| Explicit Mandatory Sex Education curriculum in New York City...|
MANDATORY SEX ED DETAILS MAY BE TOO RACY FOR PARENTS: REPORT
The lessons are expected to begin next spring.
Monday, Oct 24, 2011
Details about the new sex education curriculum in New York City public schools are out -- and some are concerned the lessons are too racy.
The New York Post obtained workbooks that will be used for the new recommended curriculum, which begins in middle schools and high schools around the city next spring. Parents, they say, may be shocked by details of the work.
Middle school students will be assigned "risk cards" that rate the safety of different activities, the paper says, from French kissing to oral sex.
The workbooks for older students direct them to a website run by Columbia University, which explores topics such as sexual positions, porn stars, and bestiality. The lessons explain risky sexual behavior and suggest students go to stores to jot condom brands and prices.
The Department of Education says the curriculum "stresses that abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy and STD/HIV" and reminded the Post that parents have the option to exclude their kids from lessons on "methods of prevention."
When given details of the new programs, one Manhattan mom -- who has a child in middle-school -- was surprised.
"I didn't know how much detail they would get," she said.
In August, Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs commended the return of mandatory sex ed, saying the DOE wants to give students the correct information about sexual activity if they do choose to engage in it.
"We want to help kids to delay the onset of sexual activity, and if they choose to engage in sexual activity, to do it in a healthy way," she said.
The classes will be coeducational, and can be incorporated into existing health education courses.
| 2011/10/24 11:18||Profile|
| NY Times Op Ed in regard to NYC/DOE mandatory sex ed policy...|
DOES SEX ED UNDERMINE PARENTAL RIGHTS?
New York Times
By ROBERT P. GEORGE and MELISSA MOSCHELLA*
October 18, 2011
IMAGINE you have a 10- or 11-year-old child, just entering a public middle school. How would you feel if, as part of a class ostensibly about the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, he and his classmates were given risk cards that graphically named a variety of solitary and mutual sex acts? Or if, in another lesson, he was encouraged to disregard what you told him about sex, and to rely instead on teachers and health clinic staff members?
That prospect would horrify most parents. But such lessons are part of a middle-school curriculum that Dennis M. Walcott, the New York City schools chancellor, has recommended for his systems newly mandated sex-education classes. There is a parental opt out, but it is very limited, covering classes on contraception and birth control.
Observers can quarrel about the extent to which what is being mandated is an effect, or a contributing cause, of the sexualization of children in our society at younger ages. But no one can plausibly claim that teaching middle-schoolers about mutual masturbation is neutral between competing views of morality; the idea of value free sex education was exploded as a myth long ago. The effect of such lessons is as much to promote a certain sexual ideology among the young as it is to protect their health.
But beyond rival moral visions, the new policy raises a deeper issue: Should the government force parents at least those not rich enough to afford private schooling to send their children to classes that may contradict their moral and religious values on matters of intimacy and personal conduct?
Liberals and conservatives alike should say no. Such policies violate parents rights, whether they are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or of no religion at all. To see why, we need to think carefully about the parent-child relationship that gives rise to the duties that parental rights serve and protect.
Parents are responsible for bringing new people into the world, bound to them by blood and, ordinarily, deep feeling. These people are incapable of developing their uniquely human capacities on their own, giving parents an obligation to their children and to society to help them reach maturity one that requires attending not only to childrens physical and emotional needs, but their intellectual and moral growth as well.
Parenting, especially in moral and religious matters, is very important and highly personal: while parents enlist others help in this task, the task is theirs. They are ultimately responsible for their childrens intellectual and moral maturity, so within broad limits they must be free to educate their children, especially on the deepest matters, as they judge best. This is why parental rights are so important: they provide a zone of sovereignty, a moral space to fulfill their obligations according to their consciences.
The right to parent is rather like the right to exercise ones religion. Like parental duties, religious duties are serious and highly personal. This is why, absent the most serious reasons, it would be a grave violation of individual rights if the state prevented people from honoring what they regarded as their religious obligations. To subject children to indoctrination in deeply personal matters against their parents consciences is no less a violation than forcing Muslim parents to send their children to a Catholic Mass.
True, the state needs to protect children from abuse and neglect. It is also true that the state has a legitimate interest in reducing teenage pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. But it is not abuse or neglect to protect the innocence of preteenage children or to teach ones children more conservative, as opposed to more liberal, moral values. Nor is it wrong or unreasonable to limit the states control over what ones children learn and think about sensitive issues of morality. On the contrary, that is just what is required if parents are to fulfill their duties and exercise their legitimate rights.
Unless a broader parental opt out is added, New York Citys new policies will continue to usurp parents just (and constitutionally recognized) authority. Turning a classroom into a mandatory catechism lesson for a contested ideology is a serious violation of parental rights, and citizens of every ideological hue should stand up and oppose it.
(*Robert P. George is a professor of politics at Princeton and the founder of the American Principles Project. Melissa Moschella is a doctoral candidate in political theory at Princeton.)
| 2011/10/24 11:20||Profile|
| Re: NY Times Op Ed in regard to NYC/DOE mandatory sex ed policy...|
"IMAGINE you have a 10- or 11-year-old child, just entering a public middle school. How would you feel if, as part of a class ostensibly about the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, he and his classmates were given risk cards that graphically named a variety of solitary and mutual sex acts? Or if, in another lesson, he was encouraged to disregard what you told him about sex, and to rely instead on teachers and health clinic staff members?"
Dumb and stupid people - and that is the nicest adjectives one should use on this forum to describe this wickedness.
Some people must be so dumb to think you can teach a child something - don't do it - without whetting their desire to do the opposite! They must be so idealistic they ain't got a clue. OR, they are lying through their teeth hoping people will buy their philosophy with the end result in girls getting pregnant and then being rushed off to the abortion clinics for abs.
Comes from the pit.
Mad? Yup. And angry, too. Makes one wish God would have allowed his children to apply some milestone therapy to some people. (Jesus said about the ones who would offend the little ones that it were better if a milestone would be cast upon his neck and thrown into the middle of the sea.)
| 2011/10/24 11:40||Profile|
| Re: |
OR, they are lying through their teeth hoping people will buy their philosophy with the end result in girls getting pregnant and then being rushed off to the abortion clinics for abs.
Yes... as I was reading this I was wondering if Planned Parenthood is behind this. People may think that I'm being extreme, but if you think so you had better educate yourself regarding Planned Parenthood! They exist for one reason and one reason only: PROFIT. And the fact of the matter is their PROFITS come from abortions.
Other than that, this new curriculum is foolishness in the 1st degree... and makes me incredibly happy that we homeschool our kids.
Why dont they give the kids a dime-bag of pot and tell them not to smoke it. Or a beer and tell them not to take a sip... and them leave them alone with it.
Adam and Eve prooved what would happen in these types of circumstances, and nothing has changed.
| 2011/10/24 12:53|
North Central Florida
| Re: |
Search this site for Dewey, you will find it is all in the 'plan.'
The plan is to remake the children into their model citizen. Fit only for a Socialist society. Devoid of the love of God with a conscience so hardened they will willingly carry out any instructions given them.
The so called Public school system is nothing but an indoctrination camp. Nothing that happens there is an accident, it is all being done by the book.
No matter, God is in control and all is going as He wants to accomplish His ends. Praise Jesus
| 2011/10/24 13:54||Profile|