teach Jesus or Mohammad
Or the Trans dogma too

Or I guess you can. But if you do, tell parents and allow them to opt out.

[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.

Left if looney tunes. Like they think a man with a penis can be a woman or gender questionable.

[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.

And hooray the suicide rates are going to go up! And bullying rates! Exactly what we want for our kids.

Hyperbole. Yawn

Right? Suicide rates are going to go up because some kids opt out of some lessons? No one is taking the books away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pictures included in the opinion (starting on page 42) really show how insane some of this stuff was that they were teaching.

MCPS said opt outs were too burdensome. So they scrapped them. Maybe they should have looked at their wacko curriculum instead. Fools

I looked at the pictures and you have to be smoking crack to think any of those are alarming.

Uhh.. saying doctors guessed on gender? That's anti science. Not just anti religion. Go see a psychiatrist or plastic surgeon if you think otherwise

[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:just let them stay home with excused absences. as long as they aren't creating a strain on school resources, go nuts. it's their education that they sacrifice.

yes, exactly. It's a win/win. Not sure why MCPS fought it so hard. There are kids who opt out of Family Life. Not a big deal.

i think it is because the religious were demanding alternative programming and babysitting for kids who can't be by themselves. If MCPS doesn't have to
provide that, then it's all good.

Another person didn’t bother me o read the case but still shoots off anyway. Doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what relief the parents sought. Allowing an excused absence would have saved so much time and money but now the County allowed things to be made much worse.

The county is not teaching respect and tolerance and this is segregation to separate kids. Parents have rights. You’d be upset if they choose a different direction to teach and you wanted different. The curriculum should be inclusive and it’s not.

You have no idea what I think about the curriculum because I didn’t post it. I observed that the poster doesn’t actually know the case details. It was a loser case and now makes things much more difficult for everyone.

The case showed how intolerant MCPS and some of the parents are about tolerance to others. They want tolerance and acceptance when it comes to their beliefs but not others. Thats not healthy for our kids. We live in a community with a huge amount of diversity and all that diversity should be respected, just not select groups.

What's up with these talking points about "if you don't welcome and support my bigotry you're intolerant"? I see this a lot... but it's just gotcha phrasing, and people don't actually believe this, do they? Like, obviously "I don't like Christians and don't want them in my school" is intolerant, but do these people actually honestly think it's "intolerant" to not accommodate everyone's prejudices by erasing the existence of people they're biased towards from schools, and if is somehow more "tolerant" to exclude any mention of certain kinds of people because someone doesn't like them?

The parents weren't asking for anyone to be erased, nor where they asking that the books be banned; they simply asked that their children be able to opt out, as they had previously, and still can for some classes.

That's it - the books aren't being banned.

Yes but the challenge that presents is that means folks can opt out of books for any reason. Which then means teachers have to prepare double lessons.

If a teacher is using the books they are reading then, using them to teach literary elements, comparing and contrasting. Families would be opting out of all those lessons.

Where do you think that would lead next?

An artificial problem created by activists in MCPS. A vast majority of non-regious families don't want all this LGBTQ talk for 5-6 years old kids. If any doubt, MCPS should run a survey about it and it will be clear.

Simple solution is to fire activists who are using taxpayers money for their agenda.

What about the books that just have married people… gay or straight? Or interracial couples? Why do you get to opt out of that?

What about books about child rape? Do we start showing that as well becaue it exists? There are tons of things not appropriate for 5-6 years old and just becasue it exist in world, we don't need to start teaching them.

There is time and place to talk about LGBTQ. 5-6 years old don't need to know individual lifestyle choices made by some folks.

Are you being willfully obtuse, or do you really not get how profoundly offensive it is to insist that knowledge of the existence of LGBTQ people is inappropriate for 5 and 6 year olds, and so the only kinds of people and families that should ever appear in their books are straight cis people and families? That kindergarteners and first graders should be effectively taught by implication that the only normal people and families are straight and cis, and so they and/or their family members who are LGBT are weird and abnormal? That it is okay to have families with straight parents in their books but there is something somehow wrong with having gay parents in books? If you honestly believe this, then fine, but don't drag the rest of us back to the dark ages with you, and don't sacrifice the well being of poor little kids to do it.