Michele Ellson has posted two updates about the School District’s new plan to provide:
…lessons addressing sexual orientation and gender identity that could be taught in all of the district’s elementary school classrooms this coming school year. The district’s plan would also provide teachers and staff with a uniform set of policies addressing name-calling, harassment and other anti-gay behavior…
While this new program has yet to be approved, there will still be community meetings in the fall to dicsuss this issue, two Elementary schools have already hosted presentations on some of these issues, which apparently upset some parents who complained about not enough notice to parents and questioned if this sort of presentation was age appropriate.
There is a comment on Michele E.’s site that will probably be echoed by some parents in the community as well in regards to this sort of cirrculum. The item that struck my attention was this line which said:
…I will be more than willing to accept mid-western religious zealot legal aide (which will be offered in bulk) to fight this intrusion in to the way that I want to raise my child according to my morals …
Interestingly enough, a California school district found itself staring at the possibility of a lawsuit because it did not provide the very sort of programs and presentation that AUSD is working on. From a short blurb on SFGate.com:
A Lake County school district has agreed to implement a comprehensive program to address anti-gay harassment to settle a complaint lodged by the family of a 14-year-old boy who said he was bullied.
The boy’s parents claim educators did nothing to stop the verbal taunting he received starting in third grade, and sought the help of the American Civil Liberties Union after a group of boys attacked him in a school locker room while yelling “fag” and “queer.”
Under the settlement announced Wednesday, the Upper Lake Union Elementary School District agreed to give anti-discrimination training to staff and students, outline disciplinary actions for harassment in its student handbooks and support the establishment of a gay-straight alliance club at its middle school.
The ACLU of Northern California has a more indepth press release on the issue and settlement, highlights:
…The agreement is on behalf of a student who was persistently subjected to verbal taunting and physical abuse throughout elementary and middle school based on his perceived sexual orientation…
“I can’t remember a day at school when I wasn’t called a faggot or gay,” recalled the student, Robby. Since the third grade Robby has been the target of taunts, bullying and anti-gay name-calling on a regular basis.
…
The settlement agreement …contains a series of proactive steps that the Upper Lake Union School District will take to create a safe learning environment for all students and to educate students and staff about preventing harassment and discrimination at school. The district also now has adopted clear policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, as required by California law…
It also includes a list of steps the School District will take in order to help this sort of incident from happening in the future. So for parents who somehow think that their children are much too delicate to understand these sorts of issues as early as Elementary School, the Lake County incidents started as early as third grade for young Robby. And in the case that parents simply do not want to expose their children to this sort of cirruculm, there is always the option to “opt out” of the presentations and lessons on these issues of inclusiveness.
Personally, if the school district had to be facing any lawsuit, I would rather it come from a “mid-western religious zealot” legal team brought in by a disgruntled parent rather than it come from a child who had been harassed and bullied and beatened because there were no programs to teach kids the value of tolerance and acceptance of all people in spite of their differences.
There’s gonna be a sh*t storm.
Comment by MarkD — June 26, 2008 @ 7:49 am
At Franklin a class was given to Kindergartners and although we were assured it was about diversity the topic turned out to be transgender. I don’t think my 5 year old who still believes in fairies and magic is old enough to comprehend transgender or for that matter should have right now. His teacher didn’t agree it was appropriate for his age and we completely agreed and kept him from class that day.
It seems the school district is responding not for the betterment of the kids but from a risk management standpoint. Growing up kids know when their being a bully, teasing or being abusive and I don’t think a class is going to change that. What is going to change is that the school district is going to say is that we had a class and there fore our risk is minimal.
Comment by Vince — June 26, 2008 @ 8:40 am
Here is what I posted in its entirety …
It is not the school board’s place to decide whether my kids should learn about homosexuality in elementary school or whether to condone such behavior. Feel free to teach your kids what you want about it in your home and at whatever age you feel such instruction is appropriate for your children. However, if the board attempts to force such issues upon my children at such a young age and tries to force it’s own set of morals (which is direct opposition to the morals of more than 99.99% of the people on this planet) upon my young children, then expect a very expensive legal battle. I am not a religious zealot (I do not even attend church) and I am a firm believer in everyone’s right to live their life the way that they want and according to the belief system of their own choosing. However, I will be more than willing to accept mid-western religious zealot legal aide (which will be offered in bulk) to fight this intrusion in to the way that I want to raise my child according to my morals …
Comment by Alameda Parent — June 26, 2008 @ 9:10 am
… and to expand upon that thought, my personal opinion is that both the far left “gay is great” people and the far right “its an abomination of god’s word” camps are both completely freaky. However, if it takes bringing in the far right zealots to counteract the far left militants so that we as a community end up somewhere in the middle, which is where most of the community finds itself, then so be it. America the beautiful …
Comment by Alameda Parent — June 26, 2008 @ 9:18 am
Having spent 25 years of my life in the Midwest I can safely say that “Alameda Parent” would be considered a far right zealot even there.
And his “99.99%” quip would be indicative of his foolishness in any part of the country.
Comment by dave — June 26, 2008 @ 9:38 am
LOL dave … if you think that my comments are far right, you need to get off of the Island more often
Comment by Alameda Parent — June 26, 2008 @ 9:44 am
Perhaps I run in a more civilized crowd than you, but I’ll stand on the bulk of my life experience in that part of the nation that you referenced.
But I’m quite curious about your 99.99% number. Where does that come from? Even in South Carolina, generally acknowledged as our most Red state, 22% of voters recently voted in support of gay marriage.
Comment by dave — June 26, 2008 @ 9:55 am
Can’t the schools please stay focused on ACADEMICS?
Comment by Jack B — June 26, 2008 @ 10:26 am
The impending doom we are facing and need to urgently educate children about is the environment, not sexual identity. For example, half the schools in Alameda don’t recycle properly or attempts to do so are met with anything from apathy to stiff resistance. We have a small island of plastic forming in the Pacific, to which we add every day out of sheer indolence. If the district has any resources to spare, I’d prefer they be spent on teaching kids (and adults) how not to waste resources, not on gender identity for kindergartners.
Cleary, the underlying issue is bullying. Bullying is not OK, no matter what the reason. The district already has a policy against bullying. We don’t teach special classes on tolerance towards kids who are obese, or slow, or nerdy, or wear glasses. Why single out the gay ones? Because the ACLU said so?
I personally would rather not be bullied to jump on every bandwagon that passes by. I can teach my own kids all the tolerance they need. Conservatives and liberals, go fight somewhere else please.
Comment by AD — June 26, 2008 @ 11:09 am
I’m with you Dave. “Alameda parents” comment about 99.99% of our population reminds me of Lou Dobbs comment that 99.99% of this country is not racist, some people say the “darndest” things.
I like your style Dave, keep it up.
Comment by john piziali — June 26, 2008 @ 11:28 am
“It seems the school district is responding not for the betterment of the kids but from a risk management standpoint.”
Yes, and the risk is to our students and their parents. If students are harrassed because of their real or perceived sexual identity that is unacceptable. All of our students need to feel comfortable at school. Tolerance begins early. It would be best if tolerance and understanding were taught at home, at worship, in the neighborhood as well as the schools.
I have gay and lesbian neighbors with children in the public schools. I have relatives who are gay and friends and co-workers who are gay and lesbian. Children need to be taught that it is unacceptable to bully, harrass and yell, Faggot! at their classmates. No one’s children should be subjected to a hostile school environment. The schools need to do their part to keep our children safe from harrassment. If they don’t, then parents have to responsibility to pursue all avenues — including the courts — to keep their children safe at school.
Comment by alamedaNayTiff — June 26, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
# 10
Reread # 3 dave/piziali, Parent wrote 99.9% of the “planet” not “this country” and if you don’t believe it, count them yourself.
Comment by Reading teacher — June 26, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
I agree that no one’s children should be subjected to a hostile school environment.
However, just as it is your right to teach your kids that it is “OK” and “normal” for men to have sex with other men, it is my right to teach my kids that homosexuality is a pathological disorder that is fundamentally contrary to nature. And, by the way, most of the inhabitants of this planet agree with me …
Teach tolerance … absolutely. Teach acceptance of homosexuality as a “normal” variant … not in my elementary schools.
Comment by Alameda Parent — June 26, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
I remember there being postings in middle school of sections of the conduct code about sexual harassment, but it was never discussed.
Comment by Bob — June 26, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
-7 billion people on earth
-According to AP that leaves only 700,000 people on earth are unoffended
-There are likely more than 700,000 gay friendly people in the East Bay, let alone on the planet
Sincerely,
Math teacher
Comment by dave — June 26, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
>>> Children need to be taught that it is unacceptable to bully, harrass and yell, Faggot! at their classmates.
It probably doesn’t even OCCUR to elementary school children to do the above. Must it?
Comment by Jack B — June 26, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
#13 indicates it may well occur to children of at least one household in town
Comment by dave — June 26, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
dave … grow up. Just as my kids do not run calling fat people “fatty” they do not run around calling gay people “faggot” either. You implications are narrow minded and are unsupported by my statements. Just because we do not condone either of those lifestyles does not mean that we are going to be rude to those that do. Unlike you, we are tolerant and respectful of other people’s opinions …
Comment by Alameda Parent — June 26, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Middle school boys call each other derogatory names like faggot all the time. Children should be taught respect, as differentiated from tolerance. Is it OK for bully to call a straight boy “faggot?”. Happens all the time.
Comment by Mike Rich — June 26, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
You certainly are AP, as evidenced by #13.
I’ve never read such a thoughtful example of tolerance in my life.
Comment by dave — June 26, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
AUSD didn’t just add this to their plate as a condiment. It is part of the safe-schools law. It must be brought in and discussed in the classroom by law.
I have been to several of the meetings and demos of the class lessons and found them to be very mild and much more about kindness to others than anything else.
Comment by Barbara M — June 26, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
Has anyone seen this film?
http://www.kqed.org/w/baywindow/itselementary/
#13 “However, just as it is your right to teach your kids that it is “OK” and “normal” for men to have sex with other men, it is my right to teach my kids that homosexuality is a pathological disorder that is fundamentally contrary to nature. And, by the way, most of the inhabitants of this planet agree with me …
Teach tolerance … absolutely. Teach acceptance of homosexuality as a “normal” variant … not in my elementary schools.”
I know just how you feel. I told my kids that people of your religion are sick and twisted and that you are all going to burn in hell for eternity — but that they should be nice to you anyway.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 26, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
“I know just how you feel. I told my kids that people of your religion are sick and twisted and that you are all going to burn in hell for eternity — but that they should be nice to you anyway.”
First, I am not religious in the least so cast your lies and baseless implications upon someone else. Second, if you were in fact teaching your kids to be nice to people in spite of their differences (which I am sure that you are not doing as evidenced by your weak attempt at sarcasm), then I would applaud your open mindedness …
Comment by Alameda Parent — June 26, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
#23
Well, if your beliefs are not based in your religion then on what authority do you rely upon when you state that:
“It is my right to teach my kids that homosexuality is a pathological disorder that is fundamentally contrary to nature”
Neither the APA nor AMA supports that statement.
If your statement is not supported by science nor by your religion, then how exactly did you arrive at this conclusion?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 26, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
Actually, my views are based 100% in science. However, I am not on this blog to debate my beliefs with this community of self-proclaimed “progressives”, only my right to not have the progressive minority’s unusual sense of morals forced upon my 5 and 7 year olds at school. Nonetheless, please enlighten me as to how homosexuality is a normal pathology and how it serves to propagate survival of the species … I can’t wait to hear this
Comment by Alameda Parent — June 26, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
I, too, would like to understand why this needs to be addressed to my 5 and 7 year-olds. They’ve never heard the word “faggot”. And they already have friends w/ two moms… they don’t even think twice about it. Why now?
Comment by Jack B — June 26, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Duh! Talk about Wanky….
I have taught my children about tolerance. I am very proud of them.
As 3rd & 6th graders they have their own gender identity, but they don’t give a hoot about sexual preferences of others. Sexuality, especially transgender is not part of their life experience, nor do I want it to be at their age. They don’t need to form concepts or hold opinions on such issues. They are young kids, not young adults. We have gay and lesbian friends and it is a non-issue for them, - total acceptance. We’ve taken them to the Pride Parade, and they had fun. (Parades are fun for kids of all ages.) One year we even rode with some of the grand marshals. That year as the prior year we were helping friends working on “Marriage Equality.”
My kids probably don’t even recognize sexual preference issues, let alone transgender issues. Sexual identity or transgender concepts are just too much for kids of elementary school age.
My understanding of this particular AUSD issue is that it started at Franklin because one 5 year old boy wanted to come to school dressed as a girl, and one girl wanted to play as a boy.
ADULTS - GET IT TOGETHER AND CHILL!
This is called “Dress-up”, or “pretending”, and “play”. Kids do that.
(Well most kids do – perhaps some parents were not aware of that as they are wrapped too tight and blinded by their own perceptions.)
This is not a call to label the boy as trans-gender, or gay. For god’s sake grow up and let kids be kids. Even if this was to “raise awareness”, how will most other kids now perceive those kids this issue became an issue for? Did their parents want all other kids to be “transgender trained?” Will they now sue because they were not informed by AUSD counselors that this action could stigmatize their kids?
If this is an example of how our tax dollars get spent why would we want to support such BS? Franklin PTA should focus their resources on a reality check for the school’s parents.
This idea of teaching kindergarten and primary schoolers about transgender is not a right wing or left wing, left coast, or a corn-fed philosophy – it is the bazaar sub-basement of “Political Correctness”. Get a grip.
If the issue was pursued by AUSD because of the ‘Risk Management’ office, let’s eliminate that office if it can’t be infused with common sense.
Comment by David Kirwin — June 26, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
This new proposal to teach tolerance for alternative lifestyles—to kids as young as Jack’s—is just another example of bandwagon politics. Hurray for the gays, but can’t we respect their rights without draping ourselves (and our kids) in the rainbow flag, now? I found it amusing that the Mayor suddenly remembered marriage ceremonies could be performed at City Hall, not to fall behind on the gay marriage thing. As if non-gay couples wuldn’t have liked a marriage ceremony before the law passed!
MOre to the point, how is tis curriculum going to be effective? Everybody knows that if parents at home donlt support ot reitarate what’s taughts at school, it’s in one ear and out the other. If this is true for something as technical as reading, what about something as nebulous as “tolerance” or “respect”? The kids who are bullies are bullies because of behavior that is modelled to them, not at school but elsewhere. The best a school can do is have a firm and well-publicized policy about such behavior. Or if you like, demand that parents of child “offenders” attend tolerance classes—like traffic school. Trying to neutralize home values with school curriculum is a waste of time. Or else, someone’s political agenda.
It seems to me the problem in San Francisco was “educators didn’t do enought to stop the bullying.”Id San Francisco has been teaching tolerance classes for ten years, clearly they weren’t very effective. Maybe the educators decided the classes were taking care of things and forgot to enforce their policy. It is much more effective to traget individual cases of harrassment and pursue them to the fullest extent possible, e.g by talking to the bully, parent, victim, etc, than tantalize 7-year olds with sexual terminology which will do nothing to chage their values but just ,might give them more vocabulary to throw around on the playground.
Finally, I’d like to see some numbers as to how many bullying cases the district dealt with in a year. Because I’m really curious if this new curriculum is in response to a problem we actually have, or just some feel-good initiative somebody wants their name next to. We just passed a parcel tax to keep core programs, for god’s sake. Where’s the money going to come from for this one??
Comment by AD — June 26, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
#25
“Is homosexuality a mental disorder?
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.”
American Psychological Association
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html
#26
Because they will hear it — if they haven’t already.
Obviously whatever material is presented needs to be age appropriate. I remember being in third grade and being taught about racial, ethnic and cultural differences during “Negro History Week.”
Why is this the role of the schools? Because harassment based upon sexual orientation happens on school grounds. I have a co-worker who was tormented as a child with taunts of being a “faggot.” The cultural climate in the schools needs to make this type of behavior unacceptable.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 26, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
#21 - “AUSD didn’t just add this to their plate as a condiment. It is part of the safe-schools law. It must be brought in and discussed in the classroom by law. ”
Barbara - please cite the Ed Code requirement to teach primary grade students about transgender!!!
Comment by David Kirwin — June 26, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
#25
With parents such as AP, the last thing we need is for the survival or the propagation of the species
Comment by Paul — June 26, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
Children learn to bully and discriminate at home. Parents are, and always should be the primary educators of their children.
Parents who use derogatory phases and mean words in front of the child are perpetuating a culture of bullying and intolerance. This cycle can only end when we, as adults, display tolerance consistantly when children are around.
As a teacher, I heard 2nd and 3rd graders use words that they didn’t even know the meaning of - but they knew it was insulting and would hurt the other child. Almost all said they had heard these words at home from parents. These were not just anti-gay comments, but racial, sexist and often sereotyped.
I would like AUSD to focus on all aspects of bullying, intolerance and disrespect. I think parents need to understand that their off hand commments of “he’s a fag” “she’s a bitch” “what a wimp” “he’s a loser” and other didrepectful statements made at home are a primary reason schools must deal with these issues.
Perhaps parent training is the answer.
Comment by irish — June 26, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Well anti-drug programs didn’t stop drugs. Anti-faggot-calling programs aren’t going to stop anything either.
We had to deal w/ the bully issue right off the bat in K-garten. The teachers and parents (and kids!) worked together and that particular bully is a prince now. No program needed… just some good communication and common sense.
Comment by Jack B — June 26, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
From 2004 Legal Advisory from Department of Education
Comment by Lauren Do — June 26, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
To those parents who are opposed to a program like the one described, did you ever consider that your own child could be victimized to the point that he or she no longer wanted to go to school? It happened to a friend of mine whose son, a really nice kid, was so tormented that the parents took him out of school. The school has a responsibility to create an environment conducive to learning for all children. Not all parents are as responsible as those who write here. What happens when the parents fail to teach their children empathy and understanding — or worse yet, actually promote hatred and intolerance?
The schools need to help create understanding and also let students know that there are consequences for unacceptable behavior.
Our local schools are acting reasonably. This is what can happen when districts fail to take action.
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/35778prs20080625.html
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 26, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
#35 thank you…
Let’s not forget that we also have parents fueling the hatred. Yes it is California and the year 2008 but racism is alive and well. Skin heads don’t show up looking like that at 5 years old but that is when the brain washing begins.
Comment by Barbara M — June 26, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
Tiff, I don’t think anyone disagrees that ” The school has a responsibility to create an environment conducive to learning for all children. ” I mean… cheers to that!
But the first sentence in Michelle Ellson’s post is: “A school district team unveiled plans Tuesday night for new lessons addressing sexual orientation and gender identity that could be taught in all of the district’s elementary school classrooms this coming school year.”
Comment by Jack B — June 26, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
“To those parents who are opposed to a program like the one described, did you ever consider that your own child could be victimized to the point that he or she no longer wanted to go to school? ”
No. I teach my kids to not be a victim … this is much more effective than trying to teach bullies not to bully.
What happens when the parents fail to teach their children empathy and understanding — or worse yet, actually promote hatred and intolerance?
That is called life. There will always be a$$holes … try growing a thicker skin and teaching your kids how not to be a victim. Should we tolerate bullying in schools? Hell no. But do we try to solve the problem by having the government indoctrinate our 5 year olds to homosexuality and transgender issues in school? Hell no.
Comment by Alameda Parent — June 26, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
I am curious as to how 5-7 year olds were arrived at as the target range for this. Was there some study emphatically demonstrating that 9 or 12 would be too late? (Serious question.)
I ask because I suspect that many parents hesitate to have the “Where do babies come from?” conversation with children of 5 or 7.
Comment by Susan — June 26, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
I don’t know what the exact curriculum is so I can’t say that it’s either bad or good. I have a kid in 1st grade and I don’t think there really is any point in him learning what it means to be transgendered or specifics on the lifestyle (yet). But if this is about teaching young kids to be ok with everyone, including transgendered kids, why not? It all depends on the context and the delivery, both of which I am unfamiliar with. It might do everyone some good if the entire presentation/lecture/discussion was made available for parents to understand the nature of the talk.
And to those who think that kids at this stage don’t hear and use words like “faggot” or “homo”, you are seriously ill-informed. I have heard it first hand from both little boys and girls, at my kid’s school. And this is a problem, especially for kids who grow up hearing this from a young age and realize that they are in fact gay. “Growing a thicker skin” doesn’t actually work when you are completely freaked out about who you are, and people use those words like it’s no big deal. I should know, I got in many a scuffle watching out for my little brother when I was a kid.
Comment by MarkD — June 26, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
So far everyone has argued all day long about this issue. I have not seen the actual program written out or described by the district. We all love to take sides on this blog, however sometimes I really wonder if it is just to be contrary.
don’t you think we should actually know what the district is going to roll out before we attack each other with so much fury.
Comment by john piziali — June 26, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO TEACH ABOUT SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR TRANSGENDER, TO TEACH ABOUT HOW TO BE NICE TO EACH OTHER
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO TEACH ABOUT SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR TRANSGENDER FOR ANY REASON TO LITTLE KIDS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
You don’t have to drag sex, straight or queer, into lessons on acceptable behavior or tolerance of others especially to a crowd so young that I believe most parents would say “What gives you the right…?”
The components of sexual, non-hetero, relationships and the people who display them, have nothing more to do with need for tolerance of others than does alcoholism, cancer, racial differences, language differences, heroin addicts, wealthy Saudis, indigent Indians, military kids, Eskimos, children of famed cricket players, obesity, homeless, Irish, lotto players, people who wear glasses, dog owners, cat owners, Asians, rednecks, physically or mentally impaired, heterosexuals, rappers and cappers.
If we all agree that kids should be taught tolerance will we have a special program designed for each issue that could possibly invoke taunting, or do we just not allow taunting or ridicule period?
While I strongly agree with the ‘tolerance lessons’ or acceptance assemblies that have been ongoing for years - see http://www.soulshoppe.com/services/assemblies.html for some of the programs used in AUSD,
I vehemently reject basing any kind of teaching on sexual identification, sexual preferences, transgender awareness, hetero or homosexuality while the kids are so young that they barley even grasp what gender identity is and what it fully means. Just think of the terms we use to try to talk with them about sexual predators and how not to be a potential victim.
If any Alameda public school teacher or official tries to install such a program to especially at any elementary school, AUSD will face accusations that it is being done by principals or staff trying to create support their own sexual identity, or to encourage certain views from very impressionable young children most of whom do not yet HAVE a sexual identity.
I will be on that line to sign the class action lawsuit if a program is started at elementary school level on sexual identity, transgender tolerance etc.
Comment by David Kirwin — June 26, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
John, we waited to see the plans the CC would rollout in the way of re-opening Alameda Theater: Result? When the plans were legally challenged, the plaintiffs (if that is the right term) were told they were too late to get their day in court.
AUSD waited to announce Measure H, result? Lousy measure, poor wording, insufficient funds, lack of support….
I don’t think waiting is a good plan. It can be viewed as condoning.
Comment by DK — June 26, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
WHY DOES http://WWW.ALAMEDANS.COM/AUSD RESOURCES NO LONGER POST BOE MEETING VIDEOS?
WHY DOES AUSD NOT DO IT?
HOW CAN WE SUPPORT WHAT WE CANNOT SEE?
Comment by David Kirwin — June 26, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
David the theater was discussed for over five years, the people who opposed it had there day in court and lost. That’s the way this country works. Please try to get past the theater. I understand your point on this issue, but at least see what they have to say before you condem the district.
Comment by john piziali — June 26, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
I’ll be interested to hear what exactly the program will be teaching. The education around transgendered individuals could be as simple as, “Some boys are more interested in the things girls usually like, and may feel more comfortable behaving the way we usually think girls behave than the way we think of boys behaving. It’s important that we accept these kids the way they are.” Or vice versa, of course. That’s not teaching about sex, it’s teaching about acceptance, and I don’t see how that would be inappropriate for five-year-olds.
Comment by Jill — June 26, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
My understanding of this particular AUSD issue is that it started at Franklin because one 5 year old boy came to school wearing a dress.
Then the school put on a special seminar to encourage acceptance of transgender, which needed to be coupled with an explanation of sexual identity.
I LEARNED THAT THE SEMINAR ALREADY HAPPENED WITHOUT PRIOR NOTIFICATION TO PARENTS WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE
WAS THIS SEMINAR APPROVED BY AUSD BEFORE IT HAPPENED?
If AUSD is proud of this - if they think it would have public approval - why is the presentation on the web as presented for the kids at Franklin, or as presented as a future option to the BOE and public earlier this week.
#46 Jill The topic the other night was scheduled for 20 minutes. I think it covered more that you proposed.
#45 John - the Courts ruling was that the appeal was filed too late. It was filed too late because they waited for the CC’s final approval.
Comment by David Kirwin — June 26, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
correction
why ISN’T the presentation on the web as presented for the kids at Franklin, or as presented as a future option to the BOE and public earlier this week.
Comment by Dave Kirwin — June 26, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
David Kirwin: you do realize that the web postings of the AUSD Board Meetings on Alamedans is done as a service by volunteers, right? It is up when it’s up because it’s a process to get them recorded, digitized, processed and then uploaded.
According to Michelle Ellson’s site: Gender Spectrum, was the group that did the presentation at Franklin. The East Bay Express wrote an article about Gender Spectrum’s work and examples of very young children grappling with gender identity or just perceived gender identity. Also, here is a paper about how Gender Spectrum addresses these issues in Elementary Schools.
Comment by Lauren Do — June 27, 2008 @ 6:16 am
The way I see it, there is a lot of ignorance on the side of the people who see a need for a program such as this. (thanks for the links, Lauren)
Give our kids some credit!! They are growing up in the Bay Area. Their friends are all different colors/races/backgrounds and it makes no difference to them until the grownups start getting bent about it. They know they have friends w/ 2 moms or dads and it’s no big deal. Their parents (that’s me) have good friends who are gay… they KNOW they are gay (maybe they don’t UNDERSTAND the sex part but they understand partnership) and it’s no big deal. It’s pretty darned normal here.
Our kids are the next step in evolution w/ these social issues and they seem to be doing quite fine. Kids are also going to be mean and call each other names and that’s the way it goes. Like Kirwin said, get a grip!! I haven’t yet heard a single reason why this is necessary for kids of this age. Showing respect to others is part of everyday teaching (in school and most importantly at home) and doesn’t require a program. If we are suddenly so flush w/ cash in the district, how about a program of gym mats so the poor little kids don’t have to do sit-ups on bare pavement at phys ed class?
Comment by Jack B — June 27, 2008 @ 7:17 am
One more thing… please, no co-ed bathrooms (mentioned for a school in Lauren’s East Bay Express link.)
Comment by Jack B — June 27, 2008 @ 7:20 am
The moral vaccuum created in a rabidly secular society is filled with the tyranny of tolerance- and there is no better microcosm of this than in our public schools. Anti-competitive relative humanism leads to ennui and nihilistic despair. I am curious to know in what context at an AUSD school it is acceptable to use the term “morality” without a cynical tone and not within 2 sentences of the word “hypocrisy”? I’ll bet you it doesn’t happen.
So many lost teenagers on Park Street at noon with their compasses stolen in a brazen daylight robbery by those who would rather they embrace pleasure at any cost than think for themselves and develop standards of excellence.
Comment by Matt Reid — June 27, 2008 @ 8:17 am
Brian… aren’t bullying and gender i.d. two different things? Especially in the case of ELEMENTARY school children?
Comment by Jack B — June 27, 2008 @ 10:13 am
“Values are best taught at home, but are often times learned in the hallways and playgrounds.”
Values ARE taught at home. In the hallways and playgrounds, you may learn new words to express your values, but no new values.
Are you hoping to unteach slang? To beat Youtube, MySpace, TV and the street? Good luck. Focus your energy instead where it would make a difference—addressing specific cases promptly, so there’s no reason to be sued. Having a program will not stop anyone from suing (see SF case above); quick and proper action in response to a bullying incident might.
Comment by AD — June 27, 2008 @ 10:26 am
Actually the case above was from the Upper Lake Union Elementary School District, not in San Francisco. San Francisco Unified has had this sort of program for a long time and I haven’t heard reports of a case like the one the ACLU took for young Robby in Lake County.
Comment by Lauren Do — June 27, 2008 @ 10:43 am
OK, my mistake, Lake County. But the family of the boy sued because the school failed to act, not because there wasn’t a curriculum in place. The curriculum installment was part of the settlement, after the ACLU sued. You know, high profile case, overblown response. Will having a curriculum prevent someone for filing a lawsuit here? I argue, no. But if the ACLU decides a certain percentage of teachers need to be of the LGBT community, it will find an unhappy family and help them file a suit, to get this accomplished. This is what rubs me the wrong way, schools are used to further political agendas, and I don’t like to be used that way, by the right, or the left.
Being in the rush to put in a program because of the perceived legal risk is a total knee-jerk reaction. This is why I said, deal with the specific issues, prevent lawsuits by responding to incidents promptly. If you get sued despite of this, then you know there’s someone’s bigger agenda there that you either have to go with, or resist. So I hope we get school board candidates in the fall who can resist.
Comment by AD — June 27, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Note to BOE prospects: please focus on ACADEMICS. Thank you.
Comment by Jack B — June 27, 2008 @ 11:39 am
The parents wanted the curriculum put in place and that was part of the settlement.
“We talked to the school about this harassment for years. We wanted to know that the adults in charge cared enough to make sure that our son was safe and secure at school,” said Robby’s mother Tracy. “I’m happy about the policy changes in the district and hope that addressing this will help protect my son and other students in the area.”
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/35778prs20080625.html
This is not about a perceived legal risk, it is about a risk to our children. This is a preventative program like clearing brush from around your home before a fire starts. I don’t see why anyone would be against this. I have a lot of respect for our teachers and board and expect them to incorporate age appropriate education. This is about treating others with respect regardless of who they are or their appearance. All of our children deserve to attend schools where they won’t be bullied and badgered so that they *can* focus on academics.
Nothing has been said about quotas for gay and lesbian teachers — there are already many gay and lesbian teachers in our schools and always have been.
In hindsight, it would have probably been better to incorporate this matter into a broader curriculum about respecting others who are different from oneself. Do the schools have programs that teach respect and acceptance of students who have a different physical appearance, disability, accent, religion, color, etc?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 27, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
Here are the two documents for the agenda item addressing issue of sexual identity and gender identity:
http://mikemcmahon.info/BOE062408G3Community.pdf Community Input Document
http://mikemcmahon.info/BOE062408G3.ppt Staff Presentation
Here are some action steps for 2008/09 from slide:
October 30th Staff Development for secondary staff
Fall: Two regional community forums
Fall: Recommendation to Board to adopt elementary supplemental materials, curriculum
Semester 2: implementation of elementary curriculum
Ongoing focused support to boost secondary Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) student organizations
Refine required high school course Current Life Issues
Comment by Mike McMahon — June 27, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
ANT is right on the money.
Each school handles the Lifeskills a little different but I can tell you at Franklin and Chipman the Lifeskill program (which I believe is done as part of ITI training) is brought into daily teaching and classroom activities.
I have been in 2 classrooms watching “GLT” lessons taught and to 2 program presentaions. They are in general an extenion of be nice to everyone. I never heard the word gay or lesbian. There was a book read to 1st graders that talked about how there are all different kinds of families. Some kids live with mom and dad and some with grandma or an aunt and uncle and some kids live with 2 moms or dads and it is all ok.
AUSD is not wasting funds that could be spent on something else. If there are state and federal laws that are mandated they are just that.
Comment by Barbara M — June 27, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
Thanks for the docs, Mike.
It’s clear from these docs that parents CANNOT opt out because it’s technically not “sex education”… very interesting.
Comment by Jack B — June 27, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Of course it’s not “sex education” — did you think that was the case for 5-7 year olds???
If talking about families as Barbara does above is sex ed, then so is Fun with Dick & Jane — as I recall it’s about family structure too. Hell, wearing a wedding ring could be sex ed under the standard you imply.
Comment by dave — June 27, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
What good timing: “It’s Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues In Schools” is scheduled to air TONIGHT at 9 on KQED ch. 9.
http://www.kqed.org/programs/tv/program-landing.jsp?progID=8477
Comment by FYI — June 27, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
I saw “It’s Elementary” … what a total BS sales job on how great it is to be gay. There is no way they should be showing that piece of political propaganda to our elementary school students. Watch it and decide for yourselves …
Comment by Alameda Parent — June 27, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
Alameda Parent,
What will you do if you find out that your child is gay?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 27, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
A quick perusal of of the quoted statistics in Mike McMahon’s PDF link tells me there will be more benefit in training teachers how to deal with gender issues than trying to stop kids from yelling “gay” at each other. Again, acceptance is not something you teach with a lesson plan, rather it is absorbed in a myriad imperceptable ways. It would be a million times more effective to say “Susie, please share the doll house with Johnny,” or “I like your necklace, Jimmy” than to say “Now kids, just because Johnny likes to play with dolls, that doesn’t mean we should make fun of him.” To do the former, you don’t need a student curriculum, just a sensitive teacher who herself is comfortable with the issues. You don’t need a special program to have an adult interfere when ugly words are used on the playground, or when a kid is not included in a game, or if his backback is used as a football. Being there and acting firmly is the best deterrant for such behavior, not a classroom lesson.
To answer ANT, “why anybody would be against this?”, if “this” is about making teachers more sensitive or comfortable with gender differences so they can take Timmy in a dress in stride or have a two-dads parent conference without feeling all weird, I’m all for it. If it is about sitting the kids down and saying “Now, Jenny has two mommies and that’s OK,” I cringe at the idea. Kids (and we are talking young kids, right?) are already accepting by nature–let’s not force our own hangups on them by discussing them in structured lessons.
It’s all about effectiveness. Use common sense, don’t do more than is necessary, thread lightly, don’t swing the pendulum too far, and you’ll both achieve your purpose and avoid the backlash.
Comment by AD — June 27, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
“In hindsight, it would have probably been better to incorporate this matter into a broader curriculum about respecting others who are different from oneself. Do the schools have programs that teach respect and acceptance of students who have a different physical appearance, disability, accent, religion, color, etc?”
At the elementary school level, Alameda Unified School District has implemented The Caring School Community™ (CSC) program a nationally recognized, research-based K–6 program that builds classroom and schoolwide community.
It focuses on strengthening students’ connectedness to school—an important element for increasing academic motivation and achievement and for reducing drug use, violence, and delinquency.
The plan is to incorporate one lesson at each grade level that deals with sexual orientation and/or gender identity that is age appropriate.
Comment by Mike McMahon — June 27, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
Note: Haight School will implement the program this Fall due to relocation issues that prevented professional development training for the staff.
Comment by Mike McMahon — June 27, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
“The plan is to incorporate one lesson at each grade level that deals with sexual orientation and/or gender identity that is age appropriate.”
Then I guess that we will see you in court. You can expect an injunction to issue at the least convenient time for the district. I will not be addressing this issue further on this blog …
Comment by Alameda Parent — June 27, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
Promise?
Comment by dave — June 27, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
It takes a Village, People.
Comment by Mother of 4 — June 27, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
According to Wikipedia:
“Homosexual (as well as bisexual) behavior is widespread in the animal kingdom…A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior…has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.
The Bonobo (ape) displays the highest rate of homosexual activity in any animal, being a fully bisexual species.
No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist.
…for example, penguin species where same-sex individuals mate for life and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.
Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams).
Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between bulls has been noted to occur among American Bison.
Also, mounting of one female by another is common among cattle.
An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual and they steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.More of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land.
Studies have shown that 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are lesbian.
Mallards also have rates of male-male sexual activity that are unusually high for birds.[24] In some cases, as many as 19% of pairs in a Mallard population are male-male homosexual.
Zoos in Japan and Germany have also documented gay male penguin couples.[19] The couples have been shown to build nests together and use a stone to replace an egg in the nest. Researchers at Rikkyo University in Tokyo, found 20 gay pairs at 16 major aquariums and zoos in Japan. Bremerhaven Zoo in Germany attempted to break up the gay male couples by importing female penguins from Sweden and separating the male couples, but they were unsuccessful. The zoo director stated the relationships were too strong between the gay couples.
The bonobo, which has a matriarchal society (unusual amongst apes), is a fully bisexual species — both males and females engage in heterosexual and homosexual behavior, being noted for lesbianism in particular. About 60% of all sexual activity in this species is between two or more females. While the homosexual bonding system in bonobos represent the highest frequency of homosexuality known in any species, homosexuality has been reported for all great apes, including humans, as well as a number of other primate species.
Male homosexuality has been inferred in several species of dragonflies (the order Odonata). The cloacal pinchers of male damselflies and dragonflies inflict characteristic head damage to females during sex. A survey of 11 species of damsel and dragonflies[35][36] has revealed such mating damages in 20 to 80 % of the males too, indicating a fairly high occurrence of sexual coupling between males.
African, as well as Asiatic males will engage in same-sex bonding and mounting. Such encounters are often associated with affectionate interactions, such as kissing, trunk intertwining, and placing trunks in each other’s mouths.Same-sex relations are common and frequent in both sexes, with Asiatic elephants in captivity devoting roughly 45% of sexual encounters to same-sex activity.
…noted by Bruce Bagemihl describing mating giraffes where nine out of ten pairings occur between males.
With the Japanese Macaque, also known as the “snow monkey”, same-sex relations are frequent, though rates vary between troupes. Females will form “consortships” characterized by affectionate social and sexual activities. In some troops up to one quarter of the females will form such bonds, which will vary in duration from a few days to a few weeks. Often, strong and lasting friendships will result from such pairings. Males also have same-sex relations, typically with multiple partners of the same age.
Both male and female lions have been seen to interact homosexually.[39][40] Male lions pair-bond for a number of days and initiate homosexual activity with affectionate nuzzling and caressing, leading to mounting and thrusting. About 8% of mountings have been observed to occur with other males, while female pairings are held to be fairly common in captivity…
European polecats Mustela putorius were found to engage homosexuality in non sibling animals. Deliberate exclusive homosexuality with mounting and anal penetration in this solitary species apparently serves no adaptive function.
An October 2003 study by Dr. Charles E. Roselli et al. (Oregon Health and Science University) states that homosexuality in male sheep (found in 8% of rams) is associated with a region in the rams’ brains which the authors call the “ovine Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus” (oSDN)…”
And on and on and on.
Check the footnotes yourselves. Wikipedia, type in Homosexuality in Animals.
Homosexuality in lions and penguins and giraffes and ducks and lizards and dolphins and dragonflies and apes and sheep and dogs and ram and…etc?
In rates varying from 8%-50% of the species?
It’s not as uncommon as people-who-don’t-read-much like to think.
I had a fundamental Christian tell me the other day, “the only book I read and the only book I will ever need to read is the Bible because that is the word of God.”
I thought to myself, it’s no wonder these fundamental Christians are so backwards and ignorant.
What do you expect out of people who only read the same book over and over again all their lives?
Comment by Tif — June 27, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
“No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders.”
Actually, ANT, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder by the APA until the mid seventies and still is by MANY of its members. Also, Gender Identity Disorder is obviously also considered a mental disorder.
Comment by F. Ewemang — June 27, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
#64
“It’s Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues In Schools”
I saw the film on KQED tonight. It is a very good film. The kids were bright and asked great questions. Some of the segments were uneven, but generally a quality production. I can’t see why anyone would object to a program like this in grades 3-8.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 27, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
correction: fundamentalist Christians
Comment by Tif — June 27, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
And regarding homosexuality as an aberration that needs to be wiped out, you’d need wipe out a sizeable percentage of the animal world.
To get rid of homosexuality in animals in the world, you’d have to kill:
- 8% of rams
- 25% of black swans
- 15% of seagulls
- 19% of ducks
- 60% of Bonobo apes
- 80% of dragonflies
- 45% of Asiatic elephants
- 90% of giraffes
- 8% of lions
Amongst humans, to get rid of homosexuality, you’d need to kill:
- 7% of the entire world or roughly 400 million people
- 40% of single men in San Francisco (as reported by the New York Times)
If it were up to fundamentalist Christians and Muslims (think Shirley Phelps and Al Qaeda), roughly 400,000,000 people on earth would be exterminated.
Would make the Holocaust atrocity look like jaywalking.
Yes, yes, nobody on here has mentioned wiping out anybody.
But people like Alameda Parent have pointed themselves in that direction already.
The bridge between hate and action sometimes isn’t long enough.
Comment by Tif — June 27, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
Thanks Mike for posting the PowerPoint Portion of the presentation made to the BOE the other night.
After further consideration, if it is considered vital by the BOE, and if there is the available funds in the AUSD general fund, I am not at all opposed to the advancement of teacher facilitation skills, through seminars or workshops, for the purpose of further training all or part of AUSD staff, including classified staff, to better learn how to prevent, or intervene whenever there is the slightest perceived harassment of anyone, by anyone on school grounds or during any school activity.
This training should include all aspects of harassment recognized by law or decency, not just those based on perceived or actual sexual identity.
In fact I feel it is important that all adults in the employ of AUSD set a good example, and get all reasonable training to demonstrate common decency and to methodically intervene when others violate the legal code of decency as prescribed by the BOE and protected by CA anti-discrimination laws.
Far too often adults don’t step in to intervene on behalf of common or legal decency. Training is likely in order.
Within all realms of AUSD activity no discrimination, bullying, or harassment should ever be tolerated. I think it would be excellent if all AUSD employees were taught how to comfortably intervene using an established protocol, wherever they perceive acts of harassment. If any student is a “repetitive offender” perhaps they and/or their parents should be required to complete online workshops that would not be at significant cost to the District.
I still see no reason for the District to go overboard addressing issues of sexual orientation & gender identity when there are a myriad of personal characteristics of equal importance.
I have not yet been able to find Board Policy 5145.3 which is referenced in the PowerPoint Presentation on District Goal # 3 “Ensure all students will be in educational environments that are safe and conducive to learning”
As I read District Goal #3 I see nothing about teaching Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (and common sense I believe dictates it would not be a curriculum to kindergarten and primary grades) In fact, perhaps out of context, I thought District Goal #3 was related to students’ physical safety as covered in the “Field Act”.
When I looked up Education Code section 2000, here is what I found:
EDUCATION CODE SECTION 2000-2011
2000. The county superintendent of schools of any county contiguous
to an adjoining state may grant permission to pupils residing in the
county to attend elementary school or high school in a school
district of the adjoining state and may provide for the
transportation of the pupils to the school.
When I read this as referenced in the PowerPoint Presentation presented to the BOE June 24 regarding the proposed new curriculum for teaching Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, I see nothing about teaching Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. Why was this referenced?
Another source referenced in that PP slide on District Goal #3 is Penal Code 422.6 (A):
•
• California Penal Code
• PENAL CODE SECTION 422.6-422.95
422.6. (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law,
shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate,
interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her
by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or
laws of the United States because of the other person’s race, color,
religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual
orientation, or because he or she perceives that the other person has
one or more of those characteristics.
When I read this I see nothing about teaching Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
Why are GLB interests elevated in priority over all the other protected human characteristics?
The last referenced material related to the slide on District Goal #3 is AB 537. Basically this Assembly Bill added two new prohibited forms of discrimination to the existing prohibitions against discrimination and harassment in California public schools: actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Bill’s Advisory Task Forced also included the following non-binding recommendations:
The task force reviewed state data, researched the issues, and held many discussions to develop recommendations in five theme areas: providing access to resources for students and staff about sexual orientation and gender identity issues and hate violence; developing research to identify issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity and hate violence; creating accountability and enforcement guidelines at schools; providing advisory committee and staff support to monitor AB 537 provisions; and formulating state policy.
When I read this I see nothing about teaching Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, and certainly nothing about teaching it to as part of a curriculum to kindergarten and primary grades. Could it be that despite the lack of an adequate basic education budget someone is trying to sell AUSD and the BOE the idea of stepping up the Bill’s intent to include far more than is the intent of AB 537?
My natural curiosity forces me to ask “Who and why?”
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/orientation.pdf
My feeling is that when students are able to read and understand the 1st Amendment framework for discussing public schools and sexual orientation (linked above), then they are ready for the discussion or an approved curriculum on sexual identities and transgender issues. Otherwise it should be district policy to not overtly broach the subject in a way which could likely offend parents or some students.
Comment by David Kirwin — June 27, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
In case anyone would like to watch/record it, the program referred to in comments 64 and 75 is scheduled to air again on KQED ch. 9 Monday at 1:30am (very late Sunday night).
Comment by FYI — June 28, 2008 @ 6:52 am
I believe the PowerPoint contained a typo, the Education Code section is 200 - 283, not 2000, section 220 says:
Comment by Lauren Do — June 28, 2008 @ 7:06 am
Is it too late to change my “yes” vote on H?
Comment by A Parent — June 28, 2008 @ 9:54 am
I had overlooked page 4 of the first link listed in post# 60 by Mike McMahon. It explains Board Policy BP 5145.3 which concerns Nondiscrimination/Harassment.
1st let me express my dismay and disappointment in our overly funded wasteful government.
Can anybody explain why we have more than 4 levels of government creating duplicate laws? The Feds have anti-discrimination laws, our State has anti-discrimination laws, then the state assembly needed to update ours and the State Ed Code needed to write it up too despite it already being a California law that all of us in the state must already follow. Not to be out-done, our own BOE and AUSD staff decided to expend further resources to create a policy for AUSD that matches the State law and the Ed Code, two sets of laws we must already adhere to. Is all this really necessary? I don’t have to look at the city of Alameda to conclude that our city has the same laws – I wonder how much we waste duplicating reams of duplicate laws and policies.
To get back to AUSD BP 5145.3 which was adopted Jan 25, 2000; paragraph 4 states:
“The Board prohibits intimidation or harassment of any student by any employee, student or other person in the district. Staff shall be alert and immediately responsive to student conduct which may interfere with another student’s ability to participate in or benefit school services, activities, or privileges.”
If for the last 8 years staff had been trained to adhere to this policy there would be none of the present nonsense about teaching K-4 about Sexual Orientation and Gender Identy.
So what happens to all the good ideas that get adopted as AUSD Policies? Does it get packed in a crate and warehoused with the archeological discoveries of Indiana Jones?
This is not a stupid question and AUSD is not alone in not knowing how to maintain policies and records in a meaningful, useful, viable way which makes proper information known, available, and used.
I myself have faced these issues, so if anyone knows about seminars for instructing ‘best methods’ of record keeping ( esp. for the public sector), please post them.
Thank you.
Comment by David Kirwin — June 28, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
I haven’t read all the comments here, but it is a problem. I wasn’t good at sports (dyslectic), and was the smallest kid in the class growing up. I grew up in small towns and kid called me names and beat up on me because they could. Alameda Parent may teach his/her kids to not be victims, but when everyone is bigger than you…how do you stop it? Kid can just be mean and where I went to school there was no education on tolerance. This program can’t be a bad thing. They don’t need to go into the whole sex thing, but that some people are this way and we should threat them with respect.
What is Alameda Parent going to do if his/her kid come out in later and says he/she is gay…are you going to dis-own them?
I use to work with this women who grew up in China, and when she found out I was gay asked me a lot of questions, because she didn’t understand. About a year after working with her and she got to know me she said, if one of her 2 boys ended up gay she would be fine with it. She loves her kids and wanted the best for them.
One other thing my sister started a dialog about the sex thing with her children early on, because on HIV, and she wanted them to be comfortable talking to here unlike my parents. What I am saying is they should teach tolerance at school, but the dialog should start at home about tolerance and sex.
Comment by Joel — June 28, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
I’m wading into this debate really late, but I read all the comments last night and just wanted to say a few things.
Those of you who think your K-5 children aren’t hearing words like “gay” and “faggot” at school are a wee bit naive. As someone who has worked as a noon supervisor for five years, I can assure you, elementary school kids call each other words like those with some regularity. The K-3s rarely know what it means (one third grader told me that a gay man is a man with two wives), but the 4s and 5s have some idea. And whether or not they know the sexual meaning of the terms, they know they’re hurtful and therefore powerful.
Moreover, gender identity is huge with elementary school children and it shifts from K to 5th grade. So even if kids aren’t using words relating sexual orientation, they do know that calling a girl “a boy,” or a boy “a girl” or accusing a child of playing the wrongly gendered games (e.g., “he plays girl games!” or “she thinks she’s a boy!” ) is a big deal. Again, if it’s hurtful, it’s powerful.
Finally, I do believe that the schools can teach social values (like tolerance) that parents can’t always teach. Case in point: my son had a boy with Tourette’s syndrome in both his K and first grade classrooms. Great kid! Very smart and very cute…but my son was bothered by the fact that this boy imitated other children. (It’s part of the syndrome.) My son and I talked about this all the time–he expressing his frustration, me validating his frustration (”I can see how that would bother you”), but also trying to encourage him to be tolerant.
It wasn’t until there was a formal session about Tourettes presented in the classroom that my son finally “got” the fact that this boy couldn’t help himself. In fact my son came home that day and said, “Mommy, I’m not mad at him anymore. Now I see that he just has Tourettes!”
As parents, I’d say it would be wise of us to know that other adults may often be able to teach our children valuable life lessons. In fact, I’m counting on it.
Comment by Susan Davis — June 29, 2008 @ 9:15 am
Hmm. I’m not sure why that winky emoticon showed up in my post–didn’t mean for it to be there. Lauren, could you delete it please?
Thanks.
Comment by Susan Davis — June 29, 2008 @ 9:17 am
Susan, since you are in favor of socially engineering little kids through our public institutions… are you also in favor of co-ed bathrooms for little kids?
Just curious. Thanks.
Comment by Jack B — June 29, 2008 @ 11:01 am
hmmm, we have coed bathrooms at home with no problem. Are you concerne that in a bathroom with more than one stall boys and girls would see eachother washing hands, or do you think boys and girls would enter occuped stalls?
Comment by dk — June 29, 2008 @ 11:22 am
DK, my boys probably wouldn’t give a rat’s ass… but their aim isn’t so great, so my thinking is the girls might enjoy their own bathroom format.
Comment by Jack B — June 29, 2008 @ 11:31 am
#86, I wouldn’t characterize teaching children the importance of respecting other peoples’ differences as “social engineering.”
And no, I don’t support co-ed bathrooms in the schools, because, as I mentioned in my post, even little kids can have strong feelings of gender identity.
(I.e., you may have overheard little boys refusing to go into a girl’s bathroom–even in the case of a peeing emergency– because “it’s for girls” and you may have heard little girls refusing to go into a boys’ bathrooms because “it’s for boys.” )
I respect that sense of modesty and privacy in other people, even little ones.
Comment by Susan Davis — June 29, 2008 @ 11:32 am
Yikes–Does anyone know why these emoticons keep appearing in my posts? I don’t even see an emoticon option in this blog’s comment section.
It looks like it happens when I try to make a closed parens…has anyone else had this problem?
Comment by Susan Davis — June 29, 2008 @ 11:35 am
Susan - You might try leaving a space before a close parentheses, the unwanted icons seem to be caused by the close parenthesis that follow a punctuation mark # 8 etc.
Just for kicks:
1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)
9) 0) !) @) #) $) %) ^) &) *) () )) 
‘) “) ,) ) /) ?)
Comment by dk — June 29, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
Thanks, dk. A wink-wink nod-nod emoticon is not really appropriate for this discussion!
Comment by Susan Davis — June 29, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
Susan, you may have emoticon identity disorder … I think that we better add another class to the curriculum letting kids know that it is “OK” to mispunctuate.
Comment by Alameda Parent — June 29, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Social Engineering?
http://www.archive.org/details/CindyGoe1955
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 29, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Jack B., when you think about it all teaching is a form of “social engineering” and you objections just align with your personal bias.
Thanks you Susan Davis for a big dose of common sense in #84
Comment by Mark Irons — June 29, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
Why are Lauren Do and the rest of the euphoria hucksters trying so desperately to anesthetize us?
Why is MS Do referring to the present as “the aftermath of Measure H?”
As Karen Carpenter used to say, “We’ve only just begun.”
Just begun to pay that is.
Contrary to what MS Do says, Measure H is not the “exciting debate that lead up to Election Day;” nor is it any of the devious machinations utilized to get the bit into the horse’s mouth.
Measure H is the four-year period during which we the people pay an additional tax on our property.
Admittedly the most exciting part of the whole goat rope was the Byzantine process of getting the bit in the horse’s mouth: one really had to wonder if hysteria was going to win over hyperbole.
Then too the extortion mavens at AUSD were superb tacticians.
Rather than put anything out onto the chopping block that people were not going lift a finger to rescue, they put out the unspotted lambs, the cuddly bunnies and the new born kittens.
Imagine if AUSD had said, “Approve the parcel tax or we out-source the entire payroll department AND the HRM department.”
Or, “Approve the parcel tax or we cut every bureaucrat who draws a six-figure salary at the puzzle palace.”
Or, “Approve the parcel tax or we cut all AUSD driving allowances.”
Measure H would not have passed.
But if one threatens sports, then one garners the votes of everyone who see sports as sine qua non to public education—even Philistines who may not give a hoot about the quality of education but enjoy going to the Island Bowl will vote for a tax hike of socialist proportions.
Then too, if one threatens music one automatically garners the cultured votes of the dilettantes.
Then, if you structure the tax so that businesses pay more than homeowners, you gain the vote of those people who entertain the myth that businesses are not people.
Many think that local businesses have such deep pockets that they need not pass the tax increase onto we the customers.
And finally, if you tell the seniors they will not have to pay the tax—that they will enjoy the privilege of representation without taxation—then they will eagerly protect their property values with cost-free insurance: i.e. taxes for everyone else.
Toss in a little irrelevant hype and timely hoopla like, “Public Education is too valuable to throw away,” and you can forge the voting public into a coalition willing to collectively violate the letter and the spirit of Proposition 13.
Notice too that the fabricators of Measure H can say with certainty that Measure H money will not be applied to administrative costs.
The administrators structured the proposed cuts as if administrative costs were sacrosanct; the only things bureaucrats slid onto the chopping block were things that the public would be willing to leap in and rescue.
The state, the nation, perhaps the planet is sliding into a recession slough of epic proportions.
This recession will segue into an inflationary typhoon: retirements may be rendered worthless.
Don’t think that the extortion machinery is not going to be trotted out in the near future.
The city leaders of Alameda are already writing ransom notes on its Crossing Guards: give us more money or your children will be playing chicken with scofflaw drivers at every pedestrian crossing in town.
As opposed to a Midas touch, everything Alameda bureaucrats touch turns to red ink: AP & T is almost certain to default on the certificates of participation it issued; the Hornet is losing money, the golf course is losing money.
Parcel taxes are going to become a way of life.
The money Sacramento siphons out of Alameda, does not find its way back to Alameda.
The same AUSD bureaucracy is going to stretch the same lambs over the chopping block and parade the same bunnies toward the abattoir.
Lauren Do admonishes us; saying that it is not the time to repeat “the tired mantra of the bloated administration at AUSD.”
Redundancies, anachronisms, apparatchiks, six-digit salaries and featherbedding will remain nonnegotiable.
Instead of staunching the waste, MS Do blithely and vaguely proclaims that it “is time for Alameda to come together . . . and try to do what is best for Alameda schools and Alameda children.”
In the words of Neil Sinclair, this call for dithering translates into, “Let’s sell cookies.”
I disagree; the situation is worse: it calls for more than cookies: I say, “Let’s sell cakes.”
Comment by Jeffrey R Smith — June 29, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
Jeff Smith, did you post in the wrong place or are you hijacking the thread?
Mark Irons, I agree with you that teaching often overlaps w/ social engineering. That’s why We The Public care about what is taught in public schools. But my “personal bias” is more about the age-level than the topic. I hope I have been clear about this throughout the thread. As my gay friend said when I told him about the age target here… “eeek!”
We are talking about little kids. Just kids! Do we have to lay this onto them when it probably doesn’t effect 90% of them? Do we have to explore the grey areas right now when it’s hard enough to teach them left from right and right from wrong? Can’t we just let boys be boys and girls be girls for these early years… and if somebody needs a little help with that, help them?
I still contend that today’s Bay Area kids are mostly “cool with it” anyway and the last thing they need is grownups mucking everything up.
Comment by Jack B. — June 29, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
Jeff Smith:
Leave public education if it’s so awful.
Stop cashing your AUSD paychecks if taxes so offend you.
Waive those benefits financed by $120 tax hikes of “socialist proportions.”
Many private schools will allow you great leeway of academic freedom, apparatchik-free. Godspeed.
Start a charter school — surely a sermonizer like you is not afraid of the effort involved. Cheers & good luck.
For your own peace of mind, go. For your own fiscal & moral purity, leave this slough of despondency before your Norquistian decency is tainted.
Comment by dave — June 29, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
I have been having conversations with a teacher who was at Oakland’s Park Day school for several years as the Gender Identity Program began there. For a year teachers were taught via speakers, workshops, and meetings etc about the issues of transgender and cross gender kids. Issues like what it is, what it means for the families, and the children themselves who may feel distraught or confused by the fact that they seem to have been born with body parts that don’t match the way they perceive themselves. The 2nd year, parents were taught, (the school sponsored evening speakers, workshops, etc.), as a result of many teacher meetings, workshops, and teacher/parents meetings, a curriculum was formed and during the 3rd year brought to the classrooms. It was very low key.
Let’s start with “Gender is different than sex.”
AUSD ‘sex education’ program begins in grade 5. That’s true according to my son who just completed grade 5. Even in grade 5, I would think it improper to try to teach topics concerning the selection of sexual mates, which to me is what sexual orientation is about.
Gender Identification begins for students before they reach kindergarten.
Gender identity, gender as related to self identity, begins between the ages of 2 - 3.
As kids begin to learn to differentiate between what it means to be a boy or girl, and how to distinguish between the two, many incorrect assumptions become the touchstones of a child’s concepts. For example; a child may come to associate long hair or pink clothes with being a girl. There are lots of such examples, most of which used to be accepted norms but actually have little to do with what sex a person is. Still these are external clues about how people perceive, yet it is acceptable for a boy to have long hair and wear pink or for a girl to have short hair and not to wear pink.
While my conversations with the Park Day teacher softened my reaction to how I perceived this AUSD agenda item, (I wish I could watch the presentation made to the BOE), I think if AUSD trained our teachers to enforce the 8 ½ year old BOE policy there would and should be no need to selectively elevate one protected characteristic over another.
AUSD BP 5145.3 which was adopted Jan 25, 2000; paragraph 4 states:
“The Board prohibits intimidation or harassment of any student by any employee, student or other person in the district. Staff shall be alert and immediately responsive to student conduct which may interfere with another student’s ability to participate in or benefit school services, activities, or privileges.”
It is interesting that Pasadena has a very similar BP5145.3 approved in 1999 with some of the exact wording as our BP5145.3. In May Pasadena BOE had on its agenda a revision which can be reviewed at this link:
http://www.pusd.us/filemgmt_data/files/SSA%20050608.doc
Perhaps a similar policy change for us, coupled with staff development training on the “proper way” to intervene whenever any staff witnesses any kind of harassment or bullying would be a better and more palatable solution.
In addition, if certified staff is further informed or trained about transgender issues and other legally protected characteristics of a person, they may be able to raise student awareness more appropriately as part of normal classroom discussion, rather than imposing a stand alone curriculum on sexual orientation and gender identity issues in K-5 classrooms.
Comment by David Kirwin — June 29, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
This is the most f@#$ed up city I have ever seen. If I wasn’t getting free rent and free food here I’d head back to NYC in heart beat. BTW - the rest of the country is laughing at you.
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — June 29, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
“This is the most f@#$ed up city I have ever seen. If I wasn’t getting free rent and free food here I’d head back to NYC in heart beat. BTW - the rest of the country is laughing at you.
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — June 29, 2008 @ 10:59 pm”
And people like you, Ms. Shaniqua, are the most f@#$ed people I have ever seen.
Our taxes pay for your free rent and free food so you can piddle your time away on the internet telling us how bad our city of Alameda is.
Why don’t you try working, like the rest of us do, and paying for your own food and rent.
Go back to NYC, Tay Tay Shaniqua, you leech.
Comment by AK — June 29, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
Man, this thread has turned into quite a mish-mash.
Re #100: I really don’t know what TTS is talking about. What, specifically, is so f-ed up about Alameda? TTS’s claim that “the rest of the country is laughing” is about as believable as AP’s earlier claim that 99.99% of the world believes homosexuality is morally wrong. Please.
A few people complaining on a blog about schools trying to implement the public policy of the state by teaching tolerance as it relates to gender identity or sexual orientation does not an f-ed up city make.
Re Alameda Parent, wherever you are: Please don’t waste everyone’s time and money on litigation to reverse a legally permissible Board policy. If you don’t like the policy, go to a Board meeting and explain why. Advocate for your views and elect candidates who agree with you during the fall School Board elections. Join with like-minded parents for the right to exempt your child from activities that offend you so. But please consider not suing. Your chances of prevailing in court are tiny. Such a lawsuit would be divisive and ugly. I think it is fair to say that both the law and public opinion in relatively liberal/progressive/gay-friendly Alameda are solidly against you.
Re #96: Measure H was an effort to raise revenue locally to offset millions of dollars in likely cuts from the state. It was designed to provide a reprieve or to keep the patient alive or provide breathing room (insert any of the other many metaphors from this spring), not to solve all of AUSD’s problems. The fact that we now have a short reprieve, have kept the patient alive, have a bit of breathing room, etc. **is** something to celebrate. In my view, it is even worth a reasonable amount of drinking to celebrate. But, aside from some modest celebratory drinking, I don’t think anyone is trying to ‘anesthetize” anyone.
I also want to reiterate that I don’t think Measure H’s great victory is worth gloating about. I am happy to have seen only a tiny fraction of anything approaching gloating from the yes on H crowd compared to the gleeful and ugly gloating that poured forth from the no on H crowd in their premature celebrations in the days just after June 3.
I’m not sure whether any of the above meets the definition of euphoria hucksterism, but I hope it doesn’t because I think #96 is implying that we are supposed to be against euphoria hucksterism. And I think we’re also supposed to be against tax hikes of socialist proportions, so I also hope the Measure H tax rates managed to sneak in just under the red line.
For the sake of the my computer screen’s cleanliness, I’m glad I didn’t have a mouthful of coffee when I came across the suggestion in #96 that Measure H violated “the letter and the spirit of Proposition 13.” Which letter? Was it the letter that would permit a small minority of 33.34% to subvert the will of a supermajority of 66.66%?
I’m all for a straight up vote where the majority wins. So, let’s put the threshold for passage of parcel taxes at a majority and eliminate the senior exemption and the exemption for people on SSI and see what happens. But with the playing field so unfair right now, please give me a break with the complaints that the yes on H side had to play some politics to win. Political campaigns are political.
In terms of the administrative cuts, I for one favor addressing AUSD’s financial challenges on the costs side as well as the revenue side where we can. I just don’t think there is much left to work with on the cost side. For the sake of argument, I am curious how much we could save if, as #96 suggests, AUSD were to outsource the entire payroll department AND the HRM department, to cut administrative salaries (btw, didn’t we just lose one of our best administrators to a higher salary in Pleasanton), and to cut AUSD driving allowances? Would that have been enough to offset the cuts coming from the state and eliminate the need for H? Would it even provide 5% of that amount?
Measure H was necessary, but far from sufficient. We’ve got a lot of work to do. Let’s do it.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — June 30, 2008 @ 6:54 am
“I’m all for a straight up vote where the majority wins. So, let’s put the threshold for passage of parcel taxes at a majority and eliminate the senior exemption and the exemption for people on SSI and see what happens. But with the playing field so unfair right now, please give me a break with the complaints that the yes on H side had to play some politics to win. Political campaigns are political.”
Better yet, let’s just deed all the parcels in Alameda over to AUSD, then they can tax themselves into euphoria.
Comment by John L. — June 30, 2008 @ 8:28 am
Yeah, John L, that’s a great, non-hyperbolic argument.
You’ve figured it out. Those of us who supported Measure H are *really* Communists who want to take all the private property in town. We just made up all that other stuff we were saying this spring.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — June 30, 2008 @ 8:38 am
“Those of us who supported Measure H are *really* Communists who want to take all the private property in town.”
Thanks for clearing that up, it does explain why you support that the tax burden fall on parcel owners exclusively?
You’re suggesting hyperbole was not used on the H support side?
Comment by John L. — June 30, 2008 @ 8:59 am
#105: The reason the tax burden of Measure H falls on parcel owners exclusively is because that is the only way districts are allowed to raise money.
That’s not hyperbole; it’s the law.
Comment by Susan Davis — June 30, 2008 @ 9:17 am
In “It’s Elementary”, the classrooms shown varied from elementary to middle to high school. The emphasis, or time spent in the show was mostly with the 6th and 8th grades. In the lower grade shown the topic was basically ‘Its okay to have two moms, or two dads. - I think it is fine and dandy to teach tolerance. But we don’t need a special curriculum to teach LGBT tolerance, do we?
Another setup was asking real young kids what they thought when they heard the word ‘gay’ (I think these were the 4th graders)-It came out that ‘people should be open minded”. When asked what that meant the little boy said it meant “a willingness to try new things.”
I don’t want to make life harder for the kids – How do we teach ‘acceptance’ of choices of others without seeming like we want to encourage them to be open to trying LGBT sex?
Kids have enough difficulty with decisions. This is why I feel differently about discussing gender identity (which the kids already have for themselves by the time they reach AUSD) to elementary kids, and want AUSD to avoid discussing tolerance of sexual orientation choices to elementary school kids.
To teach tolerance of choices, (open-minded = willingness to try?) prior to the choices being made is in actuality promoting those choices, isn’t it? Is that what we want to do?
Comment by Dave Kirwin — June 30, 2008 @ 10:01 am
The law SD refers to in #106 is Proposition 13, passed on June 3, 1978.
If I may correct a leap of logic in #105, I’d like to clarify that, contrary to the suggestion in #105, I don’t in fact support the idea that “the tax burden [should] fall on parcel owners exclusively.”
It is bad public policy that Prop 13 so narrowly limits opportunities for school districts to raise revenues locally. I’d vote enthusiastically to change Prop 13 to allow other methods that would allow a broader tax base. Does anyone want to work on that?
Prop 13’s 2/3 supermajority vote requirement for parcel taxes is also bad public policy for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is so un-democratic. So, I would vote enthusiastically to change that part of Prop 13 as well. A *simple majority* of people should be able to increase their local taxes (or not) in the way they see fit if they think a cost/benefit analysis of the tax compared to what would happen without the tax increase (e.g., all that would have happened to Alameda schools without Measure H) favors the tax increase as the least unattractive alternative.
I too dislike taxes, even a $10/month tax. But I much more dislike the idea that Alameda was supposed to stand by and, as “Alameda Parent” might put it, be a victim this spring. A victim town/district would have just lamented the recession and the state budget crisis and would have twiddled its thumbs or gambled that the cavalry would ride into Sacramento and straighten everything out. The end result would have been that the State cuts would have gutting our already low-funding and so would have greatly harming Alameda and its schools. Passing Measure H wasn’t Communism. It was standing up and taking responsibility locally in tough, uncertain times.
To the greatest degree possible, I want to resist name-calling or flinging insults in response to what I consider cheap shots like red-baiting, so I’ll just say I strongly disagree with the suggestion in #103 and #105 that supporting a $10/month property tax increase for four years is a step down the road to “deed[ing] all the parcels in Alameda over to AUSD.”
Finally, in response to #105, I’ll offer my opinion that what would have happened without Measure H would have been sufficiently horrible that the language used by H supporters was rarely if ever hyperbole.
Have a nice day. Maybe today the ROV will finally certify the Measure H results.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — June 30, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Prop 13 was passed June 6, 1978.
“Gutting” should have been “gutted” and “harming” should have been “hamred.”
Sorry for those and any other typos.
Not sorry for substance of remarks.
Going off-line now.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — June 30, 2008 @ 10:41 am
Dave Kirwin, I just want to say that I appreciate your research and well-reasoned comments on this thread–they make all the sense to me.
Comment by AD — June 30, 2008 @ 10:45 am
There’s many a strange impulse out on the plains of West Texas;
There’s many a young boy who feels things he don’t comprehend.
Well small town don’t like it when somebody falls between sexes,
No, a small town don’t like it when a cowboy has feelings for men.
And I believe in my soul that inside every man there’s a feminine,
And inside every lady there’s a deep manly voice loud and clear.
Well, a cowboy may brag about things that he does with his women,
But the ones who brag loudest are the ones that are most likely queer.
Cowboys are frequently secretly fond of each other —
Say what did you think those saddles and boots was about?
And there’s many a cowboy who don’t understand the way that he feels for his brother,
And inside every cowboy there’s a lady that’d love to slip out.
Comment by Willie Nelson — June 30, 2008 @ 10:59 am
There was a special on gypsies last night on PBS. One of the performers of the gypsy troupe (from India) danced in drag and generally exhibited very feminine behavior. None of the other gypsies (from different countries–Macedonia, Spain, Romania) dispalyed even the slightest sign of surprise or unacceptance. I know they never got any tolerance lessons in school (if they got any school at all).
American schools push a huge amount of social agenda through, yet American society is one of the most fragmented, polarized–and, ahem, illiterate–in the “first” world. Why?
Comment by AD — June 30, 2008 @ 11:36 am
#107
“It’s Elementary” is just another in a long line of prejudice reduction films. Why gender and sexual orientation? Because this is still seen as an acceptable prejudice by some like race, religion and ancestry were at one point in time. This film is not perfect, but neither were its predecessors.
Here are a few well known ones and each has its flaws.
The House I Live In, featuring a side of Frank Sinatra that may surprise you. (Fast forward to 2:40 to get into the heart of the film) Filmed during WWII
http://www.archive.org/details/THE_HOUSE_I_LIVE_IN
Don’t Be A Sucker, from the U.S. War Dept.
http://www.archive.org/details/DontBeaS1947
What About Prejudice?
http://www.archive.org/details/WhatAbou1959
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 30, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
Young Frank Sinatra is dreamy, thanks for the midday musical break.
Comment by Lauren Do — June 30, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
“Prop 13’s 2/3 supermajority vote requirement for parcel taxes is also bad public policy for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is so un-democratic.”
If it’s un-democratic to require a 2/3 supermajority, what is it when one portion of the voters can vote higher taxes for another portion of the voters but not themselves?
Comment by John L. — June 30, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
John L
A slight majority (approx 53%) of the households in Alameda are renters but voter registration and voter turnout are both strongly skewed toward homeowners. In a secret ballot system we’ll never know for sure who voted for what but given what we do know about registration it’s a good bet that property owners did in fact vote to tax themselves.
Comment by dave — June 30, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
re #115, I’ll repeat the suggestion I made in #108 that we change Prop 13 to expand the incredibly narrow universe of legally permissible local property tax methods Prop 13 allows school districts to use to generate revenues for schools.
If that were to happen (and if more than 66.66% or 50% of the people were to vote to do so), we could raise equivalent revenues locally when/if needed as we can now under Prop 13, but with a lower tax rate on a larger base (i.e., more than just property owners). That would be more democratic and better public policy.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — June 30, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
116
“…it’s a good bet that property owners did in fact vote to tax themselves.”
I suspect the provisional ballots were not parcel owners but like you say, who knows.
117
“… but with a lower tax rate on a larger base (i.e., more than just property owners).”
As long as raising taxes for schools is tied to property it’s unlikely the 66.66% requirement will change. Is there any restriction on instituting a local income or sales tax for education purposes?
Comment by John L. — June 30, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
re #118, counties can impose a sales tax for such purposes, though I don’t think Prop 13 allows specific school districts to do so (i.e., I believe the County would have to collect the tax and then distribute it).
In the 30 years since Prop 13 passed, only one County (San Francisco) has dared even to try to implement such as sales tax. In the case of SF, of course, the City and County are one entity.
Not sure whether local income taxes are allowed for such purposes in CA (though I know they are in at least some other states).
For whatever its worth, I’m strongly in favor of exploring both those options. I’m not sure whether they are legally or politically viable, but we should look at every option.
I looked into/researched some of these alternatives myself a little over a year ago and will probably do so again this summer. If anyone knows what’s up, please share.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — June 30, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
Any predictions as to what happens in the November elections when both the police and the fire department will have similar measures on the ballot asking for more parcel taxes to fund their operations? Are us property owners going to be required to another $200 per year on top of the numerous parcel taxes that we already pay? Watch what happens …
Comment by Alameda Parent — June 30, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
One of the previous comments said that the new curriculum was advanced due to a young boy coming to school in a dress. I think I know the family involved; the dad is a nice guy. I have heard, second hand, that the boys parents consulted a psychiatrist before deciding that they should not attempt to dissuade the boy from pursuing his desire to be a girl. That’s their call, obviously; I would never presume to second guess something like that.
I do have an alternative on how to address this situation relative to the schools, though (I haven’t read every post in this thread so maybe something suggested it already). How about if the schools implemented unisex uniforms? That would avoid the problem of kids coming to school in gender-specific clothing, so the boy who came to school in a dress would not have to deal with that in the context of school. It would also avoid the problem of implementing curriculum that is clearly problematic for a lot of the parents.
Comment by Mike Rich — June 30, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
Curious, AP, how long yhou’ve lived in your home?
Comment by dave — June 30, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
Re: #118 — Rob is correct about a countywide sales tax. (See #119)There is no way to impose a sales tax just on the purchases in the City of Alameda.
Local income taxes are barred completely under California law. See Rev. & Tax Code section 17041.5.
Comment by pagebarnes — June 30, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
#112 Great, the “gypsies never got tolerance lesson in school”. Maybe they don’t need it because they we’re never steeped in intolerance at home. Maybe as gypsies who have been historically persecuted, including by the Nazis along with homosexuals, they were actually home schooled about the evils of intolerance, so to speak. I get the point you are making, but you don’t make it very well.
I haven’t had time to catch up and verify exactly what the cirriculum is for the really little kids in this program at AUSD. And I don’t really trust the retold descriptions by others here. So at the moment I have no bottom line
Catching up other posts: Jack B. #93, I was not so offended by your objection to this class on the basis of the target age or any other reason, as much as I was bothered by your snide sarcasm directed at Susan Davis, by trying to pejoratively suggest her comments amounted to supporting “social engineering”. My point is that any such a highly manipulative propaganda term as “social engineering” is highly subjective and people ought to be circumspect about slinging that kind of work usage around. But such sloppiness from you is no surprise. You only object when such tactics are turned back on you.
DK #107 “To teach tolerance of choices, (open-minded = willingness to try?) prior to the choices being made is in actuality promoting those choices, isn’t it? Is that what we want to do?”
NO, teaching tolerance is just teaching tolerance. Your remarks about sequence smack of homophobia, which in my book is not a politically incorrect taboo, just human nature. In this case, your nature would seem to suggest you are threatened by admitting the option does exist because maybe your kids could choose it? And maybe that is not the case, but some people would get that impression anyway.
Comment by Mark Irons — June 30, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
123
17041.5. Notwithstanding any statute, ordinance, regulation, rule
or decision to the contrary, no city, county, city and county,
governmental subdivision, district, public and quasi-public
corporation, municipal corporation, whether incorporated or not or
whether chartered or not, shall levy or collect or cause to be levied
or collected any tax upon the income, or any part thereof, of any
person, resident or nonresident.
A city ordinance/statute passed by the citizens of a city meets the “notwithstanding to the contrary”" restriction.
Comment by John L. — June 30, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
123 Even though sales taxes are collected by the county they are distributed to the city imposing them.
Comment by John L. — June 30, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
Bottom line, parcel taxes are being successfully passed in this city (even while requiring a 66.66% majority) so why change, right?
Comment by John L. — June 30, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
re #127, I’d say yes to change because we have to change. As I wrote earlier today in #103, Measure H was necessary, but far from sufficient.
When I was researching the sales tax possibility last year, I concluded (tentatively) that increasing a sales tax in the County with (one of?) the highest sales tax rate in the entire state would be quite difficult politically. But I thought then and think now that it is a reasonable option to investigate.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — June 30, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
John, could you and your Close-Cover-Before-Striking law degree explain the last few posts in a bit more detail?
Comment by dave — June 30, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
Dave, why do you ask (in #122)? Hopefully, you are not thinking of playing Sherlock again by posting property tax info?
Comment by Jason C — June 30, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
Mark - I disagree with you, but I realize you have a right to your opinion too.
I think if you are telling young children, who have never been in a sexual relationship, that they should be open-minded about same-sex sexual relationships, and the young children have already been taught that being open-minded = willingness to try new things, then you are in fact telling children they should be willing to try same-sex sexual relationships.
Some of the videos that were cited in this thread showed people saying that they re-determined their sexual orientation in college. Why must we start throwing sexual choices at them in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL as a whole new curriculum? And we do this under the banner of a need to stop name-calling and bullying, which should not be occurring anyway.
It is better to train the teachers and staff to properly handle the name-calling and bullying, which obviously needs to happen anyway.
Comment by David Kirwin — June 30, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
Re #125 — I’m not sure I understand you, but if you are suggesting that a city or school district can impose a local income tax, then I think you’re misreading the statute. Local income taxes are not permitted under California law. The “nothwithstanding . . . ” part of the statute merely means that even if a local entity has passed a statute, ordinance etc. that would purport to impose an income tax, it cannot. Back in 2003, Assemblyman Mark Leno tried to get the Rev. and Tax. Code amended to pass legislation that would allow local entities to pass local income taxes, but the bill was killed in the State Senate. So, simply put, local income taxes for school revenues are not currently permitted under California law.
With respect to the sales tax, I don’t think that the point is that the revenues would not come back to Alameda (I don’t know one way or the other). The point is that the City of Alameda (or the school district) cannot impose a sales tax, it can only be done on a county-wide basis. So even if 100% of the residents of the City of Alameda supported an increase to the sales tax to support the schools, it could be defeated if residents of Berkeley or Fremont or Livermore did not share the same views.
And with respect to the sales tax, keep in mind that according to the City’s website, Alameda generates about $400 million in retail sales. Of that about $230 million is grocery/drug sales (which in many cases are exempt from sales tax.) So even assuming that $250 million in retail sales in the City of Alameda was taxable, a supermajority of Alameda County voters would have to approve a sales tax increase of about 1.6%. While I wouldn’t say that voter approval of such a measure would be impossible, it would certainly be a difficult proposition. If, however, you think that a sales tax measure is a viable alternative, I’d encourage you to work towards putting it on the ballot.
Comment by Page Barnes — June 30, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
Just to clarify my post above, the 1.6% number is the sales tax increase on $250 million in taxable sales that would be required to generate the roughly $4 million in yearly revenues that will be generated by the Measure H parcel tax.
Comment by Page Barnes — June 30, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
#125
Amen, Page:
The Basics of City Revenues (californiacityfinance.com)
Cities may impose any tax not otherwise
prohibited by state law. (Gov Code § 37100.5)
.. The state has reserved a number of taxes for
its own purposes including cigarette taxes,
alcohol taxes, personal income taxes.
Comment by John L. — July 1, 2008 @ 8:34 am
#131, “Why must we start throwing sexual choice