|
|
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Curriculum in AUSDNovember, 2009 At the June 24, 2008 BOE meeting, staff presented an overview on the plans to update curriculum on issues of sexual orientation and gender. Blogging Bayport's post All Together Now generated close to 150 comments regarding the proposed updates. Using this document, community forums were held on February 4 and 5, 2009, which generated the Emails below. Additional meetings were scheduled in March at elementary schools where revised lesson plans and additional information was presented. In mid-March an informal group of parents created a website called Stop LGBT Training in Elementary Schools that was replaced Alameda Concerned Parents. A website in support of the curriculum called Alameda Community Alliance Resource for Education (CARE) is also available. In mid April, the Superintendent further clarified the ongoing work being done by the Distict in a community letter. At the April 28 BOE meeting, staff will present an update on the community feedback received since the February community fourms. In addition, the lesson plans have been revised and have been made available for public review. Blogging Bayport's post You Can Pull All the Stops Out generated close to another 120 coments. During the two days of Public hearing approximately 150 speakers provided testimony. Approximately 50 speaker spoke in favor of adopting the curriculum and approximately 100 speakers spoke in opposition to adopting the the curriculum. Supporters indicate that the actual number of speakers does not properly reflect the proceedings since the overcrowding and lack of speaker slips at the May 12 BOE meeting did not allow supporters to continue to turn in additional speaker slips. Approximately 350 people attended the Monday night Public Hearing with 10% being non-Alameda residents. Of the 320 Alameda residents in attendance, 60% supported the adoption and 40% opposed the adoption. Michele Ellson provided news coverage of the Monday evening public hearing including comments from Board members. After a staff presentation that included newly revised lessons at the May 26 BOE meeting, public speaking on the agenda item was limited to 36 minutes with 18 minutes being alloted to each side side. After public testimony, the Board deliberated for 45 minutes. On a 3-2 (Spencer and McMahon opposing) vote the Board approved the staff recommendation and adopted the curriculum with the development on study guide to address other protected classes. In August, 2009 three schoold board members were served with papers of intent to recall them. Blogging Bayport posts Blowback and No Backsies generated a hots of comments about the development. In addition, a lawsuit was filed by the Pacific Justice Institute in Alameda Superior Court Case No RG09468037 with this list of platniffs. Blogging Bayport's Godwin's Law had community reaction. In November, 2009 staff presented an update on the work of the Community Adivsory Committee which created by the Supreintendent to investigate a new anti-bullying curriculum. Staff recapped the history of the adoption of Lesson 9, a review of the committee makeup and recommendations for adoption of new anti-harassment policy and new anti-bullying instructional materials. In December the Superintendent made her recommendation to the Board at the December 8 BOE. Prior to the Board meeting over a 200 individuals sent emails to the Board of Education requesting three primary courses of action that were summarized in a Blogging Bayport post Stealth Bomb. At the end of December, the recall effort failed to gather enough signatures to have an election.
Documents Received during the Process
Based on the Superintendent Vital's recommendation, the Board of Education review of the curriculum regarding sexual orientation and gender identity will be postponed until the last Board meeting in April. Elementary school principals will be providing information about the next steps that are being taken by the District to address concerns raised in the February community meetings. That information will be included in your weekly newsletter and will be posted on the District website the week of February 23rd. The district is in the process of working with principals to calendar additional meeting dates (within the next two weeks) for all schools interested in learning more about each of the 6 lessons, addressing common vocabulary, and answering questions related to the curriculum and teacher guides. The District is asking principals and their PTA leaders if they would like to meet with the parents at their site. These meetings at each individual elementary site will include time for specific question and answer and discussion. In addition, the meetings can include review of the law, lesson demonstration, review of vocabulary, review of supplemental materials and teacher’s guides. These meetings will be co-planned by the site and district so they may meet the needs of each individual site. February 26, 2009 Update
We would like to invite you to a school community meeting focused not only on the concerns above, but any other questions you may have. We are working with your principal to co-plan a meeting that meets your school community’s needs. As each site may have different needs, this meeting can also address the feedback above, clarify specific lessons, clarify the law, demonstrate lessons and/or answer other questions. The revised timeline for approval of the curriculum is as follows:
Again, our appreciation to those of you who attended the forums, reviewed the curriculum, and provided feedback to the district. Your feedback is very important to us and for the Board of Education. Elementay School Meeting Schedule
Lesson Matrix - March 2009Revised Lessons - April 2009
Revised Lessons - May 26 BOE Meeting 2009
Alameda Resident 5/27 The Board of Education was misguided by the AUSD when they voted on Tuesday night. Board Member Jensen asked if all schools have to have “Safe Schools” curriculum. She was told “yes”, but the answer is no. Should they all have some kind of anti-bullying and anti-discrimination strategy? Yes. Must they have specific curriculum advocating homosexuality? No. The AUSD has deliberately confused Board Members by pretending that “anti-bias” programs for “LGBT” are the same as generic safe school initiatives. The CA Department of Education will tell you this is not true. Board members were repeatedly told the curriculum is in response to teachers asking for tools only for “LGBT” teasing. The truth is that the AUSD did not ask teachers if they need tools for any other kind of teasing. The truth is they got a homosexual advocate-consultant to write a plan for this curriculum before they held the teacher training in 2007. The “training” included asking them to report teasing related to sexual orientation or gender identity in a survey that excluded any other type of teasing. When Board Member Spencer asked why the anti-bullying curriculum excluded other possible causes of bullying, such as race and religion, the AUSD told her to trust in a teacher’s guide that does not exist. How can Board Members, parents, teachers, and taxpayers trust school district administration staff who repeatedly lie? Let us ask Board President Mike McMahon to continue his brave stand for intellectual honesty and stop action on this misinformed decision until a teacher survey on what tools they need for all types of bullying has been conducted. Out of Town Resident 5/27 I was pleased to see that Lesson 9 was adopted. I know that this change will not be an easy one. Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas comes to mind. The fact that 9 children going to school could be a cause for the national guard to be called out and for the kind of outrage that surrounded those children's education testifies that ignorance is a force to be reckoned with. Again, I pray for peace in the adoption of Lesson 9. Alameda Resident 5/27 As a resident of Alameda, I watched the AUSD LGBT curriculum hearing with a mixture of shock, offense, and anger. Mr. Mooney, your anti-religious remarks were absolutely offensive to all people of faith in Alameda. Whether you understand how people of faith can hold any view is irrelevant - your job is to listen to the hundreds of parents who pled with you not to expose their innocent young children to indoctrination that goes against their deeply held beliefs. You not only ignored the wishes of parents, you insulted their faiths. You denied their right to teach their children their own beliefs. Ms. Jensen, since you obviously resented having to listen to 10 hours of hearings, perhaps we the citizens of Alameda can relieve you of that responsibility. When we vote you out of office, you will not have to worry about the annoying part of the job which involves listening to your consituents with respect. Your statement was self-serving, arrogant, and offensive. Ms. Spencer, you are the one shining light on the Board. You are so much better prepared, so much better informed, have obviously done your homework, that you make the Supt. and the rest of the Board look like bumpkins. Your questions were incisive and pointed out for all to see the flaws in the curriculum, the absolute lack of thought and preparation that went into this mess, and showed respect for all parties. You were the only voice defending the voiceless majority in Alameda. Mr. McMahon, I have not been a fan of your handling of this issue, but at least you had the guts at the end to stand up for what is right. I will probably vote for you again. Ms. Vital - your agenda may be on track for now, but those hundreds of parents didn't show up to speak against this curriculum for nothing. You were unprepared, unconvincing, and need to go. I am voting against all of you except Spencer and McMahon, I am voting against any funding proposals you put before the voters as long as this despicable curriculum is in force, and I will work to recall all of you who support this exploitation of children. Alameda Resident 5/26 To those who care about Alameda Unified School District and their BOE's vote to approve an LGBT curriculum; I am saddened by the vote tonight which will be so costly to the district, so discriminatory in putting gays above all other protected classes, turns an 'overall' curriculum meant to be a "framework" into an LGBT-exclusive 'victory’, and dividing the house that was our school district’s community. This curriculum could have been valued by all if it had similar tenants for all classes and was achieved by a "unified" group of diversified opinions gathered together to benefit all the classes. Now this is perhaps a turning point for our schools. AUSD’s use of lies and deceit to support this curriculum is the saddest part. We cannot disregard truth to support ideals, or all is lost. The district has lost integrity and also lost my trust. The lawyers were in the room and there is no way of knowing how much this will cost the district in terms of funds. No way of knowing how many lawsuits will result. No way of knowing if the curriculum will achieve the goals for the gays, or if it will create more name calling after the curriculum is taught as it has at Otis School after the test classes. Most disappointing is the exclusive way the curriculum was put together, and the lies which were fed to the public by staff. This is fundamentally unacceptable. Shocking were the board member’s public put-downs of religions with which he does not agree. Right on the dais as he is saying he wants tolerance and equity, he blasphemies religions he is ignorant of, and cheered by those saying the proposal is about tolerance. Surely those who are going to be suing the district will be glad to have his remarks recorded. If the BOE did not want to vote to start over with a new and balanced committee, they should have at the very least, waited until the guidelines were established to utilize the CSC curriculum for equal benefit to all protected classes, and determine how these lessons would be used without infringing on the religious rights of others. But this too was rejected. Almost all the problems cited in support for this curriculum take place in high school, yet this curriculum ignores high school and middle school. Teachers wanted help how to intervene with harassment, instead we ignore them and present a new set of LGBT lessons for our littlest, youngest children. It is a shame the new superintendent was invited into our district and let this prejudiced committee’s proposal continue to go out of control. It has been overwhelmingly obvious that the majority of Alamedans rejected this proposal, and did so for a wide range of reasons. Since this is the way this superintendent and Board want to run our schools, they will do it without any more parcel tax support. This is a sad turning point and a heartbreaking way for a new board and a new superintendant of a broke school district to establish a relationship with the community. Alameda Resident 5/26 As a former and returning Alameda resident, I ask that you vote against this safe school LGBT curriculum as that is INAPPROPRIATE for children in this age group. There is a different between tolerance (towards people holding different viewpoints) versus moral relativism (thinking that all viewpoints and ways of life are correct). I agree that we should teach our children to be tolerant, however I believe children learning this curriculum will come home thinking that this particular lifestyle (the LGBT lifestyle) is correct and endorsed by their teachers and schools. This is not teaching tolerance, this is teaching sexual politics, and is not acceptable in schools. Please vote against this curriculum in the schools. Alameda Resident 5/26 I disagree about LGBT Curriculum as a mother of three elementary children. Improving the quality of general education is more important and we need to focus on that part, specially in California. Alameda Resident 5/26 I oppose to the curriculum because school does not have a right to teach morally and politically charged issue to students. Alameda Resident 5/26 I oppose this curriculum and I would like to see more transparency in the future regarding things of this nature where there could be hints of controversy. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am a resident of Alameda and I want to continue to voice my opposition to the proposed "Safe Schools" curriculum. I am a recent graduate of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, and as I stated before in a previous email and as I mentioned at the hearing on May 18, I believe the curriculum is an unconstitutional violation of free speech. In K-12th grade, the government may regulate speech, but it may not discriminate against viewpoint. The Supreme Court cases of Bethel v. Fraser and Tinker v. Des Moines Cmty. Sch. Dist. are on point. In general, the government may regulate speech that is not targeting content. However, when it comes to public schools, the government may regulate content-driven speech if it is likely to substantially cause a disruption on the campus, unduly infringe on the rights of others, or is patently offensive. The dominant interpretation of "offensive" speech is to include the manner in which the speech delivered. This is the law. Thus, the school administration cannot prohibit speech based on content if it does not fall into one of those three categories. Otherwise, it is unlawful viewpoint discrimination. However, the school may regulate speech that addresses bullying and harassing speech. This is the root problem that the curriculum ought to address. If the school starts to teach and impose a singular viewpoint on a moral and political issue, this borders on viewpoint discrimination that does not fall within the exceptions. A student who says they believe homosexuality is wrong may be disciplined under the current expression of the curriculum. This violates free speech. Simple. In all fairness, I believe we must respect the dignity and intrinsic value of the LGBT community and embrace them as valuable human beings of worth. There is no place for bullying. However, we should not tell students what to think and what to believe on important political and moral issues. We should learn to respect all viewpoints even if we disagree with them. That's democracy. That is why I oppose the Safe Schools curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am an Alameda resident. I will not be able to make it personally to the meeting tonight, but I wanted to voice my opinion against this new curriculum. Thank you for your time and willingness to serve as our board members. Alameda Resident 5/26 I have been looking at the proposed curriculum on safe schools and attended the arguments of both parties last week in the meeting. I oppose strongly against the current curriculum since it is very biased in one type of bullying in schools while it is totally not the case. Why does it include only LGBT topics? I would want to know the reason behind that. I want to have everyone be informed of how the curriculum is made and who made it up. Please make it more clear and transparent before you guys pass this. I propose a new curriculum that encompasses the opinion of the residents. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am opposed to the SAFE school curriculum. I have been a resident of Alameda for the past 3 years and I do not agree that this curriculum should be taught at the elementary school-aged level because it doesn't deal with the issue of bullying, which is what this curriculum was set out to do in the first place. Also, there are a lot of inconsistencies in the curriculum that need to be addressed first before it can be taught to our children. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am an Alameda resident and am opposed to the SAFE schools curriculum because I don't think that it deals with the issue of bullying. In addition, the curriculum is focused on one of the protected classes while the other protected classes are left out. For those reasons, I ask that you please revise the current curriculum so that it actually deals with the issues. Out of Town Resident 5/26 We have always been very supportive of the curriculum in our public schools and big advocates of the public school system in Alameda. We have three boys in Otis School and they are fourth generation attendees of our families of Alameda Public Schools. We are opposed to the proposed LGBT curriculum not to the LGBT community. As parents we feel it is our responsibility to teach our children respect and tolerance to all people regardless of their race, sex, family orientation, etc. We do not feel that our school district should decide what our kids are taught the definition of family is. We would like to be the ones to discuss this with our kids as the questions arise, not their school teachers. We believe that this only create more questions that may not be necessary at the time. We understand that there is a request by teachers to become educated on the topic so they have necessary tools to explain this to the students when and where it becomes a problem. We support the teachers learning how to deal with this on as needed basis - not a curriculum. There is already not enough time to get through what is educationally necessary - adding a LGBT curriculum will take even more time away Parents need to take responsibility for their children. This is a subject that should be addressed with the students that are making it a problem. My guess, the curriculum will not stop the bullying, just fuel it. As elected officials, I hope you make the right decision with this. My vote is NO! We have decided that if this curriculum is added our kids will not be at school the days that it is presented. Alameda Resident 5/26 Thank you so much for posting the lesson plans for this very important program. I hope you and your colleagues will vote to introduce the new curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/26 I don't live in Alameda, but through a friend was forwarded an email regarding this issue. I am only a concerned citizen that would like to express his point of view. I sincerely believe that education should only be restricted to acquiring knowledge that can help develop mind and body. We learn science so that we may understand how materials behave in this universe and how we can help humankind and other living creatures benefit from further advances. We learn religion and history so we can understand how the Grand Plan works and how us humans can avoid certain mistakes made in the past by others who suffered consequences that we would like to avoid. We study human biology and health so we can help others in fighting their illnesses. Why do we need to learn about sexual orientation? Is that not a natural act that sooner or later we all learn in its natural settings. Were your great grandfathers who were men of substance ever taught about sexual orientation in class? Were they not respected members of their societies? We are on a pathway of total social destruction, where we will be producing confused, rebellious, sociopaths as graduates not mature, well bred men of character and tolerance. Respected board members, a lot is in your hands as far as decision making is concerned. God forbid that I am ever in such a position as my soul would never be able to rest in peace always thinking if I made the right decision. Did my decision help our future generation be well guided and humble humans or did I help in churning out more deviant and confused individuals. Alameda Resident 5/26 Thank you for all your efforts in maintaining safety in our schools. I'm an Alameda resident and I have been to the past two meetings. I briefly reviewed the revised lesson plans for lesson 9. I'm glad that you decided to take out the part where you have students stand underneath different signs to indicate their level of comfort with standing up for Robert, but there are still some other concerns that different people raised last Monday that you haven't addressed yet. One of these concerns was teaching first graders that each person gets to choose his or her family. Another concern is using the controversial book and Tango makes three. I also request that you come up with a thorough and enforceable plan of accountability for the teachers to ensure that they don't impose their personal thoughts on the subject on the students. I would also like to see lesson plans for other protected classes, which the current curriculum lack. Because of these reasons, I oppose to lesson 9 in its current form. Thank you so much for your time. Out of Town Resident 5/26 Please do not adopt the GLBT curriculum! Let the parents of Alameda schools continue to decide what is appropriate for their children to know, in this regard. If bullying is an issue, it should be confronted in some other way, rather than portraying abnormal behavior as "mainstream" or as an "acceptable alternative." Again, please let the parents retain control, here! Alameda Resident 5/26 I am writing you as a resident of Alameda with 2 children, age 10 and age 5 and I would like to ask you to vote against the proposed curriculum. I am opposed to this curriculum being introduced in the Alameda schools. I believe our schools should be teaching academics and providing an atmosphere where children can learn. As a parent, my job is to teach my child right from wrong, responsibility, morals, respect for authority, and respect for fellow classmates. The proponents of this curriculum stress this addition will decrease bullying however, there is no precedent that this specific program will in fact bring about that result. To propose curriculum that speaks only to a segment of our school population is ridiculous to me. My child has Cystic Fibrosis and has been bullied because of his small stature. Is the next step to “cover” all groups of people equally? My other concern is that this proposal would not allow me as a parent to make a decision to “opt out” of this teaching. Our government is still a democracy and as the legal guardian of my children, I am still afforded the responsibility of making choices for them in their best interest. To employ this tactic of not being able to “opt out”, you are creating a socialist type of structure much like a dictatorship. Please vote NO on this proposed curriculum and let my children return to Alameda schools and to learning. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am a resident of Alameda and wish to voice my concern regarding the current proposal on LGBT. I firmly agree that children should not be “bullied” on any level. Unfortunately, children do bully other children for many reasons. Adding this curriculum, I do not believe will stop this kind of behavior and also having an addendum of “no opt. out” is wrong on many levels. To actually tell parents that they do not have the right to choose whether their children participate is not something I believe the school board should be allowed to legislate. Parents should have the freedom to teach their children what they believe is right and wrong. I do understand and am personally saddened that children are being targeted or bullied because of any differences they may have be it a physical disability, color of the skin or for the clothes they may wear. I am urging you to vote NO on the proposal LGBT curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am an Almeda resident and parent of children in AUSD elementary schools. I have reviewed the curriculum and attended the two latest board meetings. Please vote NO on the proposed Lesson 9 LGBT curriculum. These are not lessons that are appropriate or healthy for kids in elementary school, nor are they effective as in their current state. Judging from the resistance you are seeing from the community, I think it would be best to go back to the drawing board again and, this time, engage all parties, so that the curriculum could be developed with greater transparency. Also, please do not force this agenda (because that is what it is) on all children, nor sneak this behind the eyes of concerned parents. I find it very disconcerting to think of what might be done to my children if the curriculum should pass and there is no opt-out provision and I absent my kids from school those days. Will you force them to be singled out or force them to stay after school or threaten me with making them truant? This is not some simple issue that you can pass with a simple "Aye" without some greater ramifications happening on a family by family level as we try to teach our children in the way we believe they should grow up. In fact, isn't that what is often said about many things in life: it should be taught in the home? Or has my child, whom I have struggled to raise suddenly been transferred into the hands of a monolithic organization by the demands of a vociferous (perhaps vocally ferocious) minority? To those who disagree, I would ask that they convince me first before they go ahead owning the education of my child. As has been said by one speaker, this should be handled "parent to parent." Having spent time in totalitarian regimes, I have had enough of people telling young people that their parents are somehow defective in their thinking, co-opting them at a young age. Hmmm… this curriculum with its no-opt-out provision seems a lot like that. Some may say, this is not so much of a lesson, it is but a few minutes each year. Maybe. But I did hear many say: this is but a start. Oh really? If this is the way that proponents of this curriculum think, and if to date none opposed have been able to participate, a few minutes may grow to be a lot more than a few minutes each year? There is no working together or involvement of the community that I see. So, it seems to me that my views have been unrepresented by those who proport to represent me and the future does not look bright that I might be represented by the majority of the current board. I do not write this a threat but as an illustration of how marginalized I feel in light of how this whole curriculum has been developed. If you are trying to create safe schools by dispelling stereotypes and not marginalizing folks who haven't been integrated into the great society, I have a book for you to read. It's called "The New Girl … and Me." If you could learn the lessons of that book, I'd feel a lot better. And to those who have attended the meetings, if you'd stop muttering and hissing when I speak, I'd feel a lot better too. In fact, I have another thing for you to read: "My School is Accepting … But Things Could Be Better." Also, I would never let my child do anything like this. I am teaching him that he needs to see beyond all the shouting and emotion and really listen to people, showing him by example and historical example that doing so is possible and laudable. So, I don't think he'll need a book to tell him that when he meets people who seem "odd" to him; but I do think that he'll be disturbed if he gets hissed by his "friends" or muttered at for something that he never imagined would be ridiculed. I know that those who oppose my stance are not all the same, that most mean well, and most didn't hiss. I just say this to point out what seemed to me to be an odd response by the few, and perhaps suggest some self examination in light of what you are telling me that I need to accept, in the hope that we could talk about this curriculum without our emotions overcoming us. Related to this, my side doesn't all subscribe to the view of those who picket and dress up in red with a pitchfork. I am certain is VERY few. We can talk together: it would be nice if you let some of the us on the "other side" in. Alameda Resident 5/26 The Alameda Multicultural Community Center supports the AUSD's Safe Schools Curriculum and the proposed LGBT lesson plan. Through our multicultural arts program in the elementary schools and other efforts, we have promoted cross cultural understanding as children learn more about the cultures of the different students with whom they interact. We believe that no child should feel fearful or uncomfortable about attending school because of his/her nationality, race, religion or gender nor should a child feel fearful or uncomfortable because of the nationality, race, religion or gender of his/her parents. The AUSD Safe Schools Curriculum affirmatively tries to make each child feel welcome and teaches children how to make their classmates feel welcome as well. When parents send their children to school we are certain that they want no less than to know that their children feel comfortable and even excited about the learning adventure that awaits them when they enter the doors of their school. The Safe Schools Curriculum and LGBT lesson plan enable an optimal learning environment to exist for all our students. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am a parent of two kids at Amelia Earhart. I want to express that I am opposed to this curriculum. Thank you so much for all the hard work that you've been putting into the public hearing. I am grateful that you are giving us a forum to voice our beliefs. Today the California Supreme Court upheld the proposition 8 vote. I believe that you should honor our votes & discredit our voting rights away from the public. This curriculum favors and protects the rights of the LGBT party as it ridicules and silences anyone who stands against this curriculum. I was traumatized by the hissing and jeers at our last meeting at the Kaufman auditorium. Please protect the rights of the rest of our society. Alameda Resident 5/26 I would like to express my opposition to the LGBT component of Alameda ’s Safe Schools curriculum. As an educator, I see this as perfectly appropriate content to include in Alameda ’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education program. Out of Town Resident 5/26 I am a former resident of the City of Alameda and have recently been tracking the developments on the proposed Safe Schools Curriculum. I am writing to express my strong opposition against the proposed Safe Schools Curriculum. It will NOT make Alameda schools safer. In fact, I suspect it will divide the schools even further and will make it LESS SAFE. As you saw at your public hearings, there were parents in favor of this curriculum who even hissed at those voicing their opposition. If kids behave similarly as their parents, it seems kids who have opposing views toward any LGBT issues will be heavily ostracized on the campuses. Ironically, I fear that those who want to make schools safe with this curriculum are going to be intolerant and threatening. The amount of time and resources that this point of contention has already received is quite unfair to those who have received discrimination all throughout the years on matters of race, religion, socioeconomic background, etc. If this matter is not dropped, it would seem very clear to outside observers that the Alameda Board of Education has agendas that reach beyond education. I strongly encourage you to vote NO on this proposed curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/26 As a parent of a incoming Kindergarten student at Earhart, I urge you to reject this current curriculum. In its place, please implement curriculum that we all can agree on, without disenfranchising one segment of the population over another. Alameda Resident 5/26 I will not be attending the meeting tonight, but I took a look at the slides of the staff presentation. I must say I am again disappointed and outraged at the staff’s non-responsiveness to the community. Instead of addressing the community’s criticism that this “safety” curriculum is offensively under-inclusive of other protected classes and seeks to promote the visibility of only LGBT families, the staff continues to recommend adoption of the current LGBT curriculum. The staff provides only an unsupported promise on one slide that at some unspecified point in the future, it will “[d]evelop a teaching support guide to enhance and broaden the Caring School Community curriculum to include materials for all of the protected classes including LGBT.” This tepid and anemic answer is unacceptable. At best, the staff shows it does not take the community’s concerns seriously and instead of revising the Curriculum to include everyone, it thinks it can just put it off until a later time. If the staff needs more time to revise the Curriculum it should recommend the Board reject the current Curriculum until it can present a version that most people can accept. At worst, the staff appears to be paying lip service to true tolerance and inclusion while continuing to push the LGBT agenda and hoping that once the Curriculum is passed, the community’s outrage will fade away and it can drag its feet on including the other protected classes, less the inclusion of other groups dilute its dogmatic message of elevating LGBT persons in the eyes of our children. As you may recall, on the first night of public comments, of the first five speakers, three were lawyers, all of whom were opposed to this Curriculum on legal and other grounds. If the staff believes the pesky and inconvenient input from the community will die down after today should the board adopt the Curriculum, it has another thing coming. Please convey my sentiments to the staff. Out of Town Resident 5/26 We want you to know that we wholeheartedly oppose the suggested LGBT curriculum now before you. As the parents of three children attending schools in the Alameda Unified School District, we believe teachers should deal with these issues on an as-needed basis with the individuals involved. From one year to the next different issues will arise and be problematic in each class, it is irresponsible to set up a curriculum to protect one group of children and not others. The sad reality is that kids can be mean and do make fun of others for the way they look, dress, act etc. As teachers observe children socializing, as a good teacher does, they should be guiding them in developing respect and tolerance for all students, not just children of LGBT parents. If teachers are uncomfortable dealing with this issue there should be a seminar they can attend to learn how to deal with it NOT an entire curriculum. As a children's coach for basketball, baseball, softball and football I would never tolerate kids bullying another child on the team for ANY reason and would hope that teachers could also handle these situations. Our children have been classmates and teammates to many children with LGBT parents. We have never witnessed any bullyilng or comments made towards these children. One of the reasons for this is because the kids don't even realize, you will be opening pandora's box and forcing parents to discuss issues with their children that are not age appropriate. We are also afraid that the proposed curriculum will only create more problems once children are forced to see the difference. The LGBT curriculum infringes upon parents rights to teach their children tolerance and respect of others without sexualization. As elected officials, we hope you you listen to the voters. Our vote is NO! Alameda Resident 5/26 I am a Alameda Resident and will be a parent of Amelia Earhart Kindergartner. I am writing to express my opposition because this curriculum Lesson #9 is biased toward one class of people who get bullied. There are still lot of bullying against race, religion, etc but I don't see a curriculum focued on those type of bulllying. You might say bullying against those people have lessened but when those bullying was rampant I didn't see any specific curriculum at that time trying to address these particular issues. It was left to parents to educate our own children about these issues and I think it should still remain as parents' responsibility. If you are going to pass this curriculum, it should be revised to included all types of bullying. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am a long time Alameda Resident and a parent. I would like to voice my opposition to the LGBT curriculum that is being proposed. I would like to have a choice to opt out of the curriculum instead of having the school teach the children about these subjects. Out of Town Resident 5/26 I am writing to please ask you to not adopt the GLBT curriculum for teaching our children. I believe that the ultimate right of parents, to educate and teach their children, is being hijacked with bills such as this. Please respect our rights as US citizens. Equal rights go both directions. Alameda Resident 5/26 Thank you for tonight's meeting regarding this LGBT topic. Once again, I just want to reiterate how this curriculum is not appropriate in the schools especially for this age group. Schools should be teaching and providing our children with education, not with social/political ideologies. I am outraged that we're wasting so much time and energy and resources on this topic when teachers are being laid off, classes are getting larger, and student's levels in math, reading, writing are decreasing. Please reconsider the board's direction towards adding this curriculum otherwise I, too, will need to reconsider where I would want to place my children for schools and where I would want to live. I oppose this curriculum. Thank you again. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am writing in opposition to the LGBT curriculum. Proposition 8 was upheld by the State Supreme Court. If the state doesn't approve of gay marriage, then why would we want this taught in our schools? This curriculum will not accomplish what it's supposed to. Out of Town Resident 5/26 I cannot believe that you people even made this an issue. Hellooooooooooooo? SUPREME COURT just UPHELD Prop 8!!! The will of the People. That should give you all a clue!! Alameda Resident 5/26 I strongly oppose the Safe School Curriculum. As an Alameda resident, I cannot believe that this curriculum has been proposed without any input from the community. I grew up advocating tolerance, especially as I have been the victim of many kinds of bullying. However, this curriculum will not solve the problem of bullying. It will only exacerbate it. This topic is not appropriate for kids from K-5, they will misunderstand and will be confused by the issues that are introduced to them. For kids who have not learned about human sexuality, this LGBT topic is not appropriate for them. In fact, they would misunderstand and be confused by the issues. Children are smart, they will not be able to just settle with the fact that someone can have "two moms" or "two dads." They are bound to find out the implications of that. I urge you to please do not implement this curriculum for kids from K-5. Alameda Resident 5/26 As you make you decision tonight, I want to remind you of my opposition to the "Safe Schools" curriculum. As a fairly new resident of Alameda, I am very concerned about the lack of transparency in the creation of the curriculum, as well as the lack of community/parental input (which was promised), and believe this curriculum sets a very dangerous precedent. I am also opposed to this curriculum because very little of the curriculum is in regards to "bullying", the curriculum's supposed purpose, as well as it only highlights and addresses one of the groups, rather than all of them. I believe the only fair option is to vote against this curriculum in order that a new curriculum can be created, but this time with the community's and Alameda parents' input so that greater trust can be forged between the community and city council it elects. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am an Alameda Resident who is strongly opposed to having this curriculum pass. I have been at the meetings these past few weeks and have witnessed the strong arguments from those who oppose this curriculum, and do fully agree w/ the reasons they have provided. Please consider the children and families that will be affected by this curriculum. We also have the city of Alameda to consider when it comes to all of its taxpayers and voters. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am writing to ask you to vote to have the LGBT curriculum gone or completely re-done to encompass all categories of bullying. I recognize that this issue has been long and trying, but I hope that you would look to the content of the curriculum as it affects children directly. Alameda Resident 5/26 Please do not vote for this 'Safe Schools' curriculum which only emphasizes one part of the community. I ask that you consider spending the schools' resources on a curriculum that ensures safety for all the children in our community by proposing a character-building curriculum so that children can be counter-cultural, thoughtful, respectful, & considerate of others in this society that emphasizes individualism & self-centeredness. I hope that this can address the vices of bullying & alienation on a greater level with long-term goals beyond the playground. Thank you for your time & spending countless hours listening to the voices of our community. Alameda Resident 5/26 i am an alameda parent and resident and i want to express my OPPOSITION to the lgbt curriculum being proposed. it does not properly address the issue of bullying and unnecessarily teaches children more than they need to hear at such a young age. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am an Alameda resident and I am troubled by the proposed content of the Safe Schools curriculum. LGBT content is not appropriate for this age group and I am bothered that this material is being pushed under the guise of safety curriculum. This material focuses solely on one subgroup and it is not beneficial for the children. I promote tolerance and some of my closest friends are bisexual, but this is not the way it should be taught. I have been attending the hearings on this topic, and I would like to thank you all for taking this matter seriously and taking into consideration what the community has to say about this issue. I urge you to oppose this curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am writing to express dissent with the implementation of the LGBT curriculum that is being proposed tonight. As an Alameda resident, and father of two young school children, I feel very strongly that this curriculum is inappropriate. While the curriculum teaches "welcoming" and inclusion, which is useful in schools, there is also a strong instructional bent to the curriculum - a bent that goes so far as to define what "families" are, to introduce the definition of "family" LGBT issues and reinforce them over 6 years, and to make them mandatory for all school-age children, with no opt-out choice for students and families who disagree (along with many other issues I will ignore for now). While I disagree with the curriculum for personal and moral issues, I more strongly disagree with the manner in which the curriculum is being implemented, in fact, forced upon the children and families of Alameda. In other words, the school board has unfairly, and I would go so far as to say illegally, instituted curriculum in a manner that defies all manner of previous curriculum implementation procedures. The curriculum has not been publicly examined or approved until it was brought out before the board at the previous board meeting. When it was brought out to the public, it was not to gain approval, but to hear sides before it was dictated and imposed upon the people and children of Alameda. Even now, I am dubious as to what purpose these public hearings serve. Are they to foster discussion and debate before the curriculum is decided on and implemented, or is it just a show of "hearing both sides" before the curriculum is implemented as it was orginally intended? I fear that the latter may be taking place. Many people in Alameda have voiced their opposition to the curriculum, however, these voices have gone largely ignored and have been tagged as "close-minded" and "ignorant" (although, I am sure many other epithets have regrettably been thrown towards the other side as well). You, the school board members, were elected to represent these same voices - on both sides of the argument - not to dictate to one side or the other, but the appearance of it seems to be that it is very one-sided and closed on the part of the board. If this curriculum is implemented, then let it be done properly - without unfair imposition upon the people, families, and children of Alameda. Let the curriculum be discussed, examined, even voted on, if need be. Indeed, the curriculum in question proposes "welcoming" and inclusion - let this attitude pervade the debate as well. Alameda Resident 5/26 Please, please do not approve the LGBT Curriculum. It's not that I'm intolerant, but as a parent and voter of Alameda, I do not approve that this 'curriculum' was inserted in this (I think) evasive way. Alameda Resident 5/26 Please do not pass the safe schools curriculum. The state supreme court has upheld the legality of Prop 8 - the AUSD should not be taking its own stance regarding an issue that the voters of the state of California, as well as the state supreme court, has spoken on. Alameda Resident 5/26 Thank you again for your labor-intensive effort to hear the opinions of our community regarding the LGBT curriculum. As an Alameda resident, I urge you to vote against the curriculum given its many curricular and legal pitfalls. Out of TownResident 5/26 I was a former Alameda Bay Farm resident, where my daughter attended Amelia Earhart & Lincoln. I am strongly AGAINST the safe school curriculum. I do not believe that it creates the safe environment it espouses. Alameda Resident 5/26 I’m writing in opposition to the curriculum. Please revamp the curriculum to include all 5 protected classes and not just give in to the agenda of one group. I read the curriculum and it doesn’t have anything re: bully or bullying and I would really like curriculum that properly addresses this issue to protect all kids rather than highlighting one group of kids. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am an Alameda resident and I'd like to voice my opposition to the LGBT curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am the father of a 3rd grader in the AUSD. I have reviewed the lesson materials, attended one of the presentations by the development team and attended the recent hearing at Koffman Auditorium. It is my considered opinion that this additional curriculum is inappropriate for elementary students, ineffective in correcting the alleged problem and an obvious political gambit by gay activists. The materials are drawn mostly from gay activist organizations and push the gay agenda of “normalizing” homosexuality. In the introduction and justification for the proposed curriculum, the developers noted the results of a survey of high school students in AUSD. The chosen interpretation of that survey (among several possible) is that harassment and bullying of LGBT students at the high school level is because of prejudices and animosities prevalent among students. Their answer to this is to go to the elementary level and indoctrinate “tolerance.” I say indoctrinate because elementary school students do not have the faculties to refute or rebut information being fed to them on such a subject. I put quotes around the word “tolerance” because, as was made abundantly clear at Koffman, the goal is not tolerance. Many of the supporters of this curriculum spoke about “gay families being invisible” and ignored. My own experience as a young person being called racist names and having rocks thrown at me because of my ethnicity was that being ignored, not being attacked or called names, IS tolerance. What the LGBT community is pushing for goes well beyond tolerance. Time and again I have heard supporters of this curriculum use terms like “celebrate, “acknowledge” or “support.” Their desire is to eradicate disapproval of their lifestyle and relationships and they want to use the coercive power of Government to accomplish this and where better than with children too young to resist brainwashing. Whatever you may believe regarding homosexuality, the facts are that it involves a small percentage of the population (see the recent National Health and Social Life Survey done for the US Government), that it is not genetically inherited, that the percentages of people who think they are homosexual declines with maturation, and that it is behavioral in nature and not intrinsic like race. One may decline to engage in sexual activity; one may not decline to be Black or White or Asian. Attempts to equate societal disapproval of homosexuality with racism and therefore claim a high moral ground are illogical and insulting to the victims of racism. Many scholars believe homosexuality arises from confusions in youth regarding sexuality and gender roles. The origins and causes of homosexuality are far from settled science and the sociological and anthropological implications of normalizing homosexuality are also hotly debated. At the Koffman hearing, I was alarmed to hear members of the board suggesting that gay-agenda books such as “And Tango Makes Three” and “Heather has two mommies” should be provided in the classrooms even if this curriculum is rejected. These books are not innocuous and this backdoor method of trying to accomplish through subtlety what could not be achieved openly will be resisted. The majority of people in this nation and in California are willing to tolerate homosexuals, but are not willing to elevate them to the status they desire. For many this issue is a moral and religious matter. It is certainly a controversial issue (as evidenced by the turnout on both sides). Our schools have enough problems dealing with non-controversial subjects. The schools do not need this curriculum. It is not legally required. It will cost our schools in terms of litigation and in declining student enrollment. We already have an anti-bullying curriculum. It needs to be enforced. Teachers need to be encouraged to act to curb bullying and empowered to correct behavior. If the bullying involves a gender/gender identity/sexual orientation factor, then the school needs to involve the parents immediately. That should be policy. This proposed curriculum is not really about bullying or harassment – it is about normalization and “celebration” of homosexual unions. It is using our children as pawns and guinea pigs in an ongoing political debate between adults and it is wrong. I urge you to reject this curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am an Alameda resident, tax payer, and voter. I would like to voice my strong opposition to the Safe Schools Curriculum. I attended the AUSD Board Meeting last Monday, May 18th, and I would urge you to reconsider implementation of this curriculum. While I am in favor of promoting diversity and protecting our school children from bullying, the current curriculum has several flaws that need to be addressed before I would feel at ease about its passage:
Please reject the current curriculum and at the very least, consider revising this curriculum so that our tax dollars would have maximum impact in serving our schools. Also know that I would reconsider your candidacy for re-election to the school board if the curriculum were to pass. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am an Alameda resident parent of child attending pre-school and the child would be joining Alameda public schools in 2010. I am speaking on behalf of my Muslim family, to let you know that the passing of the proposed tolerance curriculum would conflict with the teachings of our Islamic faith. I am deeply disturbed to think that my responsibility as a parent to teach my children important moral values is being usurped by the public school system, taking away my right to be the first teacher of my children. The teaching of moral values have always been in the realm of family, we send our children to school to learn the tools of education (i.e., reading, writing, math, sciences etc.). The teaching of respect, tolerance and dignity should be extended to ALL peoples regardless of gender, religion, race and physical abilities I am therefore OPPOSED to this new curriculum as it clearly serves the interest of only a select group of the population. In serving the needs of a richly diverse community, we -- parents, teachers, educators, school administrators, school board members and students in Alameda should all work together in dealing with issues that are culturally sensitive and relevant to city. I sincerely thank you for your time and consideration. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am writing to express my alarm and displeasure with the "Adoption of Safe Schools" curriculum that you are considering whether to implement. Although I am not a resident of Alameda, but rather reside in San Francisco, I have considered living in Alameda and starting a family there, and as you are aware, I would strongly consider the quality and content of the schools in Alameda in making such a decision. I strongly oppose implementing this curriculum as it teaches a moral perspective under the guise of teaching "safety." While I agree that people of any race, gender, nationality or sexual orientation deserve to be treated with respect as fellow human beings, it does not follow that this curriculum should force a moral perspective about whether one's sexual-orientation is right or wrong, as it is strongly implied that it is right by the curriculum's teaching. Teaching about sexual-orientation and a moral perspective on this topic is the job of the child's parents, and at most the school should present both views and leave it up to the parents and the child to decide what moral stance to take. The proposed curriculum favors one viewpoint over the other, and does not allow for a competing viewpoint, even if that competing view is taught in the child's home. I am also strongly opposed to the fact that this curriculum would begin at as early a grade as kindergarten. Topics of this matter are best reserved for a later age, such as fourth grade or after, and beginning to bring up this matter at such an early age would likely result in confusion. It is best for parents to decide when to broach this topic with their children. I cast a strong "NO" vote against the curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am writing to encourage you to vote to encourage the teaching of diversity in our schools. I am a straight woman with two children in Washington elementary and I want my children to be able to learn about people and lifestyles different from that they are growing up with. I do believe that my kids will become stronger citizens by being exposed to a variety of people and lifestyles. Alameda Resident 5/26 Thank you for taking the time to listen, organize our comments, and respond to us. Again I want to reiterate that I do oppose the curriculum. I understand that teachers need a tool to discuss bullying and that children need to be protected, yet I do not think that these lessons will meet that goal. I have seen the revised lesson plans, but feel that they need to be revised to discuss each person's character and allow tolerance based on other differences. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am an Alameda resident with 2 young children who will attend Alameda schools soon. I have attended 2 public meetings and have read the proposed curriculum. (thank you for making it available online). However I am in opposition to the curriculum because I think it is very biased and unfair to the other protected groups. Please consider voting against the curriculum or at least to seriously revise the curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/26 On this important day, I, as a resident of Alameda, with a child who will be in an Alameda school this fall, respectfully urge you to vote against this curriculum. I am for safe schools, and I do not condone mistreatment of anyone in the LGBT community, but the curriculum does not address safety issue. Rather, it unfairly imposes LGBP community's values and beliefs on everyone. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am a parent, an Alameda resident and a tax-payer. I just want to say that I EMPHATICALLY OPPOSE this curriculum. I do not want my child to learn about these alternative lifestyles at this young age and I am upset that my wishes in this regard will be, well, disregarded in the interest of school "safety" if this curriculum is passed. Please do not force me to reconsider sending my child to Alameda public schools. Alameda Resident 5/26 As a long time resident of Alameda since 1993, I again ask for you to not pass the curriculum as it is stated in its current state. I strongly feel that the material is not age-appropriate and the issues are best learned at home. I am very concern by the members of the board's action to push this curriculum that many have pointed out how it is only focused on one of five protected categories under anti-discrimination laws without having proper representation from each categories present in coming up the overall safe school curriculum. If this curriculum passes, I will definitely show my lost of confidence of the board members during next election. Alameda Resident 5/26 As a concerned Alameda resident, I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed Safe Schools/LGBT curriculum being voted on tonight. Alameda Resident 5/26 As an Alameda homeowner and resident for over five years, I want to thank you for commitment in continuing to make our city and schools safe and excellent for our children, and thank you for listening to all our thoughts. I want to make it clear that I believe the proposedCaring Schools curriculum has significant shortcomings that are unfair to other minority groups in the district. The curriculum favors those who grow up in LGBT families and neglects other minorities who are similarly harassed and bullied, perhaps even more. To hear that there is a proposal to protect children of LGBT families or children who have an LGBT orientation raises concerns for me, namely in that it unfairly gives preference to such individuals while neglecting the others. What about children without fathers, children without mothers, or children of mothers who hold unconventional jobs? Or perhaps children who are disfigured in some way, but still perfectly functional in our schools? All of these children are "normal" too. Will we guarantee safe schools for them as well? You see, the proposed Caring Schools curriculum to protect those in the LGBT community is unequal, unfair, and should not be passed. There are several other minorities that are not represented by this curriculum, nor does this curriculum make provisions to provide safety for them. I speak to you as one of those minorities--one who has a hearing disability and who has also experienced bullying, is just as "normal" as any other person in this room. I urge you, elected members of the board, to reject this curriculum, and to begin drafting one that is more comprehensive and true to the name--"Caring Schools Curriculum." Please allow ALL minorities to be protected under such a curriculum, not just those in the LGBT community. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am writing to voice my disapproval of the addendum in its current form, and wish to help draft a new and more inclusive anti-bullying curriculum Alameda Resident 5/26 Thank you again for another opportunity to speak and to voice our opinions regarding this curriculum on creating safe schools. But i need to once again email to say that I do not approve of this new curriculum, which would be confusing to the children. I want schools to be safe as well but I do not think that this is the proper way to go on about it. Please take my vote and opinion in consideration. As a resident of Alameda, this is a very concerning topic and makes me consider who I am voting into the board or how the budgets should pass. Alameda Resident 5/26 As I won’t be able to attend the educational board meeting tonight for the vote on the lesson 9, I wanted to reemphasize my strong opposition for the curriculum. It seems that our entire community is up in arms about this curriculum is completely divided. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of the racial minority groups in Alameda are strongly opposed to this curriculum. As a protect subgroup ourselves, this should speak loudly about how people feel about this group forcing it’s agenda on all of us. Please take this curriculum back to the drawing board! Alameda Resident 5/26 As I will not be able to be present at tonight's board meeting, I just want to re-iterate my opposition to the curriculum and really urge you to vote with consideration of the opposition that this has stirred up among Alameda parents and concerned citizens, as well as with prudence concerning the way to approach the issue of safety. I really urge you to turn to tools more acceptable to the majority of the Alameda community for creating an accepting and safe environment for all children in Alameda. Alameda Resident 5/26 I will be at the meeting tonight and hope you will not pass the curriculum. Trish did a good job of identifying the flaws in the curriculum and I hope that you can see that the community needs to be involved in creating this curriculum. I also think this curriculum is very divisive to our community, look at the how people treated those who were opposed to the curriculum. Please do not vote down this curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/26 I want to reiterate that as a voter and resident of Alameda, I urge you to reject this curriculum or initiate to revise it with greater community involvement. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am a concerned Alameda resident and do not approve of this curriculum. Please OPPOSE it. Alameda Resident 5/26 Please don’t allow a curriculum of this sort be taught to our children. I cant even wrap my head around teaching small children about sexual issues at five, it is truly up to the parents to decide if their children are ready for this type of information. I’m tired of the government indoctrinating our children, I believe issues of sexual choice should be handled privately not shoved down our throat is school. Have we forgotten the basics, the public school system is falling under par with teaching the basics we should not be pushing the gay and lesbian agenda off as public school education. Focus on educating our children better, finding better teachers and trim the fat before the parents of this country really get fed up and stop using the public schools period. Thank you for your time. Out of Town Resident 5/26 am a concerned California parent of three children. I would like to urge you to NOT use the GLBT curriculum which exposes young children the gay and lesbian lifestyle. While I am not currently living in your school district, there is always the possibility that our family in the future may live in your district, or in any other district--and so I am concernced that ALL schools need to be kept clear of this political agenda and allow that teaching to come from their own families and homes. Alameda Resident 5/26 My daughter is a first grader at Earhart School, and our son is 3 years old. We are so pleased with the school and the education our daughter is getting and look forward to our son entering Kindergarten in a couple of years. My male partner and I have adopted our children and we ask that you vote yes on the Proposed Adoption of Safe Schools Curriculum Addressing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. I have just reviewed the 2nd grade curriculum, and my partner and I have read that book to our daughter. What a wonderful learning opportunity it would be for all second graders to read and discuss the book together. This curriculum isn't at all about teaching morality in the schools. It is simply about teaching children that there are different types of families. I am happy to help in any way I can with other parents and school staff to ensure this curriculum has the inteded effect. I understand the reservations that parents from more traditional backgrounds might have and I am happy to serve on a task force to discuss their concerns. This, however, should not be a substitute for approval of this curriculum. I will be watching closely your vote at this evening's Board of Education meeting. I do hope you will make the right decision for all of Alemada's children. Alameda Resident 5/26 I urge you and your fellow AUSD board members to vote in favor of the Caring Schools Curriculum at tonight's meeting. I attended the long meeting May 12 and listened to reasoning and arguments from both sides of the issue. This curriculum may or may not be the perfect solution to the problem, but I leave that to the experts and believe you should adopt it nonetheless. Hate crimes against gays and those perceived to be gay still occur with alarming regularity, including in our own city. On December 3, 2007, my Eagle Avenue neighbor, 69 year-old Robert Hardeman, was beaten to death with a wooden chair leg in his own home by a 19 year-old man he had met that evening in a Park Street bar. The young man argued that he had been 'sexually harassed' by the elderly, slightly built man we all knew as Bob, but according to investigators, 'There was no evidence indicating that the victim fought with the suspect.' Just maybe, Robert's death could have been prevented if his attacker had received a little education on tolerance and diversity, training that the Caring Schools Curriculum surely offers. Please approve it tonight. Out of Town Resident 5/26 If this curriculum is adopted by your district and others, I'm sure you will start to see an increased number of students being pulled out of school in order to be home schooled or sent to private schools, which will mean less money for your district. To adopt this curriculum in order to prevent bullying is ludicrous. Children will bully others no matter what. It is not fair to introduce such adult subject matter to such young children to prevent bullying. Most children at that age don't even know about these "preferences" and wouldn't bully others because of it anyway. Children will learn about these things in time (like junior high and high school ages). Elementary school is NOT the place to learn about it. At the very lease parents SHOULD be permitted the legal right to have their child excused from the classroom while the curriculum is being taught. Please protect our children. Don't adopt this curriculum. Out of Town Resident 5/26 Whatever happened to teaching the 3 R's in school? Reading? Writing? Arithmatic? Why are we trying to socialize our children in schools? Parents are responsible for teaching their children social graces, love rather than hate, religion, etc... I would never expect a public school to teach MY AGENDA to our nation's children! Why would anyone want to force their beliefs on someone else's children? I EXPECT THAT NO ONE TRIES TO PUSH THEIR AGENDA ON MY CHILD. PLEASE - Let people have their American Freedom and teach their own children what they want them to know about Sexual Orientation Alameda Resident 5/26 I am a resident of Alameda and have been for over 42 years. My husband and I have raised 2 sons here and continue to live in our Broadway home for the last 30 years. I know the very important decision you have to make. My husband and I have attended the last 2 meetings for the public. I am urging you to vote NO on the proposed LGBT cirriculum. The problem does not lie in the indoctrination of our children to the alternative lifestyles of the LGBT, but rather in taking the lead and not allowing bullying or harassment of any kind, on any level. Too often the “adults” have not had the authority to stop the bullying. Merely adding the LGBT cirriculum will not stop the bullying or harrassment. You are crossing the boundary of what a parent should teach their child in the guise of calling it education. Please think very carefully regarding your decision as to the impact it will have on our schools. Don’t let yourselves be “bullied” by a few people who feel that we should indoctrinate our children with the LGBT lifestyle instead of educating them in the respect for ALL people. I am a teacher in the district, a mother of a first grader at xxx, and a long-time resident of Alameda . I’m writing to express my support for curriculum that teaches children about the existence of our LGTB community and gives dignity and voice to these valued residents of our town and members of our society. In the fall I attended a district sponsored training for teachers where I learned the sad statistics about drug use, suicide and academic failure that plague LGTB youth when they are marginalized by their peers and rejected by their families. The time is now to begin an era where our LGBT youth can walk through the corridors of our schools filled with self respect because we, as a community, have got their backs. I am proud to live in a town and teach in a district that is exposing the apathy that is status quo when it comes to the overt bullying of all that is queer or gay or dike or fairy or queen or butch. The time is now to make this bullying socially unacceptable. Alameda Resident 5/26 As long time educators for the district, we totally support the inclusion of the proposed curriculum that teaches tolerance to our children. xxx was involved with xxx xx over 30 years ago as they created the curriculum for Current Life Issues and they also wrote curriculum for the elementary schools that dealt with stereotypes. These same issues are being discussed now. Please, vote to support the inclusion of anti-bullying in the curriculum. Don't let a vocal, small minority prevent you from protecting all of Alameda's students. Alameda Resident 5/26 I am writing in favor of the proposed Lesson Nine of the Safe Schools Curriculum. This is an essential part of the curriculum, and will serve to strengthen the original curriculum by including a group that would otherwise be left out. I believe that it is important to begin this education at an early age, because children learn very early that words can hurt, and the bullying and harassment begin before the child has any understanding of the words that are used. I hope that the Board members will act on the strength of their convictions and not be intimidated by the threats that have been directed at them. Hopefully this curriculum will educate some parents through their children! Alameda Resident 5/26 I support the Safe Schools (LGBT-inclusive) additional lessons of the Caring Schools curriculum as originally proposed, and I urge the School Board to pass it unanimously for the betterment of our schools' children and our community. Words can be filled with hate and hold such power. I would love for children to be immune to the effects of all name calling, but especially the words than can hit at the core of an individual's being. In a time of growth and transition -- a time of learning about themselves and their world they live in -- children are deeply affected by what others think of them. As a high-school teacher for twelve years, I am keenly aware that words such as faggot, gay, lesbian and dyke are words fully institutionalized in their use by kids, and not being used in any educational way. These hateful and derogatory words are unacceptable in a learning environment, and students should be punished for their use. But it is clear that curriculum is required to create critical thinkers in the classroom in order to curb the attacking use of words. Students are out of reach of adult supervision for a sizable portion of their day and there are far too many whispered taunts in the hallway, classroom, at lunchtime recess -- too many for an ever-attentive teacher to catch them all. It is at those times that students need to be able to understand their own strength to either speak against hateful behavior or self-regulate their own actions. Media indoctrinates from an early age, and promotes the improper use of much of the language that we see reflected in the schools. Lessons which specifically address all populations, reflecting our community's full make-up are essential to creating empathy for others and diffusing the hate that comes from fear. The LGBT population is especially in need of educational exposure in the classroom, as it has remained marginalized, ignored and not allowed to exist as a rightful entity. "Don't ask, don't tell" policies allow for a semblance of co-existence, but ignoring the fact that the LGBT community exists and is currently fighting for basic human rights such as the right to marry and have equal representation under the law. It also ignores a major fact, that history in always current in the making, and that these changes must be reflected in curriculum to be inclusive of the populations that are ever changing. During my time as an educator, I knew a student who was transgender. At my school, she no longer went by her given name, but lived her life by the gender-identified name she had chosen. It was a name that allowed her to live fully, to be proud of who she was, and she developed a strong circle of friends at our school. However, four men "could not understand," and in their ignorance and fear, brutally murdered her in October of 2002. If they had had an ounce of this curriculum as children, perhaps Gwen Araujo would still be with us today. May she rest in peace, and the world grow in its understanding and acceptance of the LGBT community. I fully support this curriculum as well as its expansion to the secondary schools. Comments. Questions. Broken links? Bad spelling! Incorrect Grammar? Let me know at webmaster.
|