NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah. Why aren't schools telling our kids that heteroes can get married too?

Because it's a sinful lifestyle, and if we present it as valid next thing you know children will want to get married with people of the opposing sex.

Because, you know, they're totally *not* going to be choosing their mate according to their attractions. They're so easily confused, our kids are.

Second, this isn't about not letting their kids know that other views exist.
That's right. It's just about letting their kids know that other people exist. The parents' objection is to letting the kids know that we exist, without at the same time telling those kids that we are monsters.
They're demanding parental notification
False. The parents were notified: duh-uh-uh, that's how they found out about it in the first place.
The lessons being taught in those schools have nothing to do what goes on in other countries.
Correct. It's about what goes on in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, same-sex couples exist and are legally recognized as families.
It's about indoctrinating children into a specific point of view.
It is not a "point of view" that same-sex families exist, it is a simple fact. The objection by the parents here is that the "point of view" that such families are monsters was not being taught.
When you can show where racism came into this, or that somebody is evaluating homosexuals as inferior, I'll eat my hat.
That's all that this is about. I hope your hat is tasty.

Bah... we're always getting ignored, we're used to it by now :(

Until it comes to porn of course, then suddenly everyone's a lesbian :rolleyes:

No no no. In porn everyone's BI.

In all honosty, I think Neo Bret has just had his conservative persecution complex kick in, and to be honost, his I can actually understand, since people on this board (all though no one in this thread) tend to at times be a dick to him for no reason when hes trying to be nice.

Persecution complex...lets look at the magnitude of persecution against gays, and compare it to the "persecution" of people disagreeing with Neo Bretonnia's view...

Seriously, I can look through his post history and find many of examples of him presenting his position as categorical, universal truth, yet he can easily dismiss others by saying "Oh, that's just your view, that doesn't make it reality". If he applied that premise equally to himself, he couldn't have much left.

No no no. In porn everyone's BI.

Not in my kind of porn, that's for sure.

Persecution complex...lets look at the magnitude of persecution against gays, and compare it to the "persecution" of people disagreeing with Neo Bretonnia's view...

Seriously, I can look through his post history and find many of examples of him presenting his position as categorical, universal truth, yet he can easily dismiss others by saying "Oh, that's just your view, that doesn't make it reality". If he applied that premise equally to himself, he couldn't have much left.

Look, without arguing motive or what goes on in Neo Bret's head, I have never had anything but pleasent and respectful conversations with him that ended simply in "agree to disagree". Ive never felt that my views were being declared inferior or less valid.

But hey, thats because Ive never been a dick to the guy. No one here has either, but some of the people he starts declaring absolutes with tend to be pretty nasty to him. Go figure, when youre a jerk off to someone, they tend to not listen to your opinion.

Not in my kind of porn, that's for sure.

Yeah! I prefer my guys on guys! :) None of that wussy bi or hetero crap! :D

Teehee.

Yeah! I prefer my guys on guys! :) None of that wussy bi or hetero crap! :D

Teehee.

Straight porn is gay.

Well, they may know some basics, on what they are supposed to teach enough to get past but when I have a teacher teaching me history and they are getting things wrong and having to look out of the textbook all the time, alarm bells should be ringing. He was a good teacher in other things, English lit, PE and Home economics but not history or at the very least WWI and WWII.

That may also be because due to the teacher shortage. The absolute dearth of teachers, coupled with the government's penchant for putting teachers on contracts has led to situations where for instance, I as an English/Japanese teacher was asked to teach a history class because they didn't have anyone qualified as a history teacher to teach the class. So don't blame teachers who are working under very adverse conditions, who are dedicated to your children, but who are asked by governments to do things they are not trained for.

OK Jade let me stop you there, that post you quoted was intended as a joke I was not seriously saying that reading about it will make them gay. Though I was serious with the Lords of the Flies thing, but I don't think reading Lord of the Flies was the reason. Sorry I mistook you. Although your argument seems pretty similar to me.



Ok so if a teacher starts sprouting rubbish, like the effects of global warming will see this city 60m under water, I don't have a right to get the teacher to stop telling students absolute crap? I call bullshit, I don't mind teachers teaching facts but if a teacher starts to teach their viewpoint as fact on an issue then that my friend is wrong and every parent should be allowed to have a say. And parents should be able to tell the state what should be in the curriculum, if they won't teaching say how to calculate using fractions (a basic need) then I would say that parents should be allowed to lobby the state government to get this included.

So white supremacists should be able to tell the state that they don't want say, the Myall Creek Massacre, or Stolen Generation taught in schools because it offends their beliefs? And sometimes, I found telling kids my personal viewpoint, or playing Devil's Advocate an excellent teaching strategy.

How do you determine when a teacher is expressing their viewpoint, and when they are giving your children information? The example in the OP is not a viewpoint, it is a case of stating a fact. You have every right to lobby your state government for a change to curriculum, but you do not have the right to shelter your children from the truth. And the truth is that gay couples exist, that the Myall Creek Massacre happened, and that your child may not be ready for fractions.

Now you might be a very good teacher, but their are a lot of bad teachers out there and there are teachers who have no clue what they are talking about, hell one teacher I had for history I had to correct a lot of his mistakes when he was teaching.

That may be because he wasn't trained in history and due to the teacher shortage and the propensity of the state governments to put teachers on contract, the school had a near enough is good enough approach.

Sorry I mistook you. Although your argument seems pretty similar to me.

Sorry what? It really was intended as a joke, if you look back over those posts I was joking through it, and building on a joke someone else had said, I may have failed at it but I do not think that students learning that families might have two males or two females as the parents of a family will make them gay or want to be like that.

So white supremacists should be able to tell the state that they don't want say, the Myall Creek Massacre, or Stolen Generation taught in schools because it offends their beliefs? And sometimes, I found telling kids my personal viewpoint, or playing Devil's Advocate an excellent teaching strategy.

How do you determine when a teacher is expressing their viewpoint, and when they are giving your children information? The example in the OP is not a viewpoint, it is a case of stating a fact. You have every right to lobby your state government for a change to curriculum, but you do not have the right to shelter your children from the truth. And the truth is that gay couples exist, that the Myall Creek Massacre happened, and that your child may not be ready for fractions.

Yes they should be able to lobby the government to get it removed from the curriculum, just like some parents should be allowed to lobby the government to put a greater emphasis on the holocaust when learning about WWII.

Truth and opinion are two very different things, now you say you use it during your teaching but do you use your opinion to teach the 'facts' you may teach them the facts say the Myall Creek Massacre and tell them what happened and why and the events leading up to it or whatever but when you start teaching it from a bias then we start to have problems.

Now say one teacher has this book for the kid and is saying that yes gay couples exist in MA but the teacher might start saying that these couples while they exist are bad and inferior to those that aren't of the same gender. One the facts were given but the opinion was also chucked in as fact and as something for them to learn rather than the personal opinion of the teacher.

That may be because he wasn't trained in history and due to the teacher shortage and the propensity of the state governments to put teachers on contract, the school had a near enough is good enough approach.

Yeah well that is poor on the school and the system, as I say I am not blaming the teachers for that I am blaming the governments and education departments.


Here is something interesting and these are Principals saying this, now surely they have some idea on education, and some of the non-basic learning that goes on in school one could say social engineering but I am not saying that, though when after the 2004 election the secretary of the NSW branch of the AEU says that teachers aren't doing enough to ensure that their students don't vote liberal you have to stop and think.

Regardless that paragraph is off topic but this news article is somewhat one topic.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=644805

And I think parents have every right to be able to say that the curriculum should focus more on literacy and numeracy rather than other things, but as I say these are Principals saying it.

That may also be because due to the teacher shortage. The absolute dearth of teachers, coupled with the government's penchant for putting teachers on contracts has led to situations where for instance, I as an English/Japanese teacher was asked to teach a history class because they didn't have anyone qualified as a history teacher to teach the class. So don't blame teachers who are working under very adverse conditions, who are dedicated to your children, but who are asked by governments to do things they are not trained for.

Well, I am saying that the entire system is fucked, while I may say teachers are bad on an indivdual level I won't attack teachers because some idoit made the cirriuclum or the government has decided to get involved. I didn't mean it like that, sorry.

Look, I know how much you guys hate any point of view that conflicts with yours to be treated as valid, let alone equal,

Irony in action.

Truth and opinion are two very different things, now you say you use it during your teaching but do you use your opinion to teach the 'facts' you may teach them the facts say the Myall Creek Massacre and tell them what happened and why and the events leading up to it or whatever but when you start teaching it from a bias then we start to have problems.

I tell my high school students the facts and then I give them a range of opinions. If they are all in agreeance, I may play Devil's Advocate to get them thinking.

Some parents think that even mentioning Aboriginal history in history classes is presenting an opinion. "You're making my kid feel ashamed of being white." is a complaint I hear long and loud after just one lesson on Stolen Generation, or watching something like Beneath Clouds.

Now say one teacher has this book for the kid and is saying that yes gay couples exist in MA but the teacher might start saying that these couples while they exist are bad and inferior to those that aren't of the same gender. One the facts were given but the opinion was also chucked in as fact and as something for them to learn rather than the personal opinion of the teacher.

That is not the case here, and it so very rarely happens. And when it does, the teachers are censured by their peers and their principal. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Yeah well that is poor on the school and the system, as I say I am not blaming the teachers for that I am blaming the governments and education departments.

Well you should have said that. Bringing up your son's teacher or your teacher is not fair unless you also explain the context that creates that.


Here is something interesting and these are Principals saying this, now surely they have some idea on education, and some of the non-basic learning that goes on in school one could say social engineering but I am not saying that, though when after the 2004 election the secretary of the NSW branch of the AEU says that teachers aren't doing enough to ensure that their students don't vote liberal you have to stop and think.

Regardless that paragraph is off topic but this news article is somewhat one topic.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=644805

And I think parents have every right to be able to say that the curriculum should focus more on literacy and numeracy rather than other things, but as I say these are Principals saying it.

Um the trouble is that parents are the ones that wanted these things included in the first place because they can't be bothered teaching their children basic health and well-being. My friend is a grade one teacher, and she spends ten minutes after every break teaching them how to brush their teeth. Because their parents don't teach them and so someone has to.

I am sick of parents using teachers as a default scapegoat. If they were responsible and taught their children about sex and healthy eating and homosexuality and how to brush their teeth or use the toilet (yes I have taught a perfectly normal 6 year old who came to school in nappies), teachers wouldn't have to.

And I ask, would you tell a lawyer how to do their job? A doctor? An accountant? But people will insist that their child should have their own personalised curriculum, and that teachers should treat their child as something special. Unfortunately the reality is that teachers can't do that.

Put it this way: How would a teacher, in some hypothetical MA classroom, respond to a child raising his/her hand and saying "My mommy said that it's not right for two men to be married like mommy and daddy are." Will the child be corrected? Reprimanded? Charged with hate speech? What's the reaction? I bet it won't be "well your mommy and daddy are right, as far as their beliefs, and that's okay."

You don't like people to speak for you. Please don't speak for teachers unless you are one.

In my classroom, all beliefs are respected, as long as they don't denigrate another person. Should a child in my class say something to that effect, I would simply tell him/her that we're all different, with different languages, cultures, families and beliefs, and s/he should talk to her/his mom and dad about the issue more is s/he wants to.

But I guess that probably sounds as good as indoctrination to you.

In your opinion.

Science is now made of nothing more than opinions? Yours, I assume.

You know, in ways I almost prefer it when bigots are up front about their hatred, instead of trying to dress it up and call it something else. Own your bigotry.

You don't like people to speak for you. Please don't speak for teachers unless you are one.

In my classroom, all beliefs are respected, as long as they don't denigrate another person. Should a child in my class say something to that effect, I would simply tell him/her that we're all different, with different languages, cultures, families and beliefs, and s/he should talk to her/his mom and dad about the issue more is s/he wants to.

But I guess that probably sounds as good as indoctrination to you.

That's pretty much what I would do too. With an addendum that in school, noone's belief or culture is better or worse than anyone else's.

No no no. In porn everyone's BI.

True, true... it's so difficult to find good lesbian porn, doesn't matter how much the two girl's seem to be enjoying each other sooner or later some guy is going to come along and want to join in.

Yeppity, yep, yep. That would be why I quoted a SCOTUS decision to that effect.Isn't a SCOTUS decision (that hasn't been overturned) inherently consistent with the Constitution?

I'm sick of public schools indoctrinating children with the idea that religious heterosexual marriage is moral or "natural." I demand that all mention of religiously-based hetero nuptials be removed from public school lesson plans, otherwise I am clearly being oppressed and marginalized.

/stamps foot

/stamps foot

I hereby demand that public schools cease teaching our precious children the existence of the colours brown and green, this is clearly immoral, untrue but most of all... I HATE those colours!!!
:mad:

LOUD NOISES!!..

I'm sick of public schools indoctrinating children with the idea that religious heterosexual marriage is moral or "natural." I demand that all mention of religiously-based hetero nuptials be removed from public school lesson plans, otherwise I am clearly being oppressed and marginalized.

/stamps foot

:hail:

Isn't a SCOTUS decision (that hasn't been overturned) inherently consistent with the Constitution?

Well, sort of, but not really.

One could say the Constitution says whatever the current precedent from SCOTUS says it is and from that viewpoint your statement would be right.

But SCOTUS can be wrong, has been wrong, and is wrong on some issues. So I wouldn't equate whatever SCOTUS says with the Constitution.

On the particular issue I was highlighting -- that part of the function of public schools is to teach civic virtues -- I agree with the Court and I find it ironic that NB would take such offense to a notion endorsed heartily by the conservatives on the Court.

The fact that the mere mention of same-gendered couples causes me to immediately fixate, at length, on gay sex, particularly gay male sex, and then pretend I was thinking about lesbians, and black out an entire afternoon of going to gay porn sites does not cast doubt on my hetero-cred.

I imagine men schtupping only to better practice my revulsion against it.



To be briefly serious, dudes do.

As for gays, what's the point of realizing that they have jobs, friends, families, and immersion in the entire experience of being human? That just humanizes them. Why do that?
Seriously though. If you obsess on gay sex, how come you haven't turned gay yet? Everyone knows that if you think about gay sex long enough you'll eventually go gay yourself.

Of course, the process is accelerated when you're in the presence of actual gays or gay porn.

Sweet, another strawman for the stack. When you can show where racism came into this, or that somebody is evaluating homosexuals as inferior, I'll eat my hat.

Be fair, NB, the whole objection to this material is that families with same-sex couples were being portrayed in the same light as those with heterosexual couples.

If someone has a problem with such a portrayal, is it really a huge jump to the idea that they find such couples to be wrong or "inferior" to the type of couple they approve of?

So, you are saying that schools should be teaching the against liberty and in favor of injustice and inequality?

Because that is the meaning of your statements when read in the context of TCT's remarks to which you are responding. I just want to get your position clear -- do you or do you not believe that schools should be teaching children that gays are inferior, or that Jews are inferior, or that other races are inferior, if some parents want their kids to learn that, regardless of whether it reflects the general beliefs of the society and its laws? Yes or no, please.

I *think* the contention is more along the lines of, "Parents who think any of those groups are inferior should be personally informed of any class which might insinuate that the groups in question are not inferior and should be able to opt out of that curriculum."

It isn't that schools should teach any form of bigotry. It's just that they should refrain from countering any of it either. Or, if they do, they should let children whose parents don't like such messages out of the class first.

And pointing out that families with two mommies or daddies exist is, apparently, legitimizing them. Of course, it isn't as if the students won't find out such things when they talk to their peers who come from such families. But, you know, explaining it in a structured manner is bad unless parents can be informed of every instance in which such families might possibly be discussed in class and then opt out.

but:

1. is it "normal?" Doesn't that depend on your personal opinion of what is normalcy? Gay marriage is NOT normal if you gauge normalcy by what has been traditionally accepted as being a "legitimate" marriage. ON the other hand, I'll concede that an equal right to marry has not always been accepted as a legitimate right for blacks in the U.S. either. That is not the point though, or is it? Is sexual attraction within the same gender as "normal" as hetrosexual attraction across races?

2. Even if "normal" should a parent be allowed to "opt out" for his child? If not, why shouldn't a parent be allowed to determine when, where and what his child is taught about marriage and the interrelationships of the sexes? If not, why should I trust the government (in the form of our public school system) to teach my child about sex and marriage? What makes the opinion of government officials "more right" on the issue than that of the parents who live with and raise a child each day?

EDIT: just for the record here, I'll state I could care less one way or another. Further, I think a parent should have the right to "opt out" for his/her child in ANY discussion regarding sex/marriage they want. Marriage is cultural matter as much as it is a legal one, but morality is something that cannot be legistated. If a parent thinks homosexuality is immoral, I think he should be allowed to "opt out" his child. Likewise for Heterosexual marriage.


so you think that parents should vbe allowed to teach their children that marrying an african or an asian or a latino is wrong and immoral ??

because doing so is to propagate hate and discrimination of the grounds are just based on moralit ...

Are you seriously comparing somebodies sex life to their skin color?

its not about the sex life is it ??

its about marriage ...and wheter an individual has the right to decide if another should or should not get married. .

indeed i think that anyone who is capable of making logical choices should be allowed to get married as they like ..

bacause if we attemt to dictate who one shoul get married to ..then we are doing the same thing as muslim fundamentalists in iran and pakistan who dictate who the women can and cannot marry..

oddly enough, americans condemn the control of marriage by muslims countries but they see nothing starnge with defining what marriage is in legislatures ..

ironic ? hypocritical ?

I'm sick of public schools indoctrinating children with the idea that religious heterosexual marriage is moral or "natural." I demand that all mention of religiously-based hetero nuptials be removed from public school lesson plans, otherwise I am clearly being oppressed and marginalized.

/stamps foot

While this may be tongue in cheek, you should as a parent be allowed to lobby this. I would go as far to say that just as a member of society you should be allowed to say this as the education of children will in the long run affect us all.

I tell my high school students the facts and then I give them a range of opinions. If they are all in agreeance, I may play Devil's Advocate to get them thinking.

Some parents think that even mentioning Aboriginal history in history classes is presenting an opinion. "You're making my kid feel ashamed of being white." is a complaint I hear long and loud after just one lesson on Stolen Generation, or watching something like Beneath Clouds.

Well I am not saying that there is anything wrong with your way of teaching like that, but I am sure you would know that others don't do it like that and would present it with a bias on plenty of topics (I suppose that is one of the good things with Maths you can only present the facts). Though talking about being made to feel ashamed I did receive that from one teacher, which being the bastard that I was (am?) I would always challenge the teacher and try to present why I was not to blame for the stolen generation, which would normally end up with me being sent outside but that is just a passing story.

That is not the case here, and it so very rarely happens. And when it does, the teachers are censured by their peers and their principal. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Unless the school has the same mindset, but this could be on any topic, and if a teacher was saying that then I think a parent should be allowed to come in and say something about it.

Well you should have said that. Bringing up your son's teacher or your teacher is not fair unless you also explain the context that creates that.

Well while I will bring them up as a part of the problem, and they are problems on individual standing, it is the education department and the government as a whole for the problems inherent in the system, and having bad teachers in the system is one of those problems.

Um the trouble is that parents are the ones that wanted these things included in the first place because they can't be bothered teaching their children basic health and well-being. My friend is a grade one teacher, and she spends ten minutes after every break teaching them how to brush their teeth. Because their parents don't teach them and so someone has to.

I am sick of parents using teachers as a default scapegoat. If they were responsible and taught their children about sex and healthy eating and homosexuality and how to brush their teeth or use the toilet (yes I have taught a perfectly normal 6 year old who came to school in nappies), teachers wouldn't have to.

And I ask, would you tell a lawyer how to do their job? A doctor? An accountant? But people will insist that their child should have their own personalised curriculum, and that teachers should treat their child as something special. Unfortunately the reality is that teachers can't do that.

And as a parent I should be allowed to say that these things shouldn't be on the curriculum. I agree with you it is poor for parents not to have taught their kids some of these basic skills which they should know well before they start school, such as cleaning teeth, toilet training and proper manners. I see it often myself and think that is very poor on the parents behalf, not to mention those that say it is they go to school to learn the teachers should teach all this to them, well no you as a parent need to teach you kids this ad also take up some of the slack as well.

If the lawyer, accountant or doctor are not doing their job they yes I would complain about it and I would also leave to find another, the thing is that you can't do this in the education system if the system is the problem because then you would have to move into another system which is not always possible. Yes you can move schools if the school is the problem but if the system is faulty than no schools will be able to fix that. Now I am not saying that a personnel curriculum should be tailored for every student but parents should be able to have a say on what issues should be in the curriculum or not.

While this may be tongue in cheek, you should as a parent be allowed to lobby this. I would go as far to say that just as a member of society you should be allowed to say this as the education of children will in the long run affect us all.

You have a right as a member of society to lobby for pretty much anything.

That "right" doesn't make you right.

In this case, the parents are wrong.

If it sounds like propaganda in the schools, it probably is. In case you haven't noticed, the question is not whether to teach it. The question is whether the parents can opt-out. They aren't affecting anybody else's education, they are insisting that they raise they're own children. They should be given a medal for the social and economic benefits of such parenting.

And as a parent I should be allowed to say that these things shouldn't be on the curriculum.

Why?

If it sounds like propaganda in the schools, it probably is. In case you haven't noticed, the question is not whether to teach it. The question is whether the parents can opt-out. They aren't affecting anybody else's education, they are insisting that they raise they're own children. They should be given a medal for the social and economic benefits of such parenting.

What about if some people WANT it to sound like propaganda, but - on examination - it doesn't?

Like... in this case.

If it sounds like propaganda in the schools, it probably is. In case you haven't noticed, the question is not whether to teach it. The question is whether the parents can opt-out. They aren't affecting anybody else's education, they are insisting that they raise they're own children. They should be given a medal for the social and economic benefits of such parenting.

It's true. Ignorance moves merchandise.

Now I am not saying that a personnel curriculum should be tailored for every student but parents should be able to have a say on what issues should be in the curriculum or not.

What if I don't want my daughter to learn any math beyond simple four functions calculations, because I don't think that sort of thing is necessary for girls to learn?

What if I don't want my son to learn about slavery or the civil war because some of the texts imply that not all white people are benevolent and kind?

White if I don't think my children should have to study science and take tests on it because they're both going to take over the family hardware store?

What if we left these questions up not to individual parents with no background in education or individual teachers, but a huge board of qualified people who can draw up some guidelines and standards for what every child should know when s/he leaves school?

We could make a whole new department for it!

Well I am not saying that there is anything wrong with your way of teaching like that, but I am sure you would know that others don't do it like that and would present it with a bias on plenty of topics (I suppose that is one of the good things with Maths you can only present the facts). Though talking about being made to feel ashamed I did receive that from one teacher, which being the bastard that I was (am?) I would always challenge the teacher and try to present why I was not to blame for the stolen generation, which would normally end up with me being sent outside but that is just a passing story.

I have never once seen an instance of teachers blaming students for Stolen Generation. I have seen plenty of examples of both young students from racist backgrounds and racist parents complain that even mentioning it in the curriculum is to pander to special interests or that he mere mention of it or the genocide of the Tasmanian Aboriginals constitutes propaganda. Are you sure you're not just extra sensitive about these issues?

Unless the school has the same mindset, but this could be on any topic, and if a teacher was saying that then I think a parent should be allowed to come in and say something about it.

So my point again comes down to: Should parents who are racists be allowed to demand that content regarding civil rights, i.e the Tent Embassy be removed from the curriculum? What about parents who don't want their sons taught by a female teacher? Should they be allowed to demand male-only teachers?

Well while I will bring them up as a part of the problem, and they are problems on individual standing, it is the education department and the government as a whole for the problems inherent in the system, and having bad teachers in the system is one of those problems.

There are very, very few bad teachers in the system. There are teachers who are overworked by being thrown into special needs classrooms with 13 year olds who are unable to communicate without the training necessary to teach them or into subjects that they are not trained to teach because the government won't hire teachers permanently and reduce class sizes.

And as a parent I should be allowed to say that these things shouldn't be on the curriculum. I agree with you it is poor for parents not to have taught their kids some of these basic skills which they should know well before they start school, such as cleaning teeth, toilet training and proper manners. I see it often myself and think that is very poor on the parents behalf, not to mention those that say it is they go to school to learn the teachers should teach all this to them, well no you as a parent need to teach you kids this ad also take up some of the slack as well.

So you would rather your child sit next to the six-year-old shitting his nappy or with teeth rotting out of his head? Teachers shouldn't have to teach this stuff, but they have no other option, which is what the Principal's Association is saying. Until kids can toilet themselves correctly, they can't learn reading, writing and arithmetic.

If the lawyer, accountant or doctor are not doing their job they yes I would complain about it and I would also leave to find another, the thing is that you can't do this in the education system if the system is the problem because then you would have to move into another system which is not always possible. Yes you can move schools if the school is the problem but if the system is faulty than no schools will be able to fix that. Now I am not saying that a personnel curriculum should be tailored for every student but parents should be able to have a say on what issues should be in the curriculum or not.

You have the option of home-schooling, which in this country with the dole and the sole parent pension as well as all the tax breaks you get is far easier than some would have us believe. You also have the option, which many parents take up, of working a few extra hours and sending your kid to a private school.

Where do we draw the line? Do you suggest we stop teaching the Holocaust or include revisionist history because one parent might want it in the curriculum? How many parents need to be for or against something before we add/remove it? Many Muslim parents want single sex classrooms, do we cater to their needs?

What if I don't want my daughter to learn any math beyond simple four functions calculations, because I don't think that sort of thing is necessary for girls to learn?

What if I don't want my son to learn about slavery or the civil war because some of the texts imply that not all white people are benevolent and kind?

White if I don't think my children should have to study science and take tests on it because they're both going to take over the family hardware store?

What if we left these questions up not to individual parents with no background in education or individual teachers, but a huge board of qualified people who can draw up some guidelines and standards for what every child should know when s/he leaves school?

We could make a whole new department for it!

Let's try this shall we

What if I want my son to learn math beyond simple four functions calculations, but the curriculum doesn't allow it.

What if I want my son to learn about slavery or the civil war in order to get a greater understanding on American history and the current social context in America, but the curriculum doesn't currently have it in there.

Did I say that the parents should make the curriculum? No, I said they should be able to have a say on what things should or shouldn't be in the curriculum. Doesn't mean the government has to take notice but parents should be able to have some say over what is taught.

I have never once seen an instance of teachers blaming students for Stolen Generation. I have seen plenty of examples of both young students from racist backgrounds and racist parents complain that even mentioning it in the curriculum is to pander to special interests or that he mere mention of it or the genocide of the Tasmanian Aboriginals constitutes propaganda. Are you sure you're not just extra sensitive about these issues?

Well as I say it is one thing to teach what happened and explain why these things went about, but another to present it from a particular stance and only allow that to be the stance from which you may learn from.

Why would I be extra sensitive about these issues? Unless you mean the issue of education then yes I am very sensitive about it I want children to be taught properly I don't want teachers imposing their viewpoints on an issue as the right viewpoint and only allowing that viewpoint to be the 'right' one, and I am sensitive on what is taught as well.

Actually answer this question for me, why do educators know topic should be taught? I know they know (or at the least are taught) how to teach effectively but why do they know what should be taught? Why would an educator know that the Australian explorers shouldn't be taught when teaching about Australian history?

So my point again comes down to: Should parents who are racists be allowed to demand that content regarding civil rights, i.e the Tent Embassy be removed from the curriculum? What about parents who don't want their sons taught by a female teacher? Should they be allowed to demand male-only teachers?

Yes they should be allowed to ask for it, but as I have said before it doesn't mean they have to get it but they should be allowed to ask for it.

Is the Tent embassy really in the Victorian curriculum?

There are very, very few bad teachers in the system. There are teachers who are overworked by being thrown into special needs classrooms with 13 year olds who are unable to communicate without the training necessary to teach them or into subjects that they are not trained to teach because the government won't hire teachers permanently and reduce class sizes.

As I said a government problem that is through the entire system.

So you would rather your child sit next to the six-year-old shitting his nappy or with teeth rotting out of his head? Teachers shouldn't have to teach this stuff, but they have no other option, which is what the Principal's Association is saying. Until kids can toilet themselves correctly, they can't learn reading, writing and arithmetic.

That's exactly what I said teachers shouldn't have to teach this stuff.

You have the option of home-schooling, which in this country with the dole and the sole parent pension as well as all the tax breaks you get is far easier than some would have us believe. You also have the option, which many parents take up, of working a few extra hours and sending your kid to a private school.

Where do we draw the line? Do you suggest we stop teaching the Holocaust or include revisionist history because one parent might want it in the curriculum? How many parents need to be for or against something before we add/remove it? Many Muslim parents want single sex classrooms, do we cater to their needs?

My child already does go to a private school they still have to follow the curriculum, I even went to a private school we still had to follow the same curriculum set by the education department. And as I said they should be allowed to lobby the government for change in the curriculum, they don't have to take them on board but if I was lobbying the government saying that history should include the holocaust (assuming that it doesn't) why shouldn't I be able to, just because a few people in the position of power don't want to.

Let's try this shall we

What if I want my son to learn math beyond simple four functions calculations, but the curriculum doesn't allow it.

What if I want my son to learn about slavery or the civil war in order to get a greater understanding on American history and the current social context in America, but the curriculum doesn't currently have it in there.

Did I say that the parents should make the curriculum? No, I said they should be able to have a say on what things should or shouldn't be in the curriculum. Doesn't mean the government has to take notice but parents should be able to have some say over what is taught.

The difference being that parents aren't likely to sue a school district when their child comes home talking about binomial expansion. "I don't care if algebra exists all over the world, WE should get to decide when and how our child finds out about it!"

The difference being that parents aren't likely to sue a school district when their child comes home talking about binomial expansion. "I don't care if algebra exists all over the world, WE should get to decide when and how our child finds out about it!"

What?

I *think* the contention is more along the lines of, "Parents who think any of those groups are inferior should be personally informed of any class which might insinuate that the groups in question are not inferior and should be able to opt out of that curriculum."

It isn't that schools should teach any form of bigotry. It's just that they should refrain from countering any of it either. Or, if they do, they should let children whose parents don't like such messages out of the class first.

And pointing out that families with two mommies or daddies exist is, apparently, legitimizing them. Of course, it isn't as if the students won't find out such things when they talk to their peers who come from such families. But, you know, explaining it in a structured manner is bad unless parents can be informed of every instance in which such families might possibly be discussed in class and then opt out.
Yes, I can just imagine that parent-teacher meeting:

"Hi, Ms. Little Timmy's Teacher, we just want to make sure you understand that in our household, we hate gays. So you make sure you call us in advance before you expose Little Timmy to anything in your class plan that might in any way not express hatred of gays. 'K? Thanks. Oh, and he's allergic to peanuts, too."

Let's try this shall we

What if I want my son to learn math beyond simple four functions calculations, but the curriculum doesn't allow it.

What if I want my son to learn about slavery or the civil war in order to get a greater understanding on American history and the current social context in America, but the curriculum doesn't currently have it in there.

Did I say that the parents should make the curriculum? No, I said they should be able to have a say on what things should or shouldn't be in the curriculum. Doesn't mean the government has to take notice but parents should be able to have some say over what is taught.
False comparison because you are giving an example in which you would want to expand the curriculum by adding more information to it, while the parents who are the topic of this thread want to restrict the curriculum by banning information from it.

So, apparently, you are unable to defend the argument of the parents in the OP video -- because the argument you present here is the opposite of it.

Let's try this shall we

What if I want my son to learn math beyond simple four functions calculations, but the curriculum doesn't allow it.

What if I want my son to learn about slavery or the civil war in order to get a greater understanding on American history and the current social context in America, but the curriculum doesn't currently have it in there.


There's nothing to stop you ADDING TO the school system's education on your own time... that's what I do.

False comparison because you are giving an example in which you would want to expand the curriculum by adding more information to it, while the parents who are the topic of this thread want to restrict the curriculum by banning information from it.

So, apparently, you are unable to defend the argument of the parents in the OP video -- because the argument you present here is the opposite of it.

I was going to argue that angle, but I figured he'd counter with parental notification. Or, you know, "So what's wrong with adding God to the curriculum?"

"The sky is blue because of the way the atmosphere interacts with the various gases in the air. The hidden gases and particles you can't see reflect light allowing us to see the sky has "blue" during the day and it's 'black" at night because there is an absence of light."

The dust in the sky refracts light, not reflects (and refracts red light more than blue light) ;).

Cat-Tribe, as usual, you fail to review the pertinent case law.

I draw your attention to Syphils v. Gonorrhea wherein it was ruled that the vast list of sexually transmitted microbial pathogens were somehow more likely to infect you from a gay person, whereas their communicable propensity is negligible if its a man's fluid intermingling with a woman's.

Ask any microbiologist receiving principle funding from Focus on the Family.
Sadly I was the expert witness (and they couldn't even get a fully qualified person, just a microbio undergrad student) in that case. :p

Measure the distance between your penis and your butthole. EWWWWW! its too close!
Females have it far, far worse when it comes to germs migrating from the anus.

I was going to argue that angle, but I figured he'd counter with parental notification. Or, you know, "So what's wrong with adding God to the curriculum?"
Several people have tried parental notification already in this thread. The counter -- so far unanswered -- is that the parents in the OP video DID get notification, which is how they knew what their kid was being given to read in school. So lack of notification is not the issue. I'm not motivated to go sort out who said what so far, so I'm not sure if BE is one of those who tried the notification angle. If not, I'm hoping he has learned from others' failure with it.

EDIT: And of course, the counter to "So what's wrong with adding God to the curriculum?" is that the OP video parents are not proposing to add God. They are proposing to delete gays. Not the same thing.

The dust in the sky refracts light, not reflects (and refracts red light more than blue light) ;).

No.

It's Rayleigh scattering, which leads to blue wavelength light scattering more than red wavelength (Rayleigh scattering ~ wavelength ^ -4).

One could think of it in terms of particle-scale reflection, but that's not really accurate either. It's basically elastic collisions between photons and particles much smaller than photons.

No.

It's Rayleigh scattering, which leads to blue wavelength light scattering more than red wavelength (Rayleigh scattering ~ wavelength ^ -4).

One could think of it in terms of particle-scale reflection, but that's not really accurate either. It's basically elastic collisions between photons and particles much smaller than photons.

That's what I tried to tell my 2 year old niece, but she said I was wrong. :(

That's what I tried to tell my 2 year old niece, but she said I was wrong. :(

Kids are like that.

But seriously, it's Rayleigh scattering.

No.

It's Rayleigh scattering, which leads to blue wavelength light scattering more than red wavelength (Rayleigh scattering ~ wavelength ^ -4).

One could think of it in terms of particle-scale reflection, but that's not really accurate either. It's basically elastic collisions between photons and particles much smaller than photons.

And that's why I don't post when tired :p.

Silly me, I was taking the entire atmosphere + particles as a big refractive object (and even in that case I meant more along the lines of dispersal), instead of refractive object + funky particles (I'm probably still wrong on some fundamental level). Hmm, I also mixed blue and red around, not my night it seems.

False comparison because you are giving an example in which you would want to expand the curriculum by adding more information to it, while the parents who are the topic of this thread want to restrict the curriculum by banning information from it.

So, apparently, you are unable to defend the argument of the parents in the OP video -- because the argument you present here is the opposite of it.

How? I am talking about whether a parent has a right to be able to get the curriculum changed in an education system. For one reason or another, it has nothing to do with the video or the issue in the video but to do with peoples comments who said that parent shave no right to be able to dictate what should or should not be taught. I disagree I think they should be able to lobby the government in what topics should be taught in the curriculum.

How? I am talking about whether a parent has a right to be able to get the curriculum changed in an education system. For one reason or another, it has nothing to do with the video or the issue in the video but to do with peoples comments who said that parent shave no right to be able to dictate what should or should not be taught. I disagree I think they should be able to lobby the government in what topics should be taught in the curriculum.

Note the distinction between "parents have a right to DICTATE what should or should be taught" and "parents have a right to lobby the government regarding what should be taught."

Rinse.

Repeat.

Well as I say it is one thing to teach what happened and explain why these things went about, but another to present it from a particular stance and only allow that to be the stance from which you may learn from.

Why would I be extra sensitive about these issues? Unless you mean the issue of education then yes I am very sensitive about it I want children to be taught properly I don't want teachers imposing their viewpoints on an issue as the right viewpoint and only allowing that viewpoint to be the 'right' one, and I am sensitive on what is taught as well.

Actually answer this question for me, why do educators know topic should be taught? I know they know (or at the least are taught) how to teach effectively but why do they know what should be taught? Why would an educator know that the Australian explorers shouldn't be taught when teaching about Australian history?

Give me an example of a teacher imposing their own viewpoint regarding Stolen Generation? Or is the inclusion of it enough to upset your delicate sensibilities?

Educators know what should be in the curriculum because when you study teaching, you also study child development, psychology, sociology, politics social science and a range of other things. Put together, they enable educators to develop curriculum that meet the needs of your children. Developmentally, socially, psychologically.

My child already does go to a private school they still have to follow the curriculum, I even went to a private school we still had to follow the same curriculum set by the education department. And as I said they should be allowed to lobby the government for change in the curriculum, they don't have to take them on board but if I was lobbying the government saying that history should include the holocaust (assuming that it doesn't) why shouldn't I be able to, just because a few people in the position of power don't want to.

You can lobby the government. Noone here is saying that you should be stopped. But you shouldn't have the right to go to your child's school and disrupt the learning of every other child by demanding that your child can't learn this. You don't have the right to force an individual teacher to make allowances or change her classroom for your individual child. Because you are causing the learning of other children to be jeopardised.

Educators know what should be in the curriculum because when you study teaching, you also study child development, psychology, sociology, politics social science and a range of other things. Put together, they enable educators to develop curriculum that meet the needs of your children. Developmentally, socially, psychologically.

Look, I know you are taught about child development, and how they interact with each other the best methods of teaching etc. But why do you have this information that knows that there is no need to teach students about how the electrol system works in Australia?

[QUOTEYou can lobby the government. Noone here is saying that you should be stopped. But you shouldn't have the right to go to your child's school and disrupt the learning of every other child by demanding that your child can't learn this. You don't have the right to force an individual teacher to make allowances or change her classroom for your individual child. Because you are causing the learning of other children to be jeopardised.[/QUOTE]

Not during the class no, but if a teacher is poor at the job then a parent should be able to speak to the school about it. If it is a system fault then they should be able to try and get they system changed.

Look, I know you are taught about child development, and how they interact with each other the best methods of teaching etc. But why do you have this information that knows that there is no need to teach students about how the electrol system works in Australia?

Learning about the electoral system in Australia and Parliament and Government certainly forms part of the curriculum in Queensland. In NSW it certainly appears to be part of the mandatory curriculum. Go to the Board of Studies website (http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_sc/pdf_doc/sc-course-descriptions.pdf).


[QUOTE]Not during the class no, but if a teacher is poor at the job then a parent should be able to speak to the school about it. If it is a system fault then they should be able to try and get they system changed.

Many parents (the ones in the OP included) think a teacher is poor at their job if they teach their children that gays exist. I say that they don't get the opportunity to tell a school they don't want this included.

How? I am talking about whether a parent has a right to be able to get the curriculum changed in an education system. For one reason or another, it has nothing to do with the video or the issue in the video but to do with peoples comments who said that parent shave no right to be able to dictate what should or should not be taught. I disagree I think they should be able to lobby the government in what topics should be taught in the curriculum.
Sigh. I told you how in the post you [non-]responded to.

Another thing that annoys me is when people float two separate points in the same post only so that, no matter which one someone attacks, they can claim they were really talking about the other one.

Not during the class no, but if a teacher is poor at the job then a parent should be able to speak to the school about it. If it is a system fault then they should be able to try and get they system changed.
As Saint Jade said, some people will claim a teacher is bad at their job just because the cirriculum does not match their political or religious beliefs.

So who gets to decide what should be taught or not?

These parents think it's bad teaching to mention that gays exist in this society. They think it's bad teaching if a teacher in charge of a whole roomful of children does not individually tailor the content of the curriculum for each one of them according to the arbitrary demands of parents.

I thing it's bad teaching NOT to mention that gays exist in this society. I think it's bad teaching for a teacher to spend all his/her time catering to individual demands instead of delivering the curriculum in an orderly, understandable and uniform manner.

Which set of parents get to dictate whether the teacher is doing a good job or not? Should we just duke it out in the parking lot of the school to see who will claim supremacy? Maybe there should be a parental Thunder Dome match, eh? Two go in, one comes out, and that could determine the curriculum and how it is taught?

Ok, I confess to being relatively conservative in my views (politically I consider myself to be more of a Libertarian than anything else) however, this just floored me. It is clearly staged and a bit over the top, however, I do see the flip side and think the parents have a bit of a legitimate gripe (assuming that the facts are as claimed and portrayed).

So, what do you guys think? Should a parent be allowed to "opt out" for his/her kid when it comes to discussions of marriage (gay or otherwise)?

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1815825713/bctid1819819843

I don't see what's so surprising here at all. If conservative views were valid they wouldn't have to lie to support them.

Let me ask you this, should they be allowed to opt their kids out of math? How about geography? Chemistry?

those topics aren't based on a personal belief.

those topics aren't based on a personal belief.
You are evidently unfamiliar with ID/creationism and other views of certain religious extremists in the US.

those topics aren't based on a personal belief.

The existence of gay families and reality of gay marriage being legal in Massachusetts is based on personal belief?