OP, I see where you are coming from, but you would likely support education about the risks of drugs, and some form of sex ed. Providing awareness and encouraging acceptance does not equal making these things seem cool or recommended. These are impressionable kids, and I think there is a delicate way to present these subjects. The most important piece is the parent knowing these topics are being covered and discussing with their kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really OP? Teaching kids about empathy is somehow bad? Do you think we shouldn't teach them about charity too? Maybe we shouldn't tell them about suicide or poverty or sexual abuse because it will "give them ideas".

It's amazing to me that somebody could criticize a program that is teaching our children how to be better human beings. I've got news for you about your anecdotal example of self-harm: nobody would engage in self-harm unless they were feeling pretty damn awful. Nobody will keep a child from learning about self-harm unless the kids are locked in a basement with no contact with the outside world. You cannot protect your children from information and the thought that this information gives them harmful ideas is ludicrous.

Your irrationally hostile reaction to this question suggests perhaps that you are in need of some mental health counseling.

Teens are impressionable. The way this stuff is messaged is important. I'm suggesting that perhaps the messaging is off, not that it shouldn't be taught at all.

How would you change the messaging?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really OP? Teaching kids about empathy is somehow bad? Do you think we shouldn't teach them about charity too? Maybe we shouldn't tell them about suicide or poverty or sexual abuse because it will "give them ideas".

It's amazing to me that somebody could criticize a program that is teaching our children how to be better human beings. I've got news for you about your anecdotal example of self-harm: nobody would engage in self-harm unless they were feeling pretty damn awful. Nobody will keep a child from learning about self-harm unless the kids are locked in a basement with no contact with the outside world. You cannot protect your children from information and the thought that this information gives them harmful ideas is ludicrous.

Your irrationally hostile reaction to this question suggests perhaps that you are in need of some mental health counseling.

Teens are impressionable. The way this stuff is messaged is important. I'm suggesting that perhaps the messaging is off, not that it shouldn't be taught at all.

You are stating this as if there is no planning or packing of these messages, that the teachers march into the classroom without any preparation from a team of professionals and they just speak off the cuff. The message is delivered very thoughtfully and carefully, after much training from professionals. You can't sugarcoat life. At a certain age kids need to learn that there are many who struggle and suffer for various reasons, to protect them from that because they might get ideas is not the way to build resiliency in your own child nor to build a community. And to think that kids don't know about this if they have any access to social media is naive.

NP here. I wouldn't be as sure. My husband is a teacher, and he was asked to discuss sexual harassment/abuse with his (mostly-female) class of high schoolers after attending a 10-minute meeting on the topic. He declined because he didn't feel comfortable leading such a sensitive discussion, so another (male) teacher did it. Don't assume the teachers in all school systems have the prep or training they should when broaching these tough but important subjects.

OP, if the kids have a cell phone then they know all about this stuff. It's responsible of the school to guide them through the misinformation and give them the real information so that they know how to deal with it. You can't protect kids from knowing about this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really OP? Teaching kids about empathy is somehow bad? Do you think we shouldn't teach them about charity too? Maybe we shouldn't tell them about suicide or poverty or sexual abuse because it will "give them ideas".

It's amazing to me that somebody could criticize a program that is teaching our children how to be better human beings. I've got news for you about your anecdotal example of self-harm: nobody would engage in self-harm unless they were feeling pretty damn awful. Nobody will keep a child from learning about self-harm unless the kids are locked in a basement with no contact with the outside world. You cannot protect your children from information and the thought that this information gives them harmful ideas is ludicrous.

Your irrationally hostile reaction to this question suggests perhaps that you are in need of some mental health counseling.

Teens are impressionable. The way this stuff is messaged is important. I'm suggesting that perhaps the messaging is off, not that it shouldn't be taught at all.

You are stating this as if there is no planning or packing of these messages, that the teachers march into the classroom without any preparation from a team of professionals and they just speak off the cuff. The message is delivered very thoughtfully and carefully, after much training from professionals. You can't sugarcoat life. At a certain age kids need to learn that there are many who struggle and suffer for various reasons, to protect them from that because they might get ideas is not the way to build resiliency in your own child nor to build a community. And to think that kids don't know about this if they have any access to social media is naive.

Anonymous wrote:Really OP? Teaching kids about empathy is somehow bad? Do you think we shouldn't teach them about charity too? Maybe we shouldn't tell them about suicide or poverty or sexual abuse because it will "give them ideas".

It's amazing to me that somebody could criticize a program that is teaching our children how to be better human beings. I've got news for you about your anecdotal example of self-harm: nobody would engage in self-harm unless they were feeling pretty damn awful. Nobody will keep a child from learning about self-harm unless the kids are locked in a basement with no contact with the outside world. You cannot protect your children from information and the thought that this information gives them harmful ideas is ludicrous.

Your irrationally hostile reaction to this question suggests perhaps that you are in need of some mental health counseling.

Teens are impressionable. The way this stuff is messaged is important. I'm suggesting that perhaps the messaging is off, not that it shouldn't be taught at all.

Really OP? Teaching kids about empathy is somehow bad? Do you think we shouldn't teach them about charity too? Maybe we shouldn't tell them about suicide or poverty or sexual abuse because it will "give them ideas".

It's amazing to me that somebody could criticize a program that is teaching our children how to be better human beings. I've got news for you about your anecdotal example of self-harm: nobody would engage in self-harm unless they were feeling pretty damn awful. Nobody will keep a child from learning about self-harm unless the kids are locked in a basement with no contact with the outside world. You cannot protect your children from information and the thought that this information gives them harmful ideas is ludicrous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Is this worth having a broader policy discussion about? Because I do understand the value in teaching kids to empathize, but I'm not sure we fully appreciate the risks, particularly with lessons dealing with issues like self-harm, anorexia, drug use, etc.

It seems to me that the purpose of this curriculum is not to teach kids to empathize, but rather to inform kids.

Actually, teaching empathy is a primary objective.

A primary objective, or the primary objective?

A primary objective.

What are the other primary objectives?

OP I mean this in the kindest way because I understand your concerns, but what are your suggestions for a better way? I think "having a discussion" would be best served by discussing alternatives and how they might improve the current situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Is this worth having a broader policy discussion about? Because I do understand the value in teaching kids to empathize, but I'm not sure we fully appreciate the risks, particularly with lessons dealing with issues like self-harm, anorexia, drug use, etc.

It seems to me that the purpose of this curriculum is not to teach kids to empathize, but rather to inform kids.

Actually, teaching empathy is a primary objective.

A primary objective, or the primary objective?

A primary objective.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Is this worth having a broader policy discussion about? Because I do understand the value in teaching kids to empathize, but I'm not sure we fully appreciate the risks, particularly with lessons dealing with issues like self-harm, anorexia, drug use, etc.

It seems to me that the purpose of this curriculum is not to teach kids to empathize, but rather to inform kids.

Actually, teaching empathy is a primary objective.

A primary objective, or the primary objective?

The alternative is to have children who really are struggling with these things and cannot identify what they're suffering from and cannot get help at all.

It's better to have a bunch of silly teens pretending and wasting our time than to have a number of teens isolated and in real pain over what could have been treated had they recognized their symptoms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Is this worth having a broader policy discussion about? Because I do understand the value in teaching kids to empathize, but I'm not sure we fully appreciate the risks, particularly with lessons dealing with issues like self-harm, anorexia, drug use, etc.

It seems to me that the purpose of this curriculum is not to teach kids to empathize, but rather to inform kids.

Actually, teaching empathy is a primary objective.

Anonymous wrote:

Is this worth having a broader policy discussion about? Because I do understand the value in teaching kids to empathize, but I'm not sure we fully appreciate the risks, particularly with lessons dealing with issues like self-harm, anorexia, drug use, etc.

It seems to me that the purpose of this curriculum is not to teach kids to empathize, but rather to inform kids.

I am concerned about something that I know I cannot bring up in the AEM forum because I would be attacked relentlessly. But it's a very real thing, I think.

APS has built into its curriculum units on teaching empathy and about mental health. But I am really concerned that however well intentioned, some of these lessons are giving ideas to impressionable young teenagers.

Cases in point:

-- Frequently touted surveys that show kids in the middle schools are feeling highly anxious to the point of having trouble functioning. This may actually be true, but it may also be true that this "anxiety" is merely stress. Mislabeling it anxiety or having the kids think its anxiety leads to kids who are already trying on various identities as teenagers deciding they're anxious/depressed whatever as if it's a status thing. It's hard to separate the legitimate cases from those that are something else (or nothing at all). My own kid announced she was anxious but then what I figured out after listening to her (and sending her to a therapist at her request) was no, she's not anxious at all (farthest thing from it, actually), just merely under stress due to pressure to get good grades, practice her music and do her chores. But she was literally telling us because she has anxiety we need to drop these expectations.

-- A friend's child was assigned the topic of "self-harm" for a health class and English project. Child had never heard of self-harm before. You want to guess what happened? Child experimented with self-harm and then went in and told the counselor that she had tried (very superficially) to cut herself. She isn't actually experiencing mentally ill -- I think she wanted to see a reaction first-hand. Anyway it seems to be an isolated incident, but you'd better believe the school put this idea into her head.

-- We also had a phase where a whole bunch of kids decided they were gay/trans/pan sexual after a steady stream of messages about sexual identity. I realize saying this will be controversial, but it's true -- there was some power of suggestion here. All I know is in my middle school no one walked around talking earnestly and constantly about their sexual identity. Those conversations happened later -- high school or college.

Is this worth having a broader policy discussion about? Because I do understand the value in teaching kids to empathize, but I'm not sure we fully appreciate the risks, particularly with lessons dealing with issues like self-harm, anorexia, drug use, etc.