"[Howell's] school board unanimously approved Monday night a change in curriculum that would include seventh-graders receiving a pamphlet that explains the purpose of condoms and how to use one. If asked, teachers will also be able to define the terms homosexuality, masturbation, anal and oral sex."
I'm curious how these questions will be answered. We already know they'll not be given a moral context because anything that keeps company with religion isn't allowed in schools. We also know the risks associated with sex (anal or otherwise) won't have the desired impact on 12 and 13-year-olds who think it's a good idea to chat and meet online strangers or even travel to Jericho and convert to Islam without notifying their parents. They aren't required to notify parents about abortions, how much less dangerous is masquerading as an 18 year old and hooking up with two guys from Indianapolis for a road trip?
Perhaps Howell and Birmingham can start an intramural Sex-Ed Olympics with seventh graders answering Sex-Ed questions in a Jeopardy-like format, or see which schools' 12-year-old girls can unroll a condom onto a model penis the fastest or list spermicide's active ingredients.
Or perhaps they should take field trips to visit unwed mothers who've dropped out of school, or interview parents taking care of their middle-school student's grandchildren. Will they meet with people infected with genital herpes or dying from AIDS? Perhaps they should study the economic affects of pregnancy, unwed motherhood, and abortion on young women. I bet we're able to discuss and show diagrams of anal sex and fisting but are unable to show pictures of aborted fetuses--just to drive home the point.
Apparently Howell's School District has all the money it requires and has met every need for remedial and advanced studies in reading, writing, arithmetic, foreign languages, vocational education and other things to help Howell's children compete in a flattened world.
Not.
On Wednesday The Detroit News reported Howell's school system is slashing their budget by $2.3 million. Maybe the school board trustees have been a little distracted reviewing the new sex-ed pamphlets?
Meanwhile, InformationWeek reports Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik is having trouble finding qualified candidates to hire. More than 2/3 of last year's new hires came from overseas.
"I think what I find most humbling about this is, when I leave the United States, most of the other officials welcome these discussions, while I have trouble getting the attention of the local school district at home."
Maybe the locals are busy spending some private time studying the new courseware.
At a speech in NY, Red Hat's CEO spoke about another major issue, the state of U.S. education at the K-12 and higher-education levels.
Howell's students will be seductive candidates indeed. If they get as far as an interview they'll be able to explain the purpose of a condom, how to use one, and define the terms homosexuality, masturbation, anal and oral sex.
Do you still think the answer is more money for schools?
"Do you still think the answer is more money for schools?"
ReplyDeleteThe answer is always more money. Maybe with more money the schools can hire teaching assistants to do the class work just like in college. I'm sure a 10th grader would love to earn a few extra bucks teaching 7th graders about sex.
Thanks for a powerful trenchant commentary on this benighted effort to "educate" 12 year-olds about condum use.
ReplyDeleteI am sick of 60's rejects running things at schools, glorying in the lost innocence of children (Jesus once said something pretty judgmental about people who would corrupt the young; it involves a millstone around the neck) all in the name of education.
Their attitude seems to be: by all means, teach kids how to use condoms. Just don't breathe a word about what might happen to them if they fail to work...or even if they do work.
Bill
"Or perhaps they should take field trips to visit unwed mothers who've dropped out of school, or interview parents taking care of their middle-school student's grandchildren."
ReplyDelete-- Now that is a great idea! It reminds me of my plans to take my kids to the local auto junk yard to show them what happens when cars get into a wreck before they get a license.
You are obviously blowing things out of proportion, " I bet we're able to discuss and show diagrams of anal sex and fisting..." They are giving them the knowledge that they need to protect themselves. Knowledge is power, ignorance is death.
The fact is, we DO need to teach sexual education in schools because it isn't/won't be taught in most homes. The reality IS that younger and younger kids are having sex today, period. Do you want those children to be as knowledgeable and prepared to protect themselves when they make the choice to have sex or do you want them to be unaware and ignorant of the dangers of sex? Do you want to increase the spread of HIV and STD's or reduce it?
So until you can find a way to stop kids from having sex, don't you want them to be prepared and protected?
Are there addtl great things we could do to educate them "about" sex (you pointed out a couple of good ones), sure but we also need to teach them how to protect themselves when they make a wrong choice because kids ARE going to make wrong choices.
"If asked, teachers will also be able to define the terms homosexuality, masturbation, anal and oral sex."
ReplyDelete"They are giving them the knowledge that they need to protect themselves. Knowledge is power, ignorance is death."
"Knowledge is power" was the ultimate lure for Eve and Pandora. Now we think we know it all. What does anal and oral sex have to do with 7th graders? What kind of bias will the teacher have when answering questions about homosexuality?
Not everyone matures at the same time. Not everyone is ready for this discussion, even with their parents, at 12. Some may be. Others are blissfully ignorant or completely uninterested in the sex. This is why it's the parent's responsibility, not the schools. Public schools should stick to academics and leave sex education for the home. Children's promiscuity is not school's problem. Our public schools have already proved unable to teach our kids competitively on an international scale, have dumbed-down curricula, teach to the lowest denominator, squander resources and don't manage kids' aptitudes already, and still some people want schools to do more parenting.
Just because some parents are deficient doesn't mean all parents are. Because some children 12-year olds will experiment doesn't mean all of them will.
And exactly how far will those experiments go? When I was a kid who would have thought of anal sex in the first place? Certainly not I. But let's discuss it in class? With 7th graders?
The problem progressives have is they want to treaty children like they're little adults. They are not. They are children. Their brains aren't developed enough to weight the consequences of their actions. I'm trying real hard not to take sucker-punch (sucker-fist?) progressives here on the significance of that. Anyway, it's at this point of their lives when the part of the brain non-adults rely on most for making decisions is the region responsible for emotions that they're impossible to reason with. At this age explaining things to them and telling them /why/ anal sex isn't a good thing or /why/ you shouldn't be having sex simply finds no purchase in adolescent grey matter.
What does make sense to them is emotion. Like how would they feel if their lives where RUINED by an unwanted pregnancy. How does that guy with a sexual crime (statutory rape) on his record feel when he moves to a new neighborhood or applies for a job? How are their career prospects? What an unwanted pregnancy good or bad for the family? Are you prepared to have an abortion? Do you know what an abortion is? Can I show you some pictures?
Emotions. It makes a lot of sense. It's why everything seems to intense to children. Not because it is, but because the haven't the mental capacity to reason through it.
Kids aren't the only ones making poor choices. Adults make them all the time. School districts have long track records of wrong decisions, especially whenever they stray from their primary goal.
“What does anal and oral sex have to do with 7th graders?”
ReplyDelete--- Hopefully nothing, but if they are put into a situation where that comes up, either pressure from a boy or whatever, better to have the knowledge of what that is and the risks that exist, than not to know. I have heard that young girls now are having anal sex so they can remain a virgin. Can you believe that, it’s unreal.
“What kind of bias will the teacher have when answering questions about homosexuality?”
--- Hopefully an objective non-judgmental one.
“Public schools should stick to academics and leave sex education for the home.”
--Certainly a very valid point that is hard to disagree with. As a society, if the parents are NOT doing it, do we just allow their non-action to increase the dire affects of STD’s/pregnancies etc… or do we try to do something about it? Maybe there is a better solution, but I think the issue needs attention.
How do we deal with those parents that do NOT do their jobs? Do we try to cover their “slack” or just allow the children of those parents to suffer? It’s a tough issue.
As far as I know, just like when I was in school, parents have to sign an “Approval” letter for their kids to attend the sex ed classes. Has that changed? My kids are old enough yet for me to know.
It’s a big problem and it is unfortunate that parents these days are not owning up to their responsibilities.
“What kind of bias will the teacher have when answering questions about homosexuality?”
ReplyDelete--- Hopefully an objective non-judgmental one.
What's wrong with being judgmental? Our society has lots of issues that might be addressed if we stopped being judgmental about being judgemental. Or put another way intolerant of intolerance. In the name of non-judgementalism (tolerance & multiculterism) our STD rates are up, pregnancy rates are up, teenage girls dress like sluts, underage drinking is up, and the list goes on.
I'm curious if you can find me a statistic representing a healty America from the 60s onward.
"It’s a big problem and it is unfortunate that parents these days are not owning up to their responsibilities."
Nonesense. Short of outright abuse and neglect, what non-ambiguous measure should we use to guage parental fitness? What bright line must be cross to necessitate state intervention? Be careful when you consider this because any nebulous definition could easily be turned against you should the state's "idea" of tolerance change.
Today the state seems progressive and has become intolerant of conservative values. Intolerant in the manner that "progressive" ideas are presented in the school as being "objective and non-judgemental" as though those two adjectives were absent bias and motive.
Objectivity is defined by whomever controls the dialog. National dialog is controlled by the major media. Remember how many newspapers and news shows dropped the word "illegal" when talking about our immigration problem? That's an effective and subtle way to influence the way people think about the problem.
Back to parents (it's a song about parents) should we interfere when their kids don't perform well in school? How should we interfere when their teachers or districts don't perform?
Responsible parents would like to send their children to another school, but can't afford to because confusion over the First Amendment creates an obstruction to vouchers only the simple-minded can see. It's like a hallucination they flail their hands at in the air wildly shouting, "Did you see that?" because their dimished faculties can't distinguish between non-estalishment and anti-establishment (of religion).
Television portrays parents as fairly dimwitted (too many to list), conservatives are portrayed as intolerant, insensitive or backward simpletons, and sex is a common recreation enjoyed by any two organisms without consequence or judgementalism.
What is wrong with parents these days???
If parents had a union, their own skin color, were homosexual, all poor, all handicapped, all illegal aliens, or all suffered a loss on 9/11 or in Iraq, they'd be lionized and have their way like other adored and protected minority groups or even Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolley. Instead they're ridiculed in the media, have their values replaced by the state's in health, history, geography, and literature classes, are demonized for any possible physical risk to their children, are mocked for their religious beliefs, given laughable and devaluing dependent deductions on their taxes, then diminished to the point of anachronism by idiotic sayings like "it takes a village."
Is the left kidding us? The village is attacking parents and families. What are couples thinking when they became parents?
“What's wrong with being judgmental?”
ReplyDelete-- It is wrong when one uses a “religious ideology” as their judgmental stick. Not everyone thinks homosexuality is immoral, thus public schools should not be judgmental against that issue. Can we be judgmental regarding other issues, sure; teenage pregnancy, sexual abuse, violence etc…
“Nonsense. Short of outright abuse and neglect, what non-ambiguous measure should we use to gauge parental fitness?”
--- I’ll use your own words, “…our STD rates are up, pregnancy rates are up, teenage girls dress like sluts, underage drinking is up, and the list goes on.”
“…turned against you should the state's "idea" of tolerance change.”
--Agreed, it is a “slippery slope”
“Today the state seems progressive and has become intolerant of conservative values.”
--- As long as those values are not due to religious dogma and are based on the good of society, I don’t think there should be an issue.
“Media” - A sorry entity in our current age.
“How should we interfere when their teachers or districts don't perform?”
-- Run for a seat in the school board
“What are couples thinking when they became parents? “
-- My wife and I discussed this in length, it was not an easy decision to bring life into this society but in the end, we hope that our intelligence and awareness of the issues you bring up will be enough to win the battle.
“What's wrong with being judgmental?”
ReplyDelete"It is wrong when one uses a religious ideology as their judgmental stick."
"As long as those values are not due to religious dogma and are based on the good of society, I don’t think there should be an issue."
Everyone's ideology comes from someplace. Why would an non-religious ideology be superior to a religious one?
"Not everyone thinks homosexuality is immoral.."
"[As long as rules] are based on the good of society"
Without trying too much I can think of lots of reasons homosexuality, specifically practicing male/male sex, is detremental or without benefit to society and they have nothing to do with religion. In fact, we discussed this at length in you article, Why do humans fear homosexuality?.
Dismissing ideas only because they come from scripture is an intellectually dishonest trick used by the media and progressives. Religious ideas may still be found unapplicable but they often have a purpose that isn't apparent until folks get a little smarter.
For instance, some religions avoid eating pork because their scriptures tell them to, not because they may cause Trichinosis, Taeniasis, or Cysticercosis.
Scriptures also forbade sex with prositutes. To less educated folk it's sufficient to believe it's immoral, but for the much wiser folks of the late 20th and early 21st centuries we know the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases, the risks and violence of the trade, and the damage its discovery can do to our families. None of this is "good for society."
But before enumerating the problems with homosexuality we must agree on society's purpose then we can discuss what is or is not in society's interest. I'm pretty confident we can keep religion out of it and come to the same conclusions less-enlightened civilizations did long ago using only the advice imparted by conflagrant shrubberies and the scribblings of zealots.
"Everyone's ideology comes from someplace. Why would an non-religious ideology be superior to a religious one?"
ReplyDelete-- It may not be, it all depends in my opinion on whether or not it is based on reason, logic and actual testable, proveable, repeatable knowledge.
"Dismissing ideas only because they come from scripture is an intellectually dishonest trick used by the media and progressives."
-- Agreed that the above practice is not intellectually honest. I reject things that do not support my above statement.
"I'm pretty confident we can keep religion out of it and come to the same conclusions less-enlightened civilizations did long ago..."
-- That would be nice, but I don't see it happening in this "Christian" nation.
I couldn't agree with you more, my dear brother-in-law.
ReplyDeleteThat's on our ever-growing list of reasons why we've decided to take care of the educating of the "princess" ourselves.