Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Orientation redux

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. 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 which consultant Barry Chersky said is often overlooked. Chersky said he recently worked with the San Leandro school district to implement similar policies and lessons, and he said San Francisco has had such policies and lessons for more than a decade.

Assistant Superintendent Debbie Wong, who is heading the team working on this, told the school board that her goal is to ensure all families feel safe in Alameda’s schools. The team said the lessons would focus on inclusiveness and family diversity. “We know this can be a very controversial topic. But we know morally that this is the right thing to do,” Wong said. When asked if the team had gotten any negative feedback on its work, Wong said, “We haven’t taken it so public.”

Two schools have hosted classroom presentations on these issues this year, said Franklin School Principal and team member Gail Rossiter. And the presentation at Franklin, which Rossiter said she arranged on behalf of a student who she said was “gender presenting,” upset some parents, who complained they weren’t given enough notice about it and questioned whether it would be appropriate for their young children. Rossiter downplayed any controversy around her school’s presentation (here’s info on Gender Spectrum, which did the presentation).

Franklin parent Sean Cahill, the lone parent on the curriculum team and possibly the district’s best advertisement for the new lessons and father of two, said he’s grateful the district is doing this work. Per Cahill:

There were no books about two dads, and there were no discussions about two moms, and what it means to be in a family that was gay ... It has taken me a long time to come to grips with my reality, my place in the world, to have a voice. I did that myself. A lot of kids shouldn’t have to go through that struggle.

The school board, which could approve the lessons this fall, seemed supportive, with Trustee David Forbes comparing gays’ current struggles to those of the civil rights activists of the 1960s. Wong said her group is working on lesson plans for the district’s secondary schools, too. Community forums on the plans are slated to be held in the fall, and we’ll tell you all about those when the dates are set.

Meanwhile, the board welcomed Dr. Gilbert Cho as the new principal for Wood Middle School. Looks like Cho is currently principal at San Francisco’s Martin Luther King Jr. Academic Middle School (they have uniforms!) and has worked as an administrator at several Oakland schools.

4 Comments:

Anonymous said...

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 ...

whitney said...

Regarding the previous post -- rather than threatening lawsuits, why not just opt your child out of this curriculum? Also, I assume your reference to 99.99% of the people on this planet sharing your same morals is something you just made up to bolster your point of view but, if I'm mistaken, can you provide your reference for this statistic? I think you are far from the mark.

No matter what your personal beliefs are about homosexuality -- the fact is that we have many gay and lesbian parented families in our schools and community. We also certainly have kids who, as they become aware of their sexuality, have discovered or will discover that they are gay or lesbian, or who have gender identity issues. All of these kids have a right to attend school without being teased or bullied because of their differences from other kids or families. Providing this curriculum, and providing it in elementary school is a wonderful step toward teaching all kids to accept each other and each other’s families. This will improve the school experiences for so many kids. Bravo to our school district for pursuing this important program!

meresa said...

Thank you Whitney for your post. I would like to state for the record that I too am NOT part of the 99.99% anonymous referenced. I believe it is important to teach our children to respect others (even those who are different). It is wonderful to see AUSD working to create policies which address harassment happening in our schools. It is also great to see AUSD taking steps to prevent harassment. School should be a safe place for ALL children not just the straight ones from the straight families. This is everyones responsibility. Thank you AUSD!

David Kirwin said...

Thanks to Mike McMahon for providing the PowerPoint Portion of the presentation made to the BOE June 24th on laurendo.com - 'Altogether Now'



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 legally required 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, as reference in the PowerPoint slide on District Goal#3, 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.



I sincerely thank you for your time if you have read and will consider this,

David Kirwin