S/O: What don't you want your public school presenting to your DC - Page 3

[eepster]

Originally Posted by AFWife

We were also told that even though condoms are fairly effective against sperm they aren't as effective against STDs because of size differences....

This is an inaccuracy of leaving out important information. Latex condom are very effective against STDs, but natural condoms made out of lamb skin are not very effective at all against STDs.

[THANKFULFORFIVE]

I wanted to jump in here with a personal example of how a middle school health class presentation touted as basic biological changes in puberty and sexual function terrified my daughter........under the curriculum description, STDs were to be discussed, however, I was NOT aware that oral and anal sex would be a focus in that discussion. My daughter promptly came home and asked me if I knew there were 3 ways to have sex? She was visibly disturbed and told me that she would NEVER do those things!(and, of course, did I?) Not sure how most of her peers assimilated the same information, but clearly, this was NOT how and when my child needed to be exposed to graphic depictiations of sexual encounters! The purpose of education on STDs was lost on her.....she could not get past the new knowledge of anal and oral sex.

[oceanbaby]

Originally Posted by THANKFULFORFIVE

I wanted to jump in here with a personal example of how a middle school health class presentation touted as basic biological changes in puberty and sexual function terrified my daughter........under the curriculum description, STDs were to be discussed, however, I was NOT aware that oral and anal sex would be a focus in that discussion. My daughter promptly came home and asked me if I knew there were 3 ways to have sex? She was visibly disturbed and told me that she would NEVER do those things!(and, of course, did I?) Not sure how most of her peers assimilated the same information, but clearly, this was NOT how and when my child needed to be exposed to graphic depictiations of sexual encounters! The purpose of education on STDs was lost on her.....she could not get past the new knowledge of anal and oral sex.

I appreciate what you are saying, and I preface this by saying that my oldest is not yet 9 so I haven't dealt with this yet, but from what I hear from parents with middle school aged kids there is a huge prevalance of oral sex among young teenagers because they figure "you can't get pregnant and it's not really sex." Anal sex falls under the same category, although not as prevalent, from what I know. In our very affluent suburban community, I've heard that it's common practice for the high school boys to text the middle school girls to meet up at lunch for a blow job, and the girls are okay with it because "they aren't having sex."

In my dream world, all parents are on top of this kind of stuff with their own kids at the right time for what works for their family, and schools don't even have to address these things. But apparently, that's not the reality. It kind of falls under the same thing as having to have a dental exam before I register my kids. I mean, as a responsible parent I take offense to the school assuming that they need to be on top of my child's dental health, but then I remember that they are dealing with a whole bunch of situations that I can't even imagine. So I can understand why they feel the need to include oral and anal sex.

It tweaks me too, but I don't know what's worse: Kids hearing about these things before they are ready, or kids not hearing about these things and then getting themselves into situations that are emotionally and physically damaging.

[Valval]

I nearly bit my tongue off when my very excited 6 year old dd came home with autographs from members of the high school football team and cheerleading squad. I don't want her putting these kids on pedestals even though a lot of the people in our communities do. I'm sure some of them are great kids and students, but that's not why they were at the school.
It was after some sort of pep rally.
I'm all for school spirit, but ick. I just have visions of her idolizing the football players, and just... teenage drama over it.
We are forever complaining about how sports oriented this area is, and our dd is now joining in our car conversations (the ones where we fix the rest of the world) with her own 2 cents. She may be just saying things to please us, but she at least seems to know our feelings on the subject.

Do the gideon bible people still do school visits? I'm not looking forward to that one, but I guess we'll just have to talk to her about it.

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by Wildwomyn

It appeared that the aim was make young people be abstinent out of fear, but the end result has largely been unsafe sex.

This. Kids who go through abstinance only programs have sex about the same rate as kids who don't, but they are less likely to use birthcontrol.

It's very fear based.

I pointed out many of the logic problems. For example:

• When are gay people supposed to have sex? They can't legally marry.
  
• What about lesbians? They aren't going to get pregnant (no sperm!) and very low transmission rates of STDs. Does that mean they should just have sex at random with other lesbians they barely know? What are the other reason to be selected about whom one has sex with?
  
• Happily married people tended to have sex very often, and yet end up with only 2 or 3 kids. Why? Because at some point, they get VERY serious about using birthcontrol.
  

[Wild Lupine]

Originally Posted by zinemama

I'm not worried about what my kids are exposed to in our public school. We live in a pretty progressive town and the school reflects that.

Now, certain things that I've read about at other public schools around the country, I would have a problem with. Those would be:

abstinence-only "sex ed"
DARE
mandatory Pledge of Allegiance
no teaching of evolution
corporal punishment
commercial advertising/corporate sponsorship

I don't have any problem with health clinics or screenings in public schools.

And failure to teach the contributions and perspective of non-white Americans.

I'd also like to know what's being taught, particularly in the younger grades, so if I have an issue with the approach they take I can discuss it with my kids..

[SunshineJ]

Originally Posted by amcal

This is an interesting perspective. Because, Easter is about the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, there would be no Easter.

Not trying to start a debate, but in our faith (Pagan) there are very valid reasons for an Easter celebration that have nothing to do with Christ.

Originally Posted by EFmom

The D.A.R.E. program. Study after study has shown it to be useless at best. It actually has to be an opt-in program, but most schools disregard that. We keep our kids out.

Most health-related stuff. I don't mind them teaching factual stuff, but I don't want them practicing medicine on my kids. So things like taking BMIs or checking for scoliosis bother me greatly, and we opt out wherever possible. We have a perfectly good pediatrician, with whom we have a relationship. I don't want my kids to feel like they have to let anybody who wants to measure or touch them, etc.

Agreed. When they covered the whole "drugs are bad" section at school DH and I were a bit nervous. We're both smokers and with the costs of cigarettes plus the stuff they're using on the commercial ones now, we make our own. We were just waiting for a visit from the police or CPS on that one. I also didn't appreciate how my having a drink (an event that happens maybe once every 2 months) was suddenly a horrible thing in the eyes of my children.

I forgot about the BMI tests. Our school that we're at now is so much better than last year that I think I've blocked out some of the garbage they did there. Like evaluating all kids on BMI and sending letters home with the kids warning the parents if their kids were obese or at risk. BMI is incredibly inaccurate among children and this had a lot of damaging potential.

Originally Posted by One_Girl

I pretty much have a problem with schools promoting employment opportunities that lead to poverty and hardship (writing included). I personally don't enjoy living in poverty.

Then don't let them promote anything in the IT field. It's brutal right now and has been for a couple of years. I know several in that field who have lost everything.

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by SunshineJ

Then don't let them promote anything in the IT field. It's brutal right now and has been for a couple of years. I know several in that field who have lost everything.

My DH works in aerospace and they keep laying people off. The economy is brutal right now.

[eepster]

Originally Posted by SunshineJ

Then don't let them promote anything in the IT field. It's brutal right now and has been for a couple of years. I know several in that field who have lost everything.

DH is one of only two programmers who didn't get laid off in his department.

[CatsCradle]

I pretty much have a problem with schools promoting employment opportunities that lead to poverty and hardship (writing included). I personally don't enjoy living in poverty. I wouldn't petition schools about it or even complain about it and I won't keep her out of any program the school offers because she needs to be exposed to things that I wouldn't expose her to so she can grow as her own person and make her own choices. I really don't think not allowing kids to have exposure is a good thing.

One Girl: I understand your position that you are not opposed to exposure to certain programs. I'm just curious to know where you live because it appears from your post that the promotion of employment in the arts is a big issue for you. I can understand your need to protect your child from possible hardship and poverty in his/her adult years, but from someone whose background is in the visual and performing arts (for 20 years) who switched to the legal profession in mid-life, I can attest that hardship and poverty come in many different forms. My life in the arts was highly encouraged when I was in high school, simply because I excelled in those areas. I was never poor, but I was never rich. I was, however, very happy. Now, although I don't regret going to law school and feel that my decision to do so has paid off in many ways, I can honestly say that I don't achieve the same levels of satisfaction and excitement that I did when I worked in theatre. The arts were my first love and while I still find time to do art, I have other responsibilities now that take my time.

I also think that hardship and poverty are not the defaults when pursuing less commercial type professions. I have known multitudes of successful artists, actors and writers who have done quite well because (in addition to talent) they were guided properly in the beginning on how to navigate the murky waters of employment or freelance work. If public schools are going to promote certain careers, I think they also need to make students aware of post-school realities. To me, this doesn't mean teaching all doom and gloom, it means helping prepare students for practicalities after school. This, of course, should apply to all professional pursuits. I think this where the role of guidance counselors can be improved.

[Kirsten]

Originally Posted by amcal

This is an interesting perspective. Because, Easter is about the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, there would be no Easter.

As a Christian mama with kids in public school, I hate seeing Easter being about bunnies and eggs. I'd rather they skip it all together.

I disagree. YOUR Easter is about the resurrection. MY Easter is bunnies and eggs. I will give you that yours may have historically come first, but in this country mine is just as valid and accepted as yours. And with separation of church and state, the schools are not supposed to cover holidays in a religious way. If my early elementary kid came home saying her kindie teacher told her the religious story of Easter, I would come UNHINGED. It can be "undone" in my 9 or 13 year olds, but my 6 year old would be scared to death to hear some of the Bible stories. There is a whole block in my town - very near our house and on our regular route - that I can't use in December because a church does the full on Jesus on the cross in their parking lot. Spotlight, nails, the whole bit. It is too much for young kids IMO. Not even starting in on the live camels and other animals they put in TINY cages - freezing and trying to pace with no room.

Originally Posted by mommy2maya

I can't see complaining about a once a YEAR option. There are some schools that have fast food options daily or weekly. Once a year is a treat, and would not bother me at all.

I agree. Making McDonalds so taboo (and I agree it is bad) will lead to your kids going there every time they are out of your sight once they are old enough to drive or walk to town without you. Once a year pancakes from McDonalds wouldn't bug me in the least.

Originally Posted by SunshineJ

I don't think vaccinations should be provided in the school, and I don't think any health screenings should either - though I have no issue with providing information on how to obtain such screenings and services for families that are low income.

I was really uncomfortable to learn that my teen's middle school was offering mist H1N1 vaccines. I told her not to take it no matter what, but it did make me nervous that they were doing that on school grounds.

However, I don't understand the issue with screenings. Why not? If there is a kid with a hearing or vision problem that the parent hadn't noticed yet, isn't it good that the screening caught it?

Originally Posted by handspun

I also have a huge problem with abstinence only sex ed, but I feel pretty confident that we'll be able to give her access to good information.

I made a point to talk to the health teacher at the high school where my dd will start in September. They don't use an abstinence-only curriculum, for which I am grateful. I DO think sex ed is CRUCIAL since most parents are too embarrassed to do a good job if any at all. But if someone told my kid that sex before marriage was bad/a sin/assured an STD or pregnancy, I'd come unhinged.

Originally Posted by zinemama

I would have a problem with:

abstinence-only "sex ed"
mandatory Pledge of Allegiance
no teaching of evolution
commercial advertising/corporate sponsorship

I don't have any problem with health clinics or screenings in public schools.

Ditto.

[AFWife]

nevermind. I don't want to get into a political argument.

[CatsCradle]

And with separation of church and state, the schools are not supposed to cover holidays in a religious way.

I understand the gist of your post but I think there is a big difference in providing overviews of the history, traditions and off-shots of certain holidays and promoting one religion to the exclusion of others, or promoting one religion as truth. DD goes to a very culturally mixed school and they cover about every holiday under the sun for varying cultures. I have no problem with this and I actually think it is enriching for her. I would have a problem, however, if the school focused on the holidays of one religion and the focus was on the teaching of the principles of that religion, rather than just an overview from a cultural or historical standpoint. If she came home one day and said "Mom, Christians and Hindus celebrate their holidays because of XYZ" - that's cool. But, if she said "Mom, I learned today that the only way to heaven or enlightenment is XYZ" - that's uncool.

[AFWife]

Originally Posted by CatsCradle

I understand the gist of your post but I think there is a big difference in providing overviews of the history, traditions and off-shots of certain holidays and promoting one religion to the exclusion of others, or promoting one religion as truth. DD goes to a very culturally mixed school and they cover about every holiday under the sun for varying cultures. I have no problem with this and I actually think it is enriching for her. I would have a problem, however, if the school focused on the holidays of one religion and the focus was on the teaching of the principles of that religion, rather than just an overview from a cultural or historical standpoint. If she came home one day and said "Mom, Christians and Hindus celebrate their holidays because of XYZ" - that's cool. But, if she said "Mom, I learned today that the only way to heaven or enlightenment is XYZ" - that's uncool.

This is pretty much what I was going to say. If the school covers it generally "Christians celebrate Easter as the resurrection of Christ" it's different from, "Believing in the resurrection is the only way to get to heaven."

[One_Girl]

Originally Posted by SunshineJ

Then don't let them promote anything in the IT field. It's brutal right now and has been for a couple of years. I know several in that field who have lost everything.

I believe I pointed this out in my post, but I will say it again so there is no misunderstanding. I don't bring my dislike up with the school because I value my child being exposed to things that I don't expose her to. I am not stopping them from doing anything and I don't plan on trying to do so. I merely posted my opinion about what I think schools shouldn't introduce to kids because that was what the question the OP asked.

[Qbear'smama]

Originally Posted by sewingmommy

Honestly if I was worried about what my kid would learn at school I wouldn't send him/her to school

Sigh! I wish I could homeschool...

[EFmom]

Originally Posted by Kirsten

However, I don't understand the issue with screenings. Why not? If there is a kid with a hearing or vision problem that the parent hadn't noticed yet, isn't it good that the screening caught it?

We are required by state law to have our kids' medical provider do a physical nearly every year in my state. The completed forms are brought to school.

Our doctor is the appropriate person to do health evaluations. She has been seeing our children for years. Since these exams are mandated by law, it is unnecessary, intrusive and redundant to mandate additional screening.

I do not want my children medically evaluated by anyone not of my choosing. I do not want them to feel coerced into letting other adults mess with them.

[Wildwomyn]

Originally Posted by EFmom

Our doctor is the appropriate person to do health evaluations. She has been seeing our children for years. Since these exams are mandated by law, it is unnecessary, intrusive and redundant to mandate additional screening.

Are outside vision exams required? Because those usually aren't part of a standard physical.

[eepster]

Originally Posted by Kirsten

I disagree. YOUR Easter is about the resurrection. MY Easter is bunnies and eggs. I will give you that yours may have historically come first, but in this country mine is just as valid and accepted as yours.

Actually, the bunnies and eggs came first. They are part of the pagan celebration of spring.

[EFmom]

Originally Posted by Wildwomyn

Are outside vision exams required? Because those usually aren't part of a standard physical.

Yes, they are and our ped (and my GP) do them as part of a physical.