|
|
Comments Received From May 1 to May 9May 2009 Due to number of comments received, comments received regarding the LGBT curriculum for K-5 is on multiple pages. The more recent comments made after May 12 and the background information can be found on the LGBT curriculum page. Comments prior to March 1st are here and this page contains comments from March 1 to May 9. Comments made on May 10, May 11 and May 12 are here. Parent 5/9 I am an Alameda resident, and a parent of 1 child who will soon enter kindergarten. I strongly oppose the "Safe Schools/LGBT" curriculum. I do not think it is appropriate to discuss about sexual orientation to elementary school-aged children. I believe in and teach acceptance of all people to my children at home where I can impart the values I believe with respect to sexual orientation. In addition, the parents should at least be given the opportunity to opt out. Parent 5/9 We support safe schools for all but oppose the implementation of LGBT tolerance curriculum (“Lesson 9”) to young children starting from kindergarten and up without the option of parental opt-out. We find two major fallacies in the argument for this proposal: “Sex education” is too narrowly defined. “Homophobia” is overly broadly defined. Re: #1. Lesson 9 of the curriculum clearly addresses psychological and social aspects of human sexuality, such as the “definition of a family,” and it is still a form of beginning sex education. Explaining the terms “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender” will include the discussion of sexual orientation and sexual preferences, which is part of family life education and therefore, parent consent should be sought. The rights of parents whose cultural and religious beliefs do not find LGBT lifestyles morally acceptable must be respected and their input valued. We suggest the proposed Lesson 9 concerning human sexuality and the corresponding books at each grade level be translated into ALL of the non-English languages represented in the District and sent home with a letter of notification in the parents’ native language so that ALL parents in the District will be able to provide their feedback. Re: #2. It appears in choosing to focus on issues of sexual orientation and gender identity in this proposed curriculum to “ensure safe schools,” the district is neglecting to address many other forms of prejudice and discrimination, such as teasing of students with learning differences (e.g. students with disabilities or English learners). It also appears community members who express opposition to the LGBT curriculum are broadly defined as “homophobic.” This is an inaccurate reverse stereotyping. We respectfully call upon the Superintendent and Board of Education to fulfill AUSD’s stated Vision and Values and its Educational Philosophy, that is, to “value and respect the diversity of ALL students,” and to respect ALL members of the community as equal partners in this decision-making process. Parents and community members who have different views and whose native language is not English must be taken into account. We urge the board to reconvene a new committee composed of diverse community members to rewrite the curriculum. AUSD Vision and Values “We acknowledge, value and respect the diversity --- race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic background --- of all students…” AUSD Educational Philosophy “Education is a shared responsibility of the student, the teacher, the parent and the community” Parent 5/9 I am a concerned Alameda resident and a future parent of Alameda school students. I am writing this email to let you know that I oppose this curriculum. Community Member 5/9 I have been intently following the debate concerning the AUSD Caring Schools Community-Safe Schools LGBT Curriculum. As an Alameda resident of 25 years, I'd like to go on record with absolute and total support of the curriculum with no reservations whatsoever. Much has already been written by those far more eloquent than I in support of the curriculum and I won't belabor those points again here other than to say I'm in agreement with all of them. As a long-time resident and contributing member of the Alameda community, I've seen the good, the bad, the ugly and even the out and out ridiculous over my years. In my mind, this curriculum effort ranks among a most excellent and wise approach in education which can only lead to a more civil, more gentle and more kind society and community. In closing I recall the beautiful Stephen Soundheim song from Into the Woods, "Children Will Listen." "Children may not always obey, but children will listen. Children will look to you for which way to turn . . . children will listen. " Thank you for your attention and I look forward to hearing the curriculum has been adopted. Parent 5/9 I REALLY SEE CLEARLY HOW BRAIN WASHING IS IMPLEMENTED,HOW DARE YOU TAKE OVER THE FAMILY? I PROBABLY MISSED WHEN THE REAL FAMILY WAS DISSOLVED AND THE STATE TOOK OVER INDOCTRINATION I, IT MUST BE EASY TO MOLD THESE CHILDREN WHO HAVE NO IDEA THAT YOU WOULD HURT THEM FOR YOUR SELFISHNESS. I THINK WHILE YOUR AT IT YOU SHOULD CONTACT LOCAL PRISONS TO HAVE MENTORS COME. THESE INDIVIDUALS COULD INCLUDE PEDIPHILES,RAPISTS, MURDERERS,THIEVES,MOLESTERS OF ALL STRIPES. THEY ALL BELIEVE THAT ITS THEIR RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY CRAVE AS WELL.. THEY ARE EVEN WILLING TO DIE, OR FACE PRISON FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS THEIR RIGHT. I HOPE THAT YOU HAVE THE SAME DETERMINATION,FOR AS THIS CONTINUES, YOU WILL NEED IT.THE NORMAL POPULATION IS SICK OF YOUR MEDALLING IN OUR PRIVATE LIVES TOO. I HOPE YOU VOTE THIS DOWN BUT YOUR PROBABLY TOO ENLIGHTED TO RESPECT THOSE WHO LOVE THIS COUNTRY AND TRADITIONAL VALUES. IF YOU GO TO THE SCHOOL LIBRARY, TRY TO FIND HISTORICALLY ANY NATION THAT COULD STAND AFTER FALLING FOR THE PERVERSIONS YOU EMBRACE. I FEAR FOR OUR ONCE GREAT NATION,I SEE POLLUTION OF MINDS LEADING TO LESS STABLE HOMES AND THUS TOTAL DISTRUCTION OF WHATS RIGHT AND WRONG.THIS ABNORMAL, UNNATURAL,NON PRODUCTIVE,DISTRUTIVE LIFESTYLE WILL AND MUST STOP. A CIVIL WAR WITH UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AWAITS ALL WHO PARTICIPATE AND SUPPORT THIS BEHAVIOR. REMEMBER EVEN THE VERY ELITE ARE BEING DECEIVED.THANK YOU FOR HOPEFULLY READING MY OPINION. I AWAIT YOUR REPLY , I CANT SEE YOUR VIEWS AT ALL YET. Parent 5/9 I attended a forum about the safe school curriculum proposed by the vice-superintendent and her committee. I think parents are feeling uneasy about this topic, feeling unsafe about raising questions and/or opposition to it and are also feeling ill-equipped and out of control when our kids come home with questions. An addition I would make, if the curriculum is adopted, would be to empower parents, by incorporating feedback and equipping parents with words, phrases, specific age appropriate guidelines that will defuse some of the "power" that this vocabulary holds and make all of this less foreign for parents who aren't accustomed to this language and topic. If we can learn as parents and teachers to defuse some of this language perhaps we can move forward and gain some common ground. I also believe that some parents truly believe that they should be the ones to educate their children on this topic, as one gentleman eloquently put it, "at their own pace." Therefore, I believe that an opt out option is appropriate. Parent 5/9 AUSD keeps referring to the “existing anti-violence curriculum for all of the district’s elementary schools.” Can you explain what this is, how it deals with anti-harassment of all forms, and why it is failing? Certainly LGBT related bullying / harassment is not the only negative behavior currently engaged in, or inflicted upon our students. In fact by current State studies, it represents a comparatively small fraction of harassment of other legally protected characteristics. Any new anti-bullying curriculum should be attempting to overcome all issues of harassment while meeting the goals of SB 394. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around using the 'Safe Schools' agenda to promote a solely LGBT "inclusive curriculum" which excludes all non-LGBT bullying and harassment. I do not believe our schools in any way do not meet the constitutional rights of anyone on the grounds of actual or perceived sexual gender or sexual orientation or any of the overtly protected statuses of basis of sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, color, mental or physical disability. I have heard the claim that some gay people feel they are in an "invisible” class. However, sexual identity is not a relevant consideration to differentiate ‘special needs’ required by law. I see “moms” and “dads” at our schools, not “gay moms” or “gay dads” or “hetero moms” or “hetero dads”. This is not only acceptable; it is preferable, especially at our elementary schools. I do not see an obligation required by law to address others by sexual orientation; on the contrary people should NOT be separated, physically, verbally, or psychologically, on the basis of sex - including actual or perceived sexual gender or orientation. While I understand and agree with or obligation to protect all of our students from all forms of harassment at school and that all students should feel safe and welcomed in our schools, every anti harassment curricular effort should address all forms of harassment. Gay and lesbian parents in our community should not gain special recognition for their sexual identity or orientation. A curriculum should not single them out. I do believe that the books in our schools, especially the K-3 classroom reading books should exemplify or mirror all the family styles in our community. However that concept is not addressed by this current proposal. While I am not a professional psychologist, I have spent quite a bit of time examining these issues, and have looked at a wealth of programs and tried to understand the developmental science associated with each. I urge all to examine the goals, and philosophy and methods (why and how) to achieve goals used in the popular and successful ‘Safe School Ambassador’ program used by “Community Matters” (http://www.community-matters.org/safe-school-ambassadors/ ) In addition to training staff how to follow the AUSD BOE Policies on anti-harassment, which is both an element of the ‘Safe Place to Learn Act’ of 2008, and wanted by AUSD teachers, (according to reports of the 10/08 survey conducted during staff development day), an inclusive committee (representative of a broad selection of family types in Alameda) could put together a a much better curriculum for AUSD students. Such a curriculum should include the important elements of both student led and staff led actions and make the program more appealing to our LGBT community by expanding the SSA qualities to achieve the goals of inclusion the committee bringing forth this current proposal are substituting as the goals of the ‘Safe Place To Learn Act’ (SB 394). The immediate need is to fulfill the guidelines in SB394. The continued goal should be an immediate formation of a new committee, inclusive of all perspectives of our community, to address the formation of a path of action to end all harassment in our schools. The current proposal is divisive, only addresses harassment of one legally protected characteristic, and is already having negative results where it is being ‘tested’. Not surprisingly it is arming bullies with new vocabulary being used with harsher intent, and is more hurtful to the victims. Many in the community have also expressed problems with the lessons themselves, problems which are too lengthy to explain here, but include the need of a review by unbiased psychologists as to the real potential outcomes of these lessons, and the problem which can result from the fact that the staff will still not be receiving the training they have been requesting. Staff needs to be protected, by being given a specific protocol for addressing harassment especially at middle and high school grades. Please help our school community to pull together, not separate factions. Parent 5/9 The vocabulary list is missing the word Transgender. This word is necessary as we have transgender youth in our schools. It is also a part of the LGBT vocabulary word and at least 2 lessons. Caring Schools Company 5/8 The developer of Caring School Curriculum prepared the following letter in late April. Parent 5/8 I'm an Alameda resident, former educator of the San Leandro Unified School District, and received my MA in Education from Stanford University in Policy, Organizations, and Leadership Studies. I've had opportunity to review the sample lessons available on your website, and find them rather embarrassing from a curricular standpoint. If the AUSD is promoting this curriculum under the banner of "Safe Schools," the sample lessons clearly do not achieve the objective of promoting empathy and tolerance and, more importantly, preventing bullying in schools. Furthermore, curriculum implementation requires proper teacher training, and it is unclear to me how the AUSD will produce teachers who can appropriately and tolerantly teach such lessons without alienating certain students and families who might morally be opposed to this curriculum. Parent 5/8 The newly revised curriculum is ridiculous. It's sad to see the school district bend so far backwards to please bigots. Everything that made this curriculum important has been stripped of it. Of course there should be discussions about welcoming and what not. That should have already been happening. As a parent of a bullied kindergartner, I know this too well. But this curriculum was supposed to address more than that. What a sad world we live in when so many people are so willfully ignorant and narrow minded. Kudos to them for their organized battle. They win. An Alameda mother who is really so tired of having my child picked on all of the time. P.S. Shame on the residents of Alameda who do not believe all children deserve physical and emotional safety. Really. And shame on the district. Outside Community Group 5/8 Elementary students are being targeted with proposed curriculum on homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in Alameda Unified School District. AUSD is now seeking community feedback -- and if the proposed curriculum is adopted, the district will not let parents opt-out. Karen England will be at the meeting to testify on Tuesday, May 12, at 6:30 p.m. Please join her, if you are a parent with kids in school, taxpayer, or interested community member. "Alameda needs to hear the clear opposition of people with traditional values. People with traditional values are not inherently intolerant and wrong, but that's the lesson kids would get starting at age five," said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. This multisexual curriculum is part of AUSD's "school safety" initiative. All students should be safe at school, but promoting safety and promoting multisexuality are not actually the same thing. Unfortunately, the social agenda first seen in San Francisco and Los Angeles continues to spread. Storybooks, group discussions, art activities, and film are part of the lesson plans for kindergarteners through fifth graders in AUSD. In kindergarten, being "welcoming" to all classmates is equated with supporting multisexuality. The first grade lesson plan trains children "to identify what makes a family" and teaches about same-sex couples. Third grade vocabulary includes "two moms" and "two dads." Fifth graders are required "to identify stereotypes about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people." "This curriculum ignores the fact that every child has a mom and a dad, to redefine ideas like 'family.' School absolutely should be a safe place, but this isn't just about safety. Students have to embrace highly controversial social values or risk being labeled as bigots," England said. "Five year old kids aren't ready to think on their own about sexuality -- and their families' values will be dismissed. That's not an education in critical thinking. It's social activism," she said. In one document, AUSD lists 12 multisexuality-focused organizations as community resources. These include the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education (glsen.org), Gay-Straight Alliance Network (gsanetwork.org), and Lavender Youth Recreation and Information Center (lyric.org). Parents will not be allowed to opt-out of multisexual lesson plans, if AUSD has its way. The district is interpreting state law to mean that parents have no legal right to opt-out of lessons on homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality, once the elementary lessons are implemented. "[T]he curriculum, which focuses on inclusion and respect, does not fall within the guidelines for opting out," said AUSD, in a Frequently Asked Questions document released this spring. By the same token, however, state law has nothing to prevent the district from allowing parent to opt into the curriculum. The district should be open with families rather than supersede them. AUSD has conducted a series of community forums on this curriculum. On Tuesday, May 12, it will hold one more public hearing. On Tuesday, May 26, the Board of Education will vote. If you are a parent, taxpayer, or community member, CRI encourages you to attend the May 12 meeting. Karen England will be traveling to Alameda to stand with families. This district needs to hear from community stakeholders who believe that schools are the wrong place to equate "tolerance" with "multisexual agreement." That's a false equation. Parent 5/8 I am writing to voice my opposition against the Alameda LGBT curriculum. I don't think that by teaching our children about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues will create a "safe" school. In fact, it may even create more confusion, tension, and name-calling among our children. I believe strongly in treating every single human being with respect and dignity. I have been taught that, and I continue to teach that to younger generations. However, having a set school curriculum to talk about these things will inevitably be biased. Our children will not be given all sides of the LGBT issue. And they may develop misconceptions of their own about what it means to be gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual. I am disappointed and saddened that so many Alameda residents do not see the danger in passing this curriculum. I don't think the word "Safe" is an accurate description of this curriculum. I can only foresee more violence and prejudice. Community Member 5/8 As a member of the Alameda community, I am writing to express my opposition to the LGBT curriculum. The curriculum focuses on a single group. If we are going to teach our children how to respect all people, such a curriculum should not be focused on a special-interest group. Parent 5/8 I am an Alameda resident and a parent of 1 child, and as such, I strongly oppose the "Safe Schools" curriculum. The name in itself is misleading because this is not an issue of safety or bullying so much as an agenda driven by the LGBT interest groups. The curriculum does not really address this issue of bullying. In addition, parents should at least be given the opportunity to opt out. If this curriculum is passed, i will have to seriously consider taking my child out of the alamead public schools and instead place her into charter schooling or home schooling. Parent 5/8 I strongly oppose to implement the LGBT curriculum because a complete curriculum on a single group is inconsistent with the diversity statute. The existing bullying statute addresses all protected classes. It does not stipulate special attention on one single group. Parent 5/8 I am an Alameda resident and would like to voice my opposition to the "Safe Schools" curriculum. I agree that tolerance and respect should be taught in our schools and that schools should take disciplinary action for bullying and name-calling. I support generalized curriculum on this topic. However, I believe this curriculum will be a form of intolerance in that one group would be singled out. Also, teaching on the topic of same sex couples inevitably will lead to statements of value judgments by the teachers. This will somehow deliver the message that instructors or enforcers of the law or education are biased, which may even cause children to grow up perpetuating further this issue of concern. We all know that the issue of homosexuality is a politically and morally charged topic, with greatly differing viewpoints, and as such, the public school setting is not the place where kids should be "taught" about this. In addition, teachers will be given a great deal of discretion on how much to say, with no quality control or means of monitoring. Calling this a "safety" issue is a thinly veiled attempt to sneak in curriculum that is actually moralizing and belongs in the arena of sex education, with an opt-in or opt-out option. We were given very little notice of the development of this and now that it is about to be voted on, we have not had sufficient time to review it. I request that this curriculum be rejected. Thank you for your time. Parent 5/8 Thank you for your hard work in gathering feedback for the proposed safe schools curriculum. As parents of 2 children in the Alameda school system, I would like to voice opposition for the current curriculum. I applaud your efforts to introduce curriculum to encourage safety and acceptance of everyone, however the curriculum should not single out specific groups. If so, then please include other groups based on ethnicity, religion, etc... Parent 5/8 As a parent of 2 k-5 children in AUSD, I am very concerned for the safety of my children and oppose bullying of any kind. However, I oppose the LGBT curriculum because there are portions that may even promote bullying. For example, in the 4th grade lesson, in one of the activities, the teacher may ask students to stand up next to the statement that best describe how they feel about taking certain actions to stop teasing Robert, a child of 2 moms. Then the teacher asks the students why they might feel very uncomfortable, a little uncomfortable, pretty comfortable, or very comfortable about making that choice. Since this is done publicly in the classroom setting, our children's right to privacy of their opinion is not protected. Children may feel pressured to stand up for a choice because the majority of their friends are standing up for that particular choice. And the few students who might stand up for an unpopular choice may be targetted for bullying and teasing on the playground or in situtations where teachers are not able to supervise student interactions. I think this is a breach of our children's right to privacy and may promote bullying and teasing. Parent 5/8 THE ALTERNATIVE TO A NINTH LESSON The identity theory on homosexuality is an academic error in the curriculum that results in errors of terminology and incorrect information in lessons. The AUSD may not be aware of this error because the attorney/consultant they hired for this work is connected to activist organizations that silence other theories. If there is any possibility that homosexuality is a behavior, not an identity, the current work should be stopped. This paper outlines three steps to creating an academically rigorous alternative to a ninth Caring School Community lesson. 1. Thank the committee for their work and decline approval for “Safe Schools” Curriculum: Addressing Issues of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. It is understandable that the AUSD thought an anti-discrimination professional with experience in schools would be an appropriate person to lead and advise on this. Barry Chersky, attorney and consultant, is the “Coach” for the Elementary Safe Schools Committee. The Committee is made up of the Assistant Supervisor, two Principals and 13 teachers (though some resigned). It is possible that the AUSD only knew that Chersky is on the Board of Directors for “Our Family Coalition”, the homosexual activist organization that did the plan for AUSD in 2007. Perhaps the AUSD are unaware that Chersky is also a member of the Bay Area Safe Schools Coalition, and has brought the California Safe Schools Coalition’s views into Alameda homes. They are activists and their definition for “homophobia” (political, not scientific) underpins the two AUSD documents promoting this curriculum. The Coalition’s website says they have a Law and Policy workgroup and a long-term legislative agenda. Chersky is also a Senior Facilitator for Groundspark’s “Respect For All Project” (RFAP). The two films the proposed curriculum are based on (the one for teachers, “Its Elementary,” also has a reference book) are made by Groundspark for the RFAP. Chersky hopes that children from traditional nuclear families feel excluded by “That’s a Family” (Teaching Tolerance website). Groundspark say on their website that they have a plan to silence people who voice concerns about the film. They will get the national media to report only their point of view, and they will protect school officials who want to show their film with their “rapid response network of civil rights, religious, mental health and education leaders.” Does the AUSD want to bully like this? The curriculum should not be approved because the premise is unsupported by science. The alternative view is that people may experience same sex attraction (SSA) temporarily. If it is due to childhood sexual abuse, or dysfunctional families, pushing children to identify as homosexual will leave them without help for the cause. The alternative view on transgender children is that they have Gender Identity Disorder (GID). If the goal is to protect children with SSA or GID from bullying, explaining only the “LBGT” identity solution is scientifically irresponsible.[i] Care is necessary to avoid creating more confusion and psychological damage to all children in public elementary schools. Symptoms or signs do not necessarily lead to a homosexual or transgender identity, nor is it necessarily permanent if they do. It is unethical to omit these facts. 2. Create a “common ground taskforce”, as suggested in the document “Public Schools and Sexual Orientation” (found on Mike McMahon’s website). Education officials, teachers and parents should set the example by being civil to those with whom they disagree. A common ground taskforce at the very least acknowledges that there are different theories about homosexuality. An appropriate leader would be educated in both the identity and the behavior theory, but be an advocate of neither (with no personal or professional vested interest in either). Heterosexual parents have a right to be represented for two reasons. Firstly, they may have children who are (or will be) bullied for perceived homosexuality. Secondly, their children will be the victims of any explicit or implied lessons that teach opinions disguised as facts about homosexuality and transgender. All parents have views on masculinity and femininity and none should be excluded from being on a committee because they are heterosexual. Eliminating bias in the committee will prevent the erosion of the academic quality in the curriculum. For example, homosexuality cannot be made comparable to race unless it is genetic. The American Psychological Association recently changed its statement on the cause of homosexuality from genetic ten years ago, to “no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.” And there are many studies that support the conclusion that people can and do change sexual preference.[ii] 3. Ask the taskforce to expand the “Teasing” and “Bullying” lessons within the current Caring School Community curriculum, ready for the 2010 school year. According to the State Department of Education, the Caring School Community program should “support all students – from the primary grades onward – to master both academic and social skills.[iii] The current lessons could be strengthened by researching the many ideas for preventing bullying (“Safe Schools” is the only program that isolates one group) to better support all students. The taskforce may also expand the current lesson on family (HMR) to reflect diversity. Alameda’s elementary schools can implement anti-discrimination laws without sacrificing academics to social engineering. It is a worthy goal to “give teachers the tools they need,” but better to get the facts right than to give them the wrong tools. The AUSD would be wise to wait until fall 2010 for tools based on fact and reason, not emotion and politics. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parent 5/5 Thank you for your work thus far on this curriculum. You have made many changes that indicate your willingness to listen to both sides of this issue. Many appreciate that. Some of the lessons in this curriculum are excellent, particularly the K and 1st grade lessons that focus on reflecting back to our children the different varieties of families that exist in our community. Most importantly, the lessons are non-biased either way. The second grade lesson is, however, completely inappropriate and does not meet the goals of creating tolerance or reducing bullying in our schools. The book, And Tango Makes Three, is based on the false assumption that if two men (or in this case two animals) spend a lot of time together and enjoy each others’ company than they must be gay. This is an obviously ridiculous notion and definitely undermines healthy non-sexual same-sex friendships, which is one of the most important kinds of relationships that exist at the elementary school level. It is imperative that we do not add to any child’s confusion on the topic of sexuality by sending confusing messages that make them wonder if having a best friend of the same sex means that they are gay. In addition, neither this book nor the activity that follow remain non-biased. Teachers are required to ask children to judge whether or not Roy and Silo are a couple and then are further required to prompt children that they in fact are a couple if a child says no. Can you not see how uncomfortable and confused a child might feel if they were to answer that Roy and Silo are not necessarily a couple and then have the teacher correct them otherwise? If a child feels that they are not a couple than they shouldn’t be forced to say that they are. There can be no questions, books, DVD’s, or activities that require a child to answer that homosexuality is or is not okay. To do so either way would infringe on an individual’s right to his/her personal beliefs. Again, it is essential that we create lessons that do not require a child to have any specific opinion on homosexuality or any alternative lifestyle. This is the way to protect both the child who does and the child who does not agree with homosexuality on a moral level. Please review this second grade lesson. It is seriously flawed and must be replaced. Can I suggest using the book, Families, by Susan Kuklin as a substitute? It depicts real children from every single kind of family you can imagine, including gay families, describing in their own words the realities of their lives. It’s great because it is simple and yet each and every child will be able to see his/herself reflected back in this book. A lesson involving discussion of the book and creating their own page to model those in the book (a picture of the child with their family, a narrative about their experiences within their family, and an additional picture of their choosing) would be an excellent way for each child to share with the others in the class their family system…and it would be done using our children’s words which would help to ensure that it was age appropriate. Please check this book out! It is wonderful! Please! Help our parents understand the correct definition of tolerance. According to dictionary.com tolerance is defined as "the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others." There is nothing in this definition that says that in order to tolerate another's beliefs one must agree with them or accept them as his own. As long as we continue to mis-define this word people will feel that they can simply say that those who feel that teaching about homosexuality and homosexual lifestyles is not tolerant. This is not true and, in fact, becomes an expression of intolerance itself. Some parents simply want to allow their children to grow up free of adult issues. Why is that such a bad thing? There are plenty of people who cannot support homosexuality, but do a great job of respecting people who do. More than anything I do not want you to teach my children that they are only being tolerant when they completely agree with another's opinion or do whatever someone else wants. This takes away their freedom of speech and freedom of thought, as well as their sense of individuality. Please find a way to include a correct definition of tolerance in the lessons so we can begin to correct this error in our community Community Group 5/5 The Board of Directors of Girls Inc. of the Island City unanimously voted to support the addition of the LGBT component to the Caring Schools Community Curriculum. President Marilyn Sandifur sends you the following letter on behalf of the Board: Dear AUSD Board of Education, Organizations like Girls Inc. exist because stereotypes and gender discrimination toward girls and women are still present in society. Bullying among, and toward, girls and women in schools and the workplace still occurs all too often. Intentional curriculum addressing this form of harassment is critical to creating safe environments for girls in educational, social and afterschool settings. The same is true for LGBT individuals. LGBT students frequently endure uninformed, hurtful and often hateful messages. The scars that result from this type of ignorant and cruel behavior are not always visible but are most certainly felt by the innocent victim. The deconstruction of harmful words and actions is critical to ensuring that LGBT students are mentally and physically safe. Adding specific curriculum that teaches children respect for LGBT individuals is essential to maintaining safe school environments where all students can thrive. As we protect and educate all of our students, we help young people grow into productive contributing members of society. We strongly support the addition of the LGBT component to the Caring Schools Community curriculum as an important step first in addressing the needs of all groups in our community. Parent 5/5 We are parents of a preK child, soon to be in Kindergarten, and we've been made aware of where our school district is at, with regards to the possible passing of curriculum that addresses LGBT related issues. Though we fully support disciplinary measures and education towards perpetrators of schoolyard bullying, and we would reinforce this at home, we find this "safe school" curriculum to be dishonest about the goals and to be entirely one-sided Realistically, even if this curriculum doesn't pass this year, I can't see how the withholding of this material will be sustained. So my requests are in the following order:
The very fact that this curriculum is a hot topic which polarizes our entire community, it only makes sense to respect the wishes of parents who would rather not have their children receive these particular lessons in a classroom setting by at LEAST giving advance notice of the lessons and providing the option to not attend these classes. If none of the above requests are given, we will certainly pull out our child and our future children out of the AUSD schools, and seek out charter schools, private schools, or even homeschooling possibilities Parent 5/5 I am an Alameda resident and a parent of 1 child, and as such, I strongly oppose the "Safe Schools" curriculum. The name in itself is misleading because this is not an issue of safety so much as an agenda driven by the LGBT interest groups. It is not appropriate to discuss and define words such as "lesbian," "gay" and "transgender" to elementary school-aged children. It is almost impossible to discuss these issues without bringing in some moral bias. At the least, parents should have been given more opportunity to comment on the development of this curriculum, but instead, the curriculum has been developed and even piloted without input from those who are opposed to it. This was handled in a deceptive manner and is now causing polarization in our community. I believe in and teach acceptance of all people to my children at home where I can impart the values I believe with respect to sexual orientation. If we are going to teach tolerance, it should be kept at a general level and not so focused on one specific interest group. Our tax dollars should not be used in support of such curriculum. In addition, parents should at least be given the opportunity to opt out. Community Member 5/4 I am writing in support of your new curriculum "Addressing Issues of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity," as updating the curriculum to include these issues should simply be a matter of common sense as we educate youth in a modern world. The sad fact is that, in this supposedly modern world, in such a prosperous city, in what should be the most enlightened country on the planet, we continue to see evidence that respect for all humans is not yet de rigueur. I hope that you will also work to ensure that this new curriculum is fully implemented as required coursework and not something from which families can "opt out." Again, this curriculum is about facing facts about society and the world in general, it is about teaching relationship skills and respect for all humans, and it is about accepting that some people's families and relationships look different from, but do not have any affect upon, one's own. Presumably, the schools would not permit a family that belonged to the Flat Earth Society to "opt" their children out of the geography and science curricula because they disagree. The lessons on tolerance, diversity, understanding, respect, and accepting the various faces that make up our entire society are just as basic. Please do not get sidetracked by those who want to keep their heads in the sand. I believe this work is paramount to making our schools safe and supporting the diversity in our community and the world at large. Parent 5/3 I am a parent of 2 students in K-5 grade in our school district. I am very opposed to the teaching of this LGBT curriculum in the public school setting. It is my right as a parent to educate my children regarding these issues. If this curriculum passes and parents are not informed in a meaningful way so that we can opt out of these lessons, I will be forced to withdraw both my children from Amelia Earhart School and seek out charter or private school options. Parent 5/3As a person of mixed heritage, I support the proposed Safe Schools Curriculum Addressing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. When I was born in 1964, interracial marriage was illegal in many parts of the country with felony penalties. Although it had been legal in California since 1948, it was still rare. And so when my parents took me for a walk in the baby carriage, people on the street would stare at my mother, a Chinese woman, then at my father, a Caucasian man, and then discreetly or not so discreetly peer down into the carriage to see what their baby was like. Mother says that some were kind, and others judgmental, but that she did not overly concern herself and only felt pride as any new mother would. For my sake, however, she was thankful to all who were kind to her child. I am grateful to the California Supreme Court for repealing the anti-interracial marriage law in 1948 against popular sentiment. If they had not done so, I would not exist. Both in preschool and in church, my children have made friends with children who “have two Mommies.” My daughters do not think it strange. I want to keep it that way. I don’t want them ever to feel that their affection is wrong. I want them to hear from their teachers that the love which they extend to their friend is proper. Welcome and acceptance are such powerful healing forces. I wish support for them in developing that kind of strength. Parent 5/1While to many this seems like an ‘innocent’ agenda, it can open another ‘can of worms’. It is clear that name-calling, taunting, teasing, bullying, within AUSD schools occurs at every grade level. AUSD does have a nearly 10 year old policy which requires all staff to intervene when ever this occurs, but staff has never been trained on how to properly and safely do so. Many staff persons may feel fear of parental initiated litigation if they intervene. There is personal and professional risk involved in intervening on one’s own without a District-approved procedure or protocol to follow. AUSD Administration must provide staff with a clearly written standard protocol on how to intervene, what steps to take, what they can say or do, so staff can properly act without creating a personal liability for themselves. Without such specific authority, it is easy to understand why so often staff will refrain from involvement. It was pointed out at the 2-28-09 BOE MTG that at the Oct ‘08 staff development day, AUSD staff was surveyed which made it clear that staff requests training on intervention in all aspects of bullying including but not limited to the misuse of LGBTQ terms. Why is AUSD even considering a new K-5 anti-bulling curriculum without providing staff the necessary tools to fulfill their obligation to existing policies prohibiting ANY teasing, name calling or bullying? Staff requested these tools, not a new agenda. Also, “Healthy kids” surveys of AUSD students have been done every two years to find among other things, which issues relating to bullying affect them the most. According to this survey of our students LGBT related bullying is almost inconsequential compared to what the kids say are the focus of name calling and bullying, -nationality and race. While some AUSD administrators claim we already have a curriculum to address these issues, it is not working and AUSD has not provided the tools to properly and consistently address bullying teasing, name calling etc. A pertinent question to ask is “Why is AUSD Administration focusing on what the LGBTQ community in and outside our district feels is important on these bullying issues rather than focusing on what our own staff and students say is important and ongoing in our schools relating to these bullying issues?" This is not a civil rights issue; it cannot be compared to the civil rights movement in the 60’s. No Alameda LGBT families are being prevented from enrollment in our schools or from participating in any of the AUSD related activities that non-LGBT families engage in. If AUSD Administration allows this agenda and curriculum will they also be obligated to allow a curriculum on traditional values and mores brought forth by a heterosexual organization? There would be many good reasons for such a curriculum. Without teaching religion, students could be informed how Christian values and teachings set standards and understandings for the behavior of our society even prior to the formation of the first 13 colonies. A whole grade specific set of lessons could be built to teach about various world events which lead to different religions immigrating to the US and modifications to our public mores. It could be explained how having traditional values helped our country and individuals, and led to social and economic stability. There could be lessons on famous and charismatic moral leaders. And if such a curriculum was requested for AUSD students by an openly heterosexual committee, and refused by AUSD, wouldn’t that be clear grounds for a lawsuit based on discrimination; that a questionable LGBTQ agenda which could harm and confuse pre-pubescent children was allowed, but that a curriculum based on traditional values brought forth by a heterosexual community was not allowed? There are always unforeseen consequences. I urge the BOE to dismiss this proposed LGBT curriculum which was put together by a group lacking equal representation of our community (and still has not posted all the related information promised onto the District website.) Instead I urge the BOE to direct AUSD Administration to fulfill the requests of staff by providing a clearly written standard protocol on how to intervene with name calling and bullying so that all forms of bullying can finally be curtailed by staff without fears of reprisal. Just provide our staff the tools to proceed without personal liability, and make their actions or lack of actions a part of their performance reviews. Parent 5/1 Thank you very much for working to include the LGBT curriculum in Alameda schools, to help create a safe and caring community for all students and families. I have reviewed the revised curriculum and think it is excellent and very age-appropriate. I support adopting the revised curriculum. I see no reason to have an “opt out” provision since this curriculum supports embracing diversity as well as being an ally for all people. I also think it would be ideal to include strategies and techniques for elementary school teachers to help them identify and intervene appropriately when children in the school are targeted, bullied, stereotyped, etc. Often an anti-LGBTQ climate is “under the teacher’s radar” or dismissed as unimportant, or skirted when teachers are not sure how to deal with the issues. I am a parent of a 4th grade xxx Elementary student and a 7th grade xxx student, a former elementary school teacher, and a current consultant and trainer/educator with the Institute for Reproductive Health. I have many friends and colleagues in the LGBTQ community, including my youngest sister, and am advocating as an ally for the LGBTQ community as well as all people in our community. This type of curriculum and open dialogue can help us raise our children and families to embrace diversity as well as support and protect those who are bullied or stereotyped for any reason. Parent 5/1 Thank you for your hard work, that was quite a long board meeting on Tuesday! As an AUSD parent and teacher, I would much prefer that parents be able to opt out of the Safe School lesson than for these lessons to be watered down. Parent 4/30 My daughter will be starting kindergarten this fall in Alameda. I am expressing my disapproval of the proposed LGBT Curriculum. I have attended the local school meeting as well as the AUSB Board of Education meeting on April 28, 2009. The more I listen at these meetings, the more I am convinced that this curriculum, whether intentional or not, is promoting the LGBT lifestyle. This curriculum specifically addresses the of bullying in regards to LGBT. I have yet to hear, to my satisfaction, why other issues of bullying are not addressed. My understanding is that the number one reason why students are bullied is not because of sexual orientation, but race. Yet, this curriculum does not specifically address race, or gender, or physical disability. Throughout these discussions few have mentioned that, to many parents, myself included, this curriculum creates a moral issue. I reserve the right to teach my child the morals my wife and I choose to teach and impress upon her. Please do not teach my 5 year old daughter about the LGBT lifestyle. I will teach her at home about such things and at the time I deem appropriate. By approving this curriculum, you no doubt are violating my parental rights. I personally know parents who will remove their children from the Alameda school district and send them to private school if this curriculum is approved. Having to choose between a good education and the right to raise their children the way they seem fit is very wrong. These are the same parents who volunteer at school, support fund raisers, and place signs on their front lawns supporting Proposition H. Yet, when you ask us about our concerns regarding the proposed curriculum, they fall on deaf ears. I suggest that you as a board reject this curriculum. There must be a curricula available that would satisfy the Save Schools mandate without creating such a moral quagmire. It behooves the board to make an effort to find a curriculum that would be acceptable to all sides. Isn't there a curriculum that addresses bullying among all five protected groups, not just specifically LGBT? The board and committee must continue the search that would satisfy the Safe Schools mandate without creating so much division in this community. In doing so, you will get my support, and surely the support of others. Elementary School Student 4/30 My name is xxxx. I go to xxx School and my parents told me about the new curriculum. I think the curriculum is weird. Because for example, teaching kindergartners and 1st graders, I know some of them and they learn lines from movies that they don't even know what it is, and they might even think that the things that the new curriculum teaches them is okay to copy even though they don't understand what it is about. So please don't teach us this curriculum. Signed student entering fifth grade. Grandparent 4/29 I am writing because I OPPOSE the GLBT curriculum. I have two young grandsons, one of which will be entering kindergarten in the fall. Why is this bullying training only directed to GLBT? What about all the other children who get bullied everyday, for being too fat, too skinny(anorexic), uncool, muslim, christian,jewish, glasses, biracial(which my grandson is)and on and on. Aren't these children just as important???This GLBT is a disguise for sex education.These children are too young. I urge you not to implemnt this. Many parents will take their children to private schools, AUSD is already strapped for money, what about the NO VOTES next time you want a tax or bond?? I believe the TEACHERS need training for each sensitive unique situation in bullying. Parent 4/29 I am a district teacher and elementary school parent. I fully support the proposed Safe Schools Curriculum (I actually would have preferred the original version). There is no reason that children should not learn to not just “be tolerant of”, but to empathize with and care for people who may be different from them. Safe Schools curriculum accomplishes this in a meaningful and low-key way. There is nothing I find offensive in any of the lessons and I fail to see the “sex ed” aspect that so many parents have complained about. (If parents think their elementary-aged child knows nothing about sex or sexuality, they’d better think again!) The arguments raging around same-sex marriage and whether homosexuality or transgenderism are “lifestyles” or biological facts will continue to rage. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could teach our children to thoughtfully consider everyone’s point of view? To get beyond name-calling and start listening? Both the Safe Schools and Caring Schools Community curriculums are designed to help our children do just that, and they properly belong in our public schools Parent 4/29 I am writing in support of your new curriculum "Addressing Issues of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity". Teaching our children to be tolerant of others in our community is essential. This should not be an "opt-out" lesson plan. In fact, I think there's an even more important lesson for children who come from families that disapprove of non-heterosexual orientations - all of our children must know that they don't need to agree with someone, or even like them, to accept them as who they are. My daughter is six years old and hopefully will be attending Otis School in the fall. In preschool and around Alameda she has already met other children whose families look "different" from ours - one parent, only grandparents, parents of different ethnicities, two mothers, two fathers, non-native English speakers - and she accepts them all. Yet, being Jewish, we are a minority ourselves, and I know that at some point someone will not accept her and say something terrible to her, as has happened to both my wife and me. At least I feel confident that anti-semitism would not be tolerated in school. Knowing the pain and fear of hatred, I must ask that if you do all that you can to increase understanding and acceptance for all children in our schools. Parent 4/29 I am an MSW (Social Worker) who works with transitional age youth with developmental disabilities and have worked with youth of all ages for several years who come from every possible background you can imagine. I am writing to applaud and support the new curriculum "Addressing Issues of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity". Making our public schools safe and appropriate for ALL families including our LGBTQ families, their children, and LGBTQ youth is long overdue. I moved here from Seattle two years ago and was very active as a young person in getting SAFE SCHOOLS legislation passed and specifically addressing the blatant discrimination of LGBT youth and their family. Efforts to dismantle prejudice, ignorant and injustice systems are paramount to making the world safer and just place for all people. And it is my belief that schools play an invaluable role in providing a safe place where young minds can learn about the diversity that exists in our world. I must also share with you my concern that providing notification to families and/or giving them the opportunity to "opt-out" supports bias. As a person who works with children with autism, cerebral palsy, mental retardation and or epilepsy I cannot imagine how offended the community at large would be if given notification to opt their child out of a lesson plan that taught children about what it means to be developmentally disabled let alone allow them to opt out of a course about racism, classism, sexism, or ageism. I cannot wrap my mind around the idea of allowing parents to choose to not have their child learn about the lessons of Martin Luther King. Teaching children about tolerance and how to respect diversity is not something that should be confused with a "moral issue" or "sex education". One of the greatest things a teacher can do is to teach critical thinking skills. A young mind that is able to consider all sides of an issue by using critical thinking skills to formulate their position on any issue (a task that every adult person has to deal with daily) is vital especially in today’s world where media all to often shapes perceptions about what is culturally relevant and “normal” To allow these issues to become entangled muddies your mission. Parent 4/28 I'm writing in support of the proposed LGBT update to the Safe Schools curriculum. I had hoped to speak at the Board meeting last night but I drew babysitting duty instead. I am disappointed that introduction of words such as "gay" and "lesbian" has been deferred until later grades. I understand this may be a concession that is required to calm a vocal group who object to this curriculum, but those words are already in use - abusively - by some kids in lower grades. I think Jon Soglin's suggestion that they be introduced as referring to having "two dads" or "two mums" is a good one. I hope that legal counsel indicates that you are not obligated to provide an opt-out to parents for this part of the Safe Schools curriculum. The curriculum is not advocacy of any specific values or lifestyle, other than the very basic value of mutual respect. I see no justification why parents should be allowed to opt out, and I hope that none is provided. am sure you will all continue to take considerable heat from some parts of the community on this issue, but I encourage you to have the confidence to approve the curriculum in May. I think that those dogmatically opposed to it are a small minority who will not find any broad support for their complaints, once the curriculum is successfully rolled out after training of our teachers. Parent 4/28 THE ALTERNATIVE TO THE REVISED LGBT CURRICULUM ISSUE: The third version of the “Safe Schools” Curriculum: Addressing Issues of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (dated April 24) is an improvement on earlier versions, but will not achieve the AUSD’s goal of a “safe and welcoming atmosphere for all students”. WHY THE APRIL 24 VERSION OF “SAFE SCHOOLS” IS INAPPROPRIATE
APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENT TO CSC CURRICULUM
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BOARD
CONCLUSION The proposed sexual orientation curriculum should be rejected because it will not make schools safe and welcoming for all students. Alameda’s public elementary schools can implement anti-discrimination laws without sacrificing academics to social engineering. HEALTH EDUCATION CONTENT STANDARDS FOR CA PUBLIC SCHOOLS CA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, MARCH 2008 KINDERGARTEN
GRADE ONE
GRADE TWO
GRADE THREE
GRADE FOUR
GRADE FIVE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [i] This book has topped the American Library Association’s list of the Most Frequently Challenged Books for three years, with readers citing that it is “unsuited to the age group”. http://www.ala.org/ala/newspresscenter/news/pressreleases2009/april2009/nlw08bbtopten.cfm Parent 4/28 I am writing to express my disappointment that the district has decided to water down the safe schools curriculum in order to appease a vocal minority. Eliminating the vocabulary in the original lessons is a terrible mistake. Children are exposed to anti gay language on a regular basis beginning in Kindergarten. By not acknowledging that gay and lesbian families exist to our elementary school children you will only continue an unsafe environment for our children. Why has the district gone through this exercise only to deliver some poor excuse for an inclusive curriculum? I implore you to do the right thing here and leave the curriculum as it was originally written so that LGBT children and the children of LGBT parents know that they are in a school community that embraces them for who they they are. Parent 4/28 My husband and I have checked the updated version of the lesson plans. We see that the committee has omitted some vocabularies for the purpose of presentation, but it is still using the SAME curriculum. We are residents and parents in Alameda for seven years. We are very disappointed to see the curriculum is proposed in Alameda school district, and how the district handles the process. It singles out small group of people and creates an environment against religious people or people with common sense about family. Many essential questions and concerns get ignored or discouraged on this matter. If BOE approves this curriculum and parents don't get the notification and can not opt out. It seems that we are forced into the situation of taking our kids out from Alameda public school. We will be very sorry to see it happen. Parent 4/27 As a family, we are writing to strongly support the inclusion of the Safe Schools Curriculum Addressing Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity in AUSD. We have been active parents in the Alameda schools since 2002. As a psychologist, I am acutely aware of the immediate and lasting damage that anti-gay language has on all children. This type of language is often used as the ultimate weapon for a bully who wants to degrade his or her peers. Any effective response to bullying has to directly take this on. Parent 4/27 We have been hoping this issue would be taught in our Alameda schools. The issue of what is, and who is, a "Queer" is often "taught" incorrectly on the the playground. We need to teach our kids to respect themselves and others. Just as the issue of bullying or reading should be taught in schools so should gender issues be taught, in a classroom with someone of knowledge doing the teaching. Please make sure that we deal with a safe school for all. We must be responsible and teach our children to have tolerance for all, even those they think might be different. High School Student 4/27 I am a 15 year old sophomore at xxx. I am really upset that my religious beliefs are being put down by having it said that I am "bigot" or a "homophobic" because I believe that a man and a woman are meant to be together. I have many gay and lesbian friends and family members. I do not discriminate against them and they don't discriminate against me. My brother is in elementary school and I don't think that he should be taught about gay families. I also don't think that ANYONE should be discriminated against. Including those of us who don't want to see this curriculum taught in schools. My brother and I are black and white. I get picked on daily for looking black and talking white. He gets picked on daily for looking too white. You are not coming up with a curriculum to stop that. I guarantee you will hear the N word used every single day on every school campus and you may or may not hear gay used as a slur. All discrimination should be stopped when it happens. Please don't pass this or we will feel discriminated against. Allow us all to believe as we choose while being tolerant of everyone. Parent 4/27 I am writing to register my support for the addition of LGBT issues to the Safe Schools curriculum. Parent 4/27 I am writing in strong support of the proposed curriculum. The importance of acknowledging and validating the actual experiences of our kids and their families cannot be overstated. Parent 4/27 I would like to voice my support of the Safe School curriculum. I support the adoption of this curriculum as an elementary teacher as well as a parent of an elementary age student. I disagree with the argument that students in kindergarten through fifth grade are too young for these lessons. I am reminded of two incidents from when I taught kindergarten and first grade at Paden School fifteen years ago. I had a kindergarten student that went around the room telling other students that her mother was a lesbian. My friend and colleague at the same school (she taught second and third grade) had a student that shared that she thought she was gay and would probably marry another female when she grew up. While we both did our best to address these issues as they came up, it would have been nice to have the support of a curriculum while doing so. With or without the curriculum, these topics will continue to come up in classrooms and playgrounds. Let’s give teachers the support they need to handle these issues in a respectful and professional manner. Parent 4/27 I support a safer schools curriculum. Parent 4/26 I have reviewed the safe school curriculum sent out by Mike McMahon and I wanted to voice my support for the program. I am a product of the AUSD and now have 1 child attending with two more to start. I fully support the AUSD's work to ensure all students, teachers, and families feels safe and welcome. We work with our children at home to discuss issues such as these and it is wonderful to see AUSD doing the same. Thanks for all the time and energy you have put into making this a part of the curriculum. I would like to note that I am against the idea of having families opt out of participating in this curriculum. I think all students should be expected to treat people with respect. Parent 4/26 I have reviewed the most recent material in the proposed LBGT curriculum to be discussed at this week’s BOE meeting. I am disappointed and think that this program should be rejected in toto. My objection is that this material is specific to LBGT when it should be generic to all individuals, emphasizing that no person or group should be disrespected, bullied or otherwise treated poorly by anyone for any reason. It is that simple. Others have written eloquently and at length with moral and legal objections as well as identifying the lack of specific legal requirements for a program dedicated to LGBT rather than to the population as a whole. Similarly, others have written in support of the program with equal eloquence and reference to their personal experience. All are genuine and heartfelt. It is my opinion that the specificity of the LGBT focus is more related to adults projecting their personal (and now historic) experiences onto a new generation than it is related to what elementary kids are actually doing knowingly. Without guidance, kids will always make fun of and ridicule others that seem to be different, they will repeat words and phrases they have heard from bigger kids or adults without understanding the meaning of the words or their context. None of this is acceptable and it should always be admonished and corrected. But, it is a generic situation and it should be stopped generically and wholly rather than singling out a specific group for attention and ignoring others. Are the non-LGBT victims less worthy or of less value? Certainly not. I urge the district to redesign the curriculum to address its original target of bullying, inclusive of everyone, and not single out a group for special treatment at the expense of others. Parent 4/26 We write in support of the new curriculum "Addressing Issues of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.” Everything we have observed in our local schools points to a diverse and welcoming community. Every child from every type of family should be made to feel welcome and supported. Your mission to make our public schools safe and appropriate for all family and the youth who attend is long overdue and inspired. We believe this work is absolutely necessary to prepare children for the diversity in our community and the world at large. We are concerned that giving parents an opportunity to "opt-out" supports bias and perpetuates the type of community Alameda does not want to become – factional, isolated and intolerant. Parent 4/25 This is still a seemingly innocuous and surreptitious way of telling young children essentially that LGBT families are just the same as heterosexual families and there is no difference and this is simply not true. So, why tell these little kids a lie when study after study points out that children need both a male and female parent in the home for the best development of the child. My daughter and her husband are well able to teach and have from the start taught their children that all children are a child of God and loved by God and that they need to do the same. This is simply not a necessary change and if you think it is, then I believe that you are being bamboozled and pressured by these LGBT groups and (with all due respect) don't have the guts to stand up to them and tell them that is the wrong road to take and will lead to total confusion with all the questions that will be raised. Parent 4/25 Aside from the few typos and incomplete sentences in the lesson plans posted on the AUSD site, is it possible for changes to be made, or for teachers to include vocabulary words not listed but which were part of the prior version of the curriculum? Is there a commitment, or will the BOE request / require a commitment by AUSD to NOT include the vocabulary which so many parents felt were inappropriate for the K-5 age levels in the earlier version? My fear is that this is the same curriculum but just like the vocabulary omissions made by Assistant Superintendent Debbie Wong at the earlier public meetings the district may be making omissions to what is actually part of the curriculum at these presentations. Will the BOE require the complete curriculum as revised, and the texts, to be available for public review from the April 28 meeting to the May 12 meeting? After all it was only by reviewing the full curriculum at the District offices that the public was able to see was Ms Wong was not including in her presentations to the public. I am still concerned and puzzled as to how and why “LBGT” will be defined and used. This is still a stumbling block for fully embracing the way AUSD is trying to achieve the goal. Can you explain this in terms of the goal? Why teach the terms bisexual and transgender prior to classes on human sexuality which begin in grade 5? Also, I'm hoping your memory is better,- and it would save me time looking up the BOE Policy # whereby the BOE requires all staff to take action whenever name calling or bullying takes place. Will the District or Board be examining how to make that happen, especially at higher grades? Parent 4/25 I wanted to voice my support for the Caring Curriculum. My son, who will be entering kindergarten next year, has already asked questions about different family structures. He has a friend in preschool with two moms. Since this topic is simply reality for those living in Alameda, it makes sense to expose students early to a curriculum that teaches them to be welcoming of all students. I would argue that to not do so certainly makes those in the LGBT community more vulnerable to teasing and bullying. I'm sure districts faced the same negative arguments from parents when deciding to teach students to be welcoming of students of different races or ethnicities. I hope the district implements this curriculum so that all students feel safe and welcome. Parent 4/25 I support the proposed additions to the Safe Schools curriculum to address LGBT people. I read the last few days' e-mail entries, which are largely opposed to the proposal, and I couldn't help but respond: Response to April 23 Parent entry: The parent says it is “unethical to teach approval of a specific lifestyle choice that is well beyond the understanding of an elementary aged child. Why are children to be indoctrinated to approve of homosexuality and transgenderism.” The curriculum doesn’t “teach approval” and sexual orientation is not a “lifestyle choice.” There is no “indoctrination” to approve of anything. The actual curriculum, which is available at http://www.alameda.k12.ca.us/Lesson%20plans.htm, teaches the facts about the variety of make-ups of existing families, something that we’ve been doing for divorced families, for example, for years, so that children of single parents don’t feel left out, and no one argues that we’ve been promoting divorce. It teaches about how name-calling and slurs can be hurtful. It teaches that stereotypes are not necessarily accurate. It teaches that people like “men who love men” and “women who love women” exist, which is well within elementary school children’s ability to comprehend and is factually true, as is the fact that some people who have one body type feel like the other sex. It teaches them that these people exist both in our community and in history. Is the role of our educational system to hide those people from the children and pretend they don’t exist? Response to first April 20 Parent entry that is listed after the April 23 entry: The parent says “I will do everything in my power to get those responsible for this invasion into the rights of a family voted out of office.” The Board should not be frightened by such threats. Lots of Alamedans are behind the District on this, and, based on the tally, there are actually more people in favor than there are opponents . . . and we can organize as well. In fact, based on the recent Prop. 20 vote (where Alamedans voted more than 2-to-1 against depriving same sex couples of the right to marry), there are a lot more of us than there are anti-LGBT people in Alameda . Response to second April 20 Parent entry listed after the April 23 entry: Claim: It is not appropriate to be dealing with sexual behavior concepts at the young age. Response: Review the curriculum at http://www.alameda.k12.ca.us/Lesson%20plans.htm. It’s totally innocuous; indeed, it’s so watered down as to be insufficiently effective. The word “gay” isn’t even introduced until the kids are between 8 and 10 years old. By that time, kids have been throwing that word around as an insult for years. Isn’t it better that they know that it is a description of a man who loves another man instead of a hostile insult? Isn’t it better that they understand that using it as an insult hurts other children and especially those who may be gay? The concern about dealing with sexual behavior concepts is a complete red-herring, there is absolutely no discussion of sexual acts or behavior; the words are defined only in terms of romantic orientation. Even in 4th grade, at age 9 or 10, they simply explain that bisexual means someone who is romantically attracted to either a man or a woman. That’s it. No explanation of sex acts. These kids already know about romantic attraction. The curriculum just defines a word as someone who can have such attraction to people of both genders. Homosexual is defined as “gay” or “lesbian.” Lesbian is defined as a woman who loves another woman in a very special way. This concern is beyond prudery. It is simple ignorance of the curriculum. Claim: This is not necessary, in part because we can have broad-based anti-bullying and anti-name calling training. Response: This comment fails to recognize the realities about the limited scope of our current curriculum or the underlying issue, which is that children tease and call each other names because they see the victims of their name-calling as foreign, different, strange. So you need to teach about different people in order to stop the bullying and name-calling. There is clear social science research showing that including information about LGBT people and issues in the school curriculum substantially reduces anti-LGBT harassment and makes all kids feel safer. It is particularly important that we teach about the LGBT community because LGBT status is not visible like race and gender. Page 4 of the “Ensuring Safe Schools in [AUSD]” document (link near the top of this page) says that not one AUSD high school student identified as LGBT on a confidential questionnaire even though 61% said they know of classmates who so identify. These kids are driven into the closet, which is incredibly damaging. People are generally not closeted about their race or gender. Claim: Elevates LGBT interests over other legally protected human characteristics. Response: This is factually untrue. Although we don’t already have specific anti-bias curricula and although we need more, we at least have some level of visibility and modeling of respect on women’s issues, racial justice issues, and immigration issues. Right now we have nothing at all on LGBT issues. Adding this tiny bit to the curriculum will not come anywhere close to putting LGBT issues on par with education on these other issues. Moreover, much of the curriculum is not even limited to LGBT issues. Look, for example, at the use of the film “That’s a Family” in third grade. Take a look at the curriculum at http://www.alameda.k12.ca.us/Lesson%20plans.htm. Moreover, gay bashing is distinguishable from other types of taunts because gender variant kids, kids of non-straight sexual orientations, or even kids who are simply labeled that way do not have the inherent familial support that, e.g., children of minority ethnic groups have. In other words, if there are racial or ethnic slurs, probably more than nine times out of ten, the children return home to families of the same race and ethnicity, where they have the familial support that social science tells us is so key. That’s not true of gender variant or LGB children. It’s that isolation which is primarily responsible for the intense emotional impact that gay bashing has. Which brings us to the point. Kids affected by this sort of behavior experience dramatic effects. They are killing themselves all over the country because of relentless harassment. On Tuesday, the 21st a 10-year-old outside of Atlanta was found hanging in his bedroom after relentless taunting about gender and sexual orientation. Four days earlier, the same thing with an 11-year-old. Two weeks ago, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover hanged himself, after enduring months of threats, harassment and anti-gay slurs. He would have turned 12 last Friday. A couple weeks before that, a 17-year-old. How often do you hear that someone killed himself or herself because of racial epithets? Claim: District Goal 3 doesn’t require this. Response: The only analysis given to support this claim is that District Goal 3 doesn’t specifically say anything about teaching sexual orientation and gender identity. However, when you combine the general language of District Goal 3 with the social science research, which explains that this sort of curriculum is necessary to achieve the goals in District Goal 3, it becomes clear that district Goal 3 does require this. And even if it didn’t, the courts have said that the Equal Protection clause of both the State and Federal Constitutions require school districts to take adequate measures to protect children from harassment. When the district takes action and the harassment continues, they need to do something more. And with new evidence that curricular material is key to improving school climates, it’s hard to imagine the justification for refusing to teach children that LGBT people exist and are entitled to be treated with the same respect due to all human beings. Claim: AB 537 doesn’t require this. Response: Read page 8 of the document entitled “Ensuring Safe Schools in [AUSD]” (link near the top of this page). You note that the task force was charged with developing recommendations. Did you read the recommendations? Bullet five of the task force recommendations: “developing anti-bias educational programs.” Response to third April 20 Parent entry listed after the April 23 entry: This entry reflects the convoluted thinking of the opposition. The writer writes that her nine-year-old was shown that two men got married, and this upsets her because she believes nine-year-olds are too young for parents “to have to explain to them that two men cannot make a baby together.” Who said anything about making babies? They were shown that two men got married. That’s why we call the curriculum age-appropriate – it avoids getting into reproduction. The school didn’t say anything about sex. She explains that her concern is that this really is effectively sex education because “it sure leads to the questions.” But how is that any more true than seeing a man and a woman getting married and wanting to know how they make a baby? She then says its her responsibility to explain those details to her kids, not the schools. But that’s exactly what the school did – leave it to her to go into those details if she wants and give a simple answer if she doesn’t want to go into details (e.g., “they can’t make a baby; they can adopt”). Simple. Response to April 19 Parent entry: Claim: Bullying and name-calling should be addressed in a general, all-inclusive manner. Response: Part of how you do that is by teaching about all kinds of differences, and we already teach about other differences in our regular curricula, so this aspect is currently being left out. Moreover, it is arguably more critical to teach about this difference because if children see only hostility toward LGBT people in the culture at school and receive no conflicting messages at home (as they do if they are children of color raised in families of color, for example), the risk of isolation and suicide is extreme. Claim: This issue is dividing our community and creating tension instead of fostering tolerance. Response: the divisions are already there, and bringing them to the fore is no basis for rejecting a policy that is critical to the well-being of all of our children. The writer also expresses a concern that we are trying to indoctrinate children to have the same beliefs. Response: the curriculum does not tell the children what they should believe. It tells them about people who exist in our community and in history. See above response to April 23 entry. The only values it arguably teaches them are kindness and basic respect (i.e., it’s not nice to say and do things that hurt other people). Parent 4/24 As I watch the District dial back this already anemic curriculum proposal, I become more and more concerned that political fear is being put ahead of our children's safety. In case you haven't been following the news lately, I'm talking about the kind of harassment - verbal anti-LGBT harassment - that led two elementary age children to commit suicide within the last week. Without serious progress - the kind of progress that research shows is possible with meaningful curriculum about LGBT people and issues - the harassment in AUSD schools is going to continue, and we are going to have our own tragedies, whether seen or unseen, as a result. Even though we can't identify them, there is no doubt that there are children in our elementary schools - in kindergarten, 1st grade, 4th grade - who will turn out to be LGBT. Kids don’t just show up in middle school and suddenly create an anti-gay climate on their own. They absorb what we teach them – at school and at home. If we’re teaching them at school that we don’t talk about LGBT people to young children, we’re teaching them that there’s something wrong with being gay. That’s the source of the hostile climate; the kids are just reflecting back to us what we teach by our silence. Knowing that some of those kids will turn out to be gay, and given the very real suicide risk associated independently with school harassment and with family rejection, we should all feel personally responsible for teaching all of the children in our community that LGBT people exist and are respected and welcomed no matter what our religious beliefs. If you don't know it already, the statistics on the effects of anti-LGBT school harassment are staggering. A study of 21-25 year old LGBT young adults shows reflects not only the well-recognized link during adolescence but that the suicide risk associated with school victimization continues well into adulthood: http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file186_27147.pdf Are you really ok with taking that risk for your child - or the child of your neighbor, or even the child of the people you detest who live down the street? I expect the Board will adopt this curriculum, but if that's all the Board members do, they had better know that it's a far cry from the sort of leadership that we expect and deserve when it comes to creating safe and inclusive school climates. The Board should send a public message to the District and to teachers that they are expected and encouraged to identify and to implement a more robust program that includes LGBT people and issues in the curriculum, that provides training for teachers and staff where there are gaps, and that encourages teachers who are LGBT to come out, by letting them know that it is safe to be out. One out teacher who is treated with respect by the administration models for all children in our schools the kind of messages we're trying to teach them about respect for others and about self-respect. The Board also should send a message to the District that it should be working hard to identify the best measures to address other issues in our community, most salient among them the need for a concerted effort to address racial harassment. The fix for racial harassment may not be more visibility or additional curriculum. These problems are not one size fits all. But they all have solutions, and it's the Board's job to signal to the District that there will be no political reprisals for stepping up to the plate and taking action. And it's the District's job to fix it; if we want to do anything about these problems, we can’t afford to have every measure the District wants to take vetted by the Board over a six month period. Of course, it’s also the responsibility of the community to help the District figure out how to fix these problems. The District cannot and should not defer to the community but it should turn to the community for resources and information that can make it more effective in protecting and teaching our children. Parent 4/24 I am completely against the Alameda school district wanting to teach gay and transgender tolerance and education to K-5 school children. These topics are inappropriate to be taught to children at such a young age. As a resident of Alameda and as a parent of three children that attend schools within Alameda, I discourage such a vote to introduce the LGBT safe schools program. Parent 4/24 I'm the parent of an incoming kindergartener at Edison. I'm writing in strong support of the inclusion of LGBT students and families in the district's safe schools curriculum. I have frankly been very disappointed at the uproar this topic has created. I don't think it should be the least bit controversial (and we're a straight, Catholic family). I can't help but think of an Alameda first-grader I recently interviewed who has been harassed and was nearly beat up -- in kindergarten -- for being "too girly" and wearing a pink shirt. There is a need for anti-bullying and anti-bias messages in our schools and the curriculum should relect our community, which includes many LGBT students and parents. Parent 4/24 I smile as I read the anonymous letters on Mr. McMahon’s website. Just from the personal hints and perspectives about the people writing the emails, I know several of the authors. Those with whom I am familiar represent the entire political spectrum: extremely liberal to extremely conservative. But they have one thing in common: they oppose the LGBT safe schools curriculum. Many of these people I haven't even spoken to about this contentious issue; I, unfortunately, am a parent at one of the elementary schools where the opposition feels "unsafe" and is afraid to express its views publicly. Ironic, huh? The most major form of bullying is intimidation and this is what I fear most for expressing my LGBT curriculum-opposing views. Yet intimidation seems to be working for those who are pushing the LGBT safe schools agenda. It is truly dividing our unique, diverse island community. My fears for this curriculum in our elementary schools aren't because I am homophobic. I'm not. Or because I am conservative. I am a typical, moderate parent already overwhelmed by the myriad of information being taught to my young kids, which I supplement every afternoon and evening in the form of homework and general school/social conversations. In short, I am one of the many concerned and involved parents in this community...working hard to raise my children to be upstanding, hard-working and tolerant citizens. My fears are because the curriculum is premature. My children haven't fully grasped reproduction, much less sexuality issues. Before it is argued that the LGBT agenda isn't either of these things, let me tell you something: my 9 year-old son's perspective of bullying is when he gets teased for the style of his shorts or tennis shoes. My daughters are more concerned with how well they travel across the bars on the play structure than whether or not a kid has two moms, two dads or one of each. Check in with a psychologist: many of these children affected by the proposed curriculum haven't even reached the AGE OF REASON. The curriculum is too early. It's too sexual. It IS one thing, however: it is very political. That, more than the anti-bullying agenda, shines through loud and clear, especially in light of our state budget cuts and education crisis. If people are truly concerned about anti-bullying, seek the resources of Soul Shoppe. My 3rd grader still remembers this curriculum from his Kindergarten year. It had a wonderful impact. I could go on to give you more facts and opinions to support my opposition, but they have already been written. Please consider the suggestion written by another concerned parent on your website: "Personally, I hope our elected representatives play a firm steady hand and go forth and approve to start the adult training components for district staff, to enable them get materials and training leading to practical experience without the program being K-5 curriculum based for specific issues. Maybe some materials should also go on-line for parents to be informed and to educate parents how to reinforce the non-judgmental understanding the District wants to promote. Because the District lacks sufficient funds it will be a lengthy process to have all staff adequately trained. It seems prudent to focus on staff training, and to determine classroom curriculum for the hot button issues by holding a sufficient number of parent workshops, and getting at least a majority of parents on-board, and allowing concerns to shape the program, and for the understanding of the program to trickle thru the community. This could be done while improvements are being made throughout the District as a result of any bullying, or 'playground issues', allowing staff an opportunity to model their training." The bottom line is that I want to teach my children these sexuality issues when it is age-appropriate. I WANT THIS CONTROL. And if it will still be argued that this curriculum is anti-bullying, then I WANT PARENTAL CONTROL OF THIS PARTICULAR ANTI-BULLYING CURRICULUM. Hey, send them to a Soul Shoppe assembly; I won't interfere. But you can be sure that despite the no opt-out rule, I will be spending enormous amounts of time investigating when the LGBT anti-bullying curriculum will be taught in each of my children's classrooms, and I will be making several doctor and dentist appointments for those days. I will become an extremely uptight, anxious, control-freak parent. One of my main agendas when I am at school will be to garner this information, instead of wanting to volunteer and help in other ways. (Either that, or I will volunteer half-heartedly, with the main objective being to "spy.") I will lose trust in the Alameda school district and my attitude will become more and more negative and cynical. This isn't a threat; this is the unfortunate reality. Or, the simple alternative/compromise: Let the trained teachers and district staff address these LGBT anti-bullying issues with students who specifically bully others in this regard. And please let them also address other bullying issues, such as teasing about shorts and tennis shoes, in the same individual manner. Hold seminars (perhaps taught by passionate parents concerned about LGBT bullying) for other parents who want to know how to explain LGBT issues to their children. There will be more of us wanting to know what to say, at the appropriate age and in the comfort and privacy of our homes, than you may think. A LGBT safe school curriculum any more complex than this is an agenda item. It will mess with the community and our schools more than one can imagine. Parent 4/24 I am opposed to the Alameda Unified School District's proposal to begin teaching our elementary children about sexual orientation and gender identity because it is unbalanced and inappropriate. As an Alameda resident, one of my concerns is that you are putting at risk, not only the diversity of our city, but the integrity of our public education. It seems unethical to teach approval of a specific lifestyle choice that is well beyond the understanding of an elementary aged child. Why are children to be indoctrinated to approve of homosexuality and transgenderism before they are even old enough to know what sexuality is or understand the implications of sexual choices? I will teach my children about homosexuality and transgenderism when I feel they are ready, not because the school district thinks they need to know it now. My children don't even know where babies come from yet! I fully support a safe learning environment for all students, but don't think it makes sense to isolate just one group as deserving protection from bullying. Respect is the right of every student. Unfortunately, that is not what your proposed curriculum will teach. Parent 4/24 I am in favor of Sexual Orientation Education Parent April 23 I support your proposal to expand the existing safe schools curriculum to include the LGBT community. I believe your effort to make our public schools safe and reflective of our LGBT youth and families is critical to the well-being of all members of our community. Thank you for providing teachers and staff the training and tools they need to combat all forms of bias. Parent April 23 I am opposed to the Alameda Unified School District's proposal to begin teaching our elementary children about sexual orientation and gender identity because it is unbalanced and inappropriate. As an Alameda resident, one of my concerns is that you are putting at risk, not only the diversity of our city, but the integrity of our public education. It seems unethical to teach approval of a specific lifestyle choice that is well beyond the understanding of an elementary aged child. Why are children to be indoctrinated to approve of homosexuality and transgenderism before they are even old enough to know what sexuality is or understand the implications of sexual choices? I fully support a safe learning environment for all students, but don't think it makes sense to isolate just one group as deserving protection from bullying. Respect is the right of every student. Unfortunately, that is not what your proposed curriculum will teach. Parent April 20 I live in Crown Harbor in Alameda and have a daughter who will be attending kindergarten this year. Without getting into politics or religious freedom, let me be perfectly clear about how I feel. If you should continue with your plan to push the gay agenda upon our elementary school children, I will not place my daughter with the AUSD and will enroll her in a private school. Also, I will do everything in my power to get those responsible for this invasion into the rights of a family voted out of office. Parent April 20 Concerning the “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity” curriculum being proposed to AUSD at upcoming BOE meetings: I am opposed to this outlandish proposal! Why are GLBT interests elevated in priority over all the other legally protected human characteristics? This curriculum is not required by law, only suggested by a small, self-selected group of AUSD staff, (therefore biased, by definition), an activist gay district parent, and several LGBT activist organizations who were employed to assemble this proposal. This is not a fair representation of our district’s parents, or of our community’s parcel tax payers. I am horrified that this is the way AUSD decided to approach this issue. AUSD needs to teach staff about handling name calling. This should satisfy our legal obligation if it is performed by staff. (As it is currently required per a past BOE policy, but perhaps not followed, or the proper training has not been provided, or employee performance has not been tied to BOE policy requirements.) If it is considered vital by the BOE, and if AUSD has ample funds, I encourage the advancement of staff facilitation skills, through seminars or workshops, for the purpose of further training AUSD staff, including classified staff, to better learn how to prevent, or intervene whenever there is perceived harassment of anyone, by anyone on school grounds or during any school activity. Staff training should include all aspects of harassment recognized by law or decency, not just those based on perceived or actual sexual identity. Staff must be required to intervene with written guidelines and consequences for failing to act. Within all realms of AUSD activity, no discrimination, bullying, or harassment should ever be tolerated. I think it would be excellent if all AUSD employees were taught how to comfortably intervene using an established protocol wherever they perceive acts of harassment of any kind. This still has not been done by AUSD. If any student is a “repetitive offender” perhaps they and/or their parents should be required to complete online workshops that would not be a significant cost to the District. For several years I volunteered to help put together floats for the Pride Parade in support of Marriage Equality for our friends. My wife and I took our kids to these Pride Parades most years and one year they even rode with the grand marshal. I am not homophobic; I just don’t want kids to have to deal with sexual behavior concepts years before they need to lose the blissful ignorance of those human concepts. I see no reason for the District to go overboard addressing issues of sexual orientation & gender identity when there are a myriad of personal characteristics of equal importance, and myriad methods to teach respect and kindness without terms of adult sexual preferences listed as part of this proposal. Our District already does this with programs like "Character Matters", but it needs constant reinforcement, not a new advanced vocabulary of sexual terms for K-5. Proponents of this agenda at public meeting cited District Goal # 3 as reason for this curriculum. Goal #3 states: “Ensure all students will be in educational environments that are safe and conducive to learning.” As I read District Goal #3 I see nothing about teaching Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (and I believe common sense dictates it would not be a curriculum to kindergarten and primary grades.) Also referenced to District Goal #3 in a public slideshow for this proposal is Penal Code 422.6 (A): California Penal Code PENAL CODE SECTION 422.6-422.95 422.6. (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States because of the other person's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or because he or she perceives that the other person has one or more of those characteristics. When I read this I see nothing about teaching Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. The other referenced material related to “District Goal #3” is AB 537. This Assembly Bill added two new prohibited forms of discrimination to the existing prohibitions against discrimination and harassment in California public schools: actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity. It in no way requires a curriculum like this one being proposed to AUSD. AB 537’s Advisory Task Forced also included the following non-binding recommendations: The task force reviewed state data, researched the issues, and held many discussions to develop recommendations in five theme areas: providing access to resources for students and staff about sexual orientation and gender identity issues and hate violence; developing research to identify issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity and hate violence; creating accountability and enforcement guidelines at schools; providing advisory committee and staff support to monitor AB 537 provisions; and formulating state policy. When I read this I see nothing about teaching Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, and certainly nothing about teaching it to as part of a curriculum to kindergarten and primary grades. AB 537 does not address these recommendations for K-5 children. Why is AUSD? Could it be that despite the lack of an adequate basic State education budget someone is trying to sell AUSD and our BOE, and the people of Alameda on the idea of stepping up the Bill’s intent to include far more than is the intent of AB 537, and at a far younger age? I urge the Superintendant and BOE to use good sense and vote no on this proposal, and perhaps initiate a balanced committee to address this issue for an appropriate grade level. Perhaps we also should examine if there is a need to update primary age classroom readers so the pictures of families reflect the diversity proportional to what we have in our district, although the hyperbole about all the books showing only white hetero, mother and father, Dick and Jane families is untrue in my Earhart experience. I also want you to know that I feel very strongly about this and if the BOE chooses to side with the proponents of this issue and spend money on this agenda as proposed, I will make this decision an example of how our taxes are spent when you next ask the voters to donate more money annually in the form of extended parcel taxes. So carefully consider how many Alamedans really support this agenda for our community’s youngest public school children. There are many better ways to meet the needs of our diverse community and the legal requirements. Parent April 20 My son's third grade class is participating in Safe School Curriculum this week...What is a Family? I wanted to let you know how much I disapprove of the fact that my 9 year old came home and told me that they watched a video of two men getting married. You know what he said.....I DON'T GET IT MOM!!! These kids are much to young to have to explain to them that two men cannot make a baby together. They haven't even reached puberty yet...and I have to explain things they don't need to know about yet. These extra curriculum issues just open a can of worms that the school can not properly address because sex ed is not allowed. Why don't we just have our k-5 teachers explain how two men have sex or share their bodies. It's bad enough that we don't get funded for regular school stuff but to add this is just ridiculous. I teach my kids that everyone is different and not to bully anyone. My kids don't even care how many moms or dads their peers have and I really don't care either, but to have to explain certain issues with my kids is my responsibility not yours. I don't get how you can say this is not sex ed.....it sure leads to the questions!!! I got a email saying that my son's class would participating in Safe School for the week. The teacher said it was a trial for feedback...so here is my feedback!! I told my son that he doesn't have to get it...HE IS TO YOUNG!!! Parent April 19 As a parent of a daughter entering kindergarten this fall (and a son 2 years out), I am extremely concerned about the proposed LGBT curriculum. While I whole-heartedly agree that bullying and name-calling should be strongly discouraged in our schools, it should be addressed in a general, all-inclusive manner rather than with a strong focus on one particular group of people. I find it ironic that so many adults find it acceptable to fling insults at groups of people they see as their opposition, especially Christians, while trying to teach their children not to bully. Wow, what a model we are giving. There is so much disagreement and confusion over this particular issue among adults - how can we possibly agree on a curriculum to address it with our grade schoolers? I think we are heading down a dangerous road. This very curriculum which is intended to create unity and tolerance is already accomplishing just the opposite. It is dividing our community and creating so much tension. Our schools are dealing with so many issues these days: declining performance in the world, budget concerns,...I know that the time and money being used on this controversial program could be so much better spent on issues that we ALL agree on. Please use our tax dollars and our children's precious time for the true purpose of schools: to educate them in academics, music, art, sports... Do not try to take the place of the family by trying to indoctrinate all of our children to have the same beliefs. Our country is founded on freedom. I want the freedom to teach my children MY beliefs on my time-table. You wouldn't want me teaching your children to have my beliefs if we disagreed so strongly, would you? Thank you for your unbiased consideration, High School SSC 4/18/09 The Alameda High School Site Council had a presentation and discussion of the proposed LGBT Safe Schools Curriculum for Elementary Students. This was on the agenda pursuant to our mandate to monitor our Safe Schools Plan, in light of the rationales pursued by the Elementary Workgroup about the curriculum's impact on the behavior and safety as students move on to middle and high school. As a result, the Site Council unanimously approved the following statement: We commend the school district for proactively addressing the safety of this targeted group. We believe the effort is relevant to the safety of secondary school students. Community Member 4/14/09 I am the Chairperson of the Reconciling Committee of Buena Vista United Methodist Church. As you may know, we had a vote of the congregation in 2006 to declare ourselves to be an open and inviting church to all LGBT persons. We plan several programs a year which are directed to educating all of our congregation about LBGTQ issues. Thus, we are very supportive of the plan for the AUSD to provide training and workshops for faculty and students in addressing issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. We heartily congratulate you for discussing this proposal, and we encourage you to vote in favor of proceeding with this plan. Thank you very much for your attention to this very vital issue in our community. Parent 4/14/09 I find it ironic that parents in Alameda are being bullied into silence on the curriculum issue for fear of being labeled “homophobic.” We are being called “bigots” if we want to raise our children according to our values. But I’m the bad guy here? I believe just as strongly, but without calling anyone names, that my first grader should not learn about gay relationships and how they have babies. A better solution is to train teachers how to handle this kind of bullying, and wait until sex ed to teach kids about sexual orientation. I’ve seen the video that describes how two lesbians “found a man” and had three children, and I don’t like it. This same video discusses a child living with grandparents because his parents were “on drugs” and couldn’t take care of him. Teaching kids about adult issues won’t stop bullying, and the proposal of this is dividing friends and neighbors in Alameda. Before the Board votes, also consider discussing the declining school enrollment that will result from approving such a curriculum. The value of our homes depends on the strength of our schools. This curriculum will destroy value. Parent 4/13/09 I've been meaning to write to you to lodge my support for the new LGBTQI curriculum for some time now, but I've been waiting until I could find time to write up something thorough, thoughtful, and eloquent. Having still not found time to do that, it occurs to me, in the meantime, I should at least put in a placeholder to be counted in your tallying of support and opposition. So I hereby lodge my strong support for the curriculum, and without any "opt-out" provision, which seems to me would be antithetical to the whole purpose, allowing those most likely to harbor stereotypes, prejudices, and/or hostility to remain willfully blind to the realities of the community and to the impacts of their attitudes and behaviors on others' ability to find a safe, educationally-productive space in our school system. Parent 4/9/09 As an Alameda resident, with a daughter on the way who will be likely one day attend Alameda public schools, and as a straight elementary educator who has used the LGBT SAFE Schools curriculum in the San Leandro Unified, I fully support the inclusion of the SAFE Schools Program in the Alameda Unified School District. What would the world be like if people respected and were kind to each other no matter what they looked like and what they believed in? It is important to teach students about diversity to help them develop empathy to others. The SAFE Schools curriculum takes theory to tangible practice. Through the SAFE Schools Program, I feel confident in saying that my students wholly understand the message of respecting and celebrating all types of families for the most important thing about a family is that all the people in it love and care about each other. I also fully support the expansion of the existing safe-schools curriculum to include a component that identifies famous LGBT people in history, acknowledges the existence of LGBT families, and teaches respect for LGBT youth. As we have culturally relevant curriculum in our schools we also need this program to help create harmony and understanding in our school community and beyond. The SAFE Schools program has helped my students to have a foundation where they accept people for who they are, as long as they are good people, contributing to the goodwill of society. So many of my friends and colleagues who are gay or have gay parents have had devastating experiences beginning in elementary school. From talking to many of my San Leandro parents, some made assumptions that SAFE Schools would talk about sex. Contrary to this popular belief, the elementary curriculum does not mention “sex” at all. The curriculum constitutes of wonderful lessons about bullying and what makes up a family and that everyone is different. It is not so different from the popular “Don’t Laugh At Me” program, but an expansion of it. I have known quite a few kids with gay parents who have felt totally ostracized when they tell their friends and peers that they have “two moms” or “two dads”. The curriculum helps to expand the students knowledge that the bond that holds families together is taking care of one another through love and acceptance. If parents are not teaching there children that there are all types of families (some children live with grandparents, a single mom, an aunt, a foster parent, or two dads, etc.) then, it is my belief that it is our responsibility as civil leaders to show the way. As educators we have a huge weight on us. This is an issue we cannot turn our backs upon. It must be addressed now. I think the most important goal of teaching students the literature of diversity is to show how to become empathetic human beings. The effects of school harassment can be devastating. Researchers at San Francisco State University have studied LGBT young adults (ages 21-25) who experienced high levels of anti-gay victimization in middle or high school. They found that 68% had attempted suicide, compared with 20% of those who reported low levels of anti-gay victimization during adolescence. And the suicide risk continued into adulthood: 44% reported suicidal ideation during the past 6 months, compared with 8% of those who experienced low levels of victimization during adolescence. No sane person could want any child in our community to face this sort of risk. The District is to be commended for recommending expansion of the existing safe schools program to include a curriculum aimed at preventing anti-LGBT harassment. Training teachers and staff how to intervene once harassment has developed is not enough, it must start earlier. Given the serious consequences of school harassment, I urge you to reject any proposal that would permit individuals to opt out of aspects of the curriculum that are designed to reduce anti-LGBT harassment. Permitting families to opt out will undermine the program’s effectiveness and is inconsistent with its very purpose. Even if only a few people ever choose to opt out, creating a special rule that allows it will send a message that respect for LGBT parents and youth is optional. My school district of employment, San Leandro Unified, is doing a great job of teaching our children to be compassionate and tolerant through SAFE Schools, now it is time for my school district of residence, Alameda Unified to follow suite! Thank you for taking seriously your responsibility to protect all children in our community. Parent 4/9/09 I attended the Bay Farm Elementary school meeting, and I was disappointed in the lack of concern for the parents against the curriculum. Although it was clear that the overwhelming majority of those who attended are firmly against the proposed curriculum, it became clear that would be no attempt to compromise. 1. The curriculum only addressed one group The curriculum is not anti-bullying. It is all about exposing kids to gay families. I wish it would be about stopping bullying. But bullying is rarely mentioned. Don't call it an anti-bullying curriculum - because it's not. Call it what it is - a pro-gay awareness curriculum. 2. No opt out I was given the choice to have my child opt out of a gifted student test. Yet I can't opt out of something that concerns me. 3. The Asst. Superintendant is pushing for this Debbie Wong should be neutral, but she is pushing for this curriculum. Because she could moderate the forum, she could control the conversation, and that she did. She let everyone speak until time ran out, presented no solutions, and then closed the meeting. Any teacher who opposes this curriculum stands to ruin their career. There is the annual push to pass more taxes for the schools. Parents will look at this curriculum as one more example of bad priorities. Even parents who support this program realize that this should not take higher priority than class sizes, teachers' salaries, music, athletics, or school programs. If you want parents to vote against school propositions,to volunteer less, and to disregard school fundraisers, look no further than implementing this unpopular divisive curriculum. The schools should spend money and classroom time on programs all can agree upon. Parent 4/3/09 I am writing in emphatic support of the curriculum proposed to teach diversity to kids in schools. I feel this is extremely important not only for kids of LGBT families but for all children. The opposition to this issue is very vocal and very motivated but DOES NOT represent a majority opinion. Their arguments are, for the most part, misinformed. Being gay is not "a choice" or "a lifestyle" and it not something that can be "indoctrinated". Being gay is as intrinsic to a person's make-up as skin or eye color. I have no doubt that opponents to this curriculum will, in the end, be on the wrong side of history just as those who opposed racial integration, interracial marriage, and equal rights for women have been. To the argument that it is not the role of the schools to provide this information, I would say that it is precisely the role that schools are meant to play - to EDUCATE children about diversity and to PROTECT the children in the school system. Alameda is an increasingly diverse community. It is time that LBGT children and families are treated with the same respect and fairness as others. Parent 4/3/09 My daughter will be enrolling in kindergarten at xxxx this fall. I am writing to ask you to support the Safe Schools Curriculum. I look forward to having the values my husband and I teach our children at home (no bullying, treating people with respect) reinforced in our schools. Thank you for your support. This is long overdue. Parent 4/3/09 My wife and I are fortunate enough to live just two blocks from xxxx School, and we recently adopted a beautiful baby. We very much look forward to the day when she cheerfully runs off to her first day of school at Edison. We are intentionally raising Audrey in a very diverse environment. We are active members of First Congregational Church of Alameda, which you may know has a reputation for diversity, and acceptance of all people, regardless of race or sexual orientation. We applaud the decision of Alameda Unified School District to embrace diversity and respect for all citizens as a core value, and it is very consistent with the values that we are teaching Audrey to have at home. Alameda is a wonderful community, accepting of all people with little crime, strife, or tension. I really think of this town as a model for what is possible in the nation. Thank you and all members of the school board for having the courage to reflect these values in the classroom, you have our utmost support. Parent 4/2/09 Just want to urge you to vote for this curriculum. Bullying and harrassment have no place in the schools and is harmful both to the perpetrator and to the victim. Teachers and students need to come to terms with including this segment of the population and not letting them be abused. Small children in k-1,2 are learning about sexuality from the hurtful comments and actions from others only because their parents are the same sex. These children were not part of that choice. They are too young to be involved in those negative denouncements! We all need to learn to be respectful of each other, even if we disagree. Parent 4/1/09 I want to applaud your desire to reduce hurtful bullying and teasing in the schools. There are so many areas that are platforms for this unfair treatment. Although, it is always going to be a part of life, it is good that you desire to create a safe environment for our children. I believe this is a good goal but how you propose to do it is truly the wrong way. Although I do not currently have children in the elementary ages, I am concerned as a parent regarding the adoption of your curriculum. I fear that it is not going to accomplish what you hope for as it addresses the platforms and not the root of the problem. The real problem is not aiding in the desensitization of LGBT issues nor increased awareness of differences between children whether it be race, religion or being handicapped. The true problem is teaching the foundational character qualities of compassion, understanding, kindness and true concern and care for one another. Even with the best of lessons and examples set before children, there is a certain amount that is going to be unavoidable. It is to that small group that you are choosing to administer an entire curriculum to the entire population of children that you propose. I am also aware that studies have shown that this is not an area of discrimination felt by children. They are more concerned with being discriminated against regarding their appearance...too tall, too short, their weight or what they are wearing. There is no evidence that Alameda has a problem in the specific discrimination areas that you are seeking to address. I read the statistics and that you posted regarding your National School Climate Survey and California Safe Schools Coalition and it is filled with non-specific reporting of numbers that have no meaning or relationship. Terms used in the most vague way to sway the reader to a certain position. There are terms that are not defined. Specific demographics have never been considered in the reporting of these "facts". For a person that is not aware of how statistics can be used, it is the most poor report of information that I've ever seen and yet, uses that for their benefit against the naive. My children went to school with children with two "mommies" and being a very involved parent would be made aware of gossip and children discussing it as an issue but it was never a topic of discussion among my three children nor did I even hear about parents talking about it. My friends had the same at their school and yet, they never talked about it. I only know it existed because they were clients of mine. I am concerned not only that you are not addressing the root of the cause but that you are elevating one discrimination type over the others. You are using money that you have claimed is hard to come by for the district to direct an area that does not require or mandate a curriculum. The charge was to create a safe environment for the children in the classroom. Nothing teaches this better than to have equipped teachers with the ability to share ideas on how they have used life as a learning field. An example would be to take the opportunity of a new student coming to the school and instead of reading a book about a new student, you create a project on how to make that child feel more at home. You can offer opportunities to talk about different families by asking the kids to share what they observe are different types of families. We can teach without a book. I am afraid that introducing LGBT issues at a young age will have, as John Stossel has pointed out in his reports, "unintended consequencs". These need to be considered when weighing the benefits of a program. You have chosen to use scare funds to address something that never required a curriculum in an area that has quite a few families riled up. You are choosing to force families to expose their children to topics that are against the beliefs and values of both parents and teachers. FORCE being the operative word. Your "unintended consequences" include losing children to the public school system which will reduce the funds available to the district, introducing concepts that may cause the children to have more ammunition to support name calling (such as after review, girls holding hands on the playground in the first grade and having others consider calling them lesbians) having parents uproared with their rights as parents being taken away, forcing teachers to teach something that they themselves have convictions about nor believe in teaching in the classroom. Are you willing to offend a greater population than those you think you are protecting? Your proposed curriculum poses that people are comparable to animals and should live under the same guidelines. Is the way animals conduct themselves somehow our basis for how we live? You are saying that after working with the teachers that they are unable to teach the key character traits that address all intolerance, prejudice and discrimination unless you make them use a specified curriculum. The responsibility if for you to create a safe environment for the children. You can do that without creating all these unintended consequences. I beseech you to consider cost conscience alternatives that would accomplish your goals in a more effective way without the requirement of offending and requiring teachers and parents alike to have to make tough choices "for" or "against" their beliefs and values. I am confident that I live in a school district within a city of sharp and intelligent people that seek the good of the "whole". And when needed these people are capable of finding resolution for this heated issue. My prayers and thoughts go with each of you as you consider the many facets that need to be considered to accomplish your goal or creating a safe environment for our children. Parent 3/31/09 I went to Washington School to hear the Alameda teachers present the contents and rationale for presenting the two 30-45 minutes sessions on Tolerance and Acceptance of Differences to students. I was very positively impressed with the presentations, the content of the curriculum, and the need for its use in Alameda schools. As a Voter in Alameda, I am dismayed that there is opposition to this curriculum being used in this city.. I trust that the School Board will vote FOR this curriculum to be used, and that many of those citizens who are opposing it now will see when it is presented that indeed ALL school children (and adults too) need to use the skills taught in getting along with others who are different from ourselves. I am a psychologist by profession and have spent more time than I want to remember working with those clients who have been harmed as young students by non-acceptance of the ways in which they are different from the majority. Parent 3/30/09 I support the concept of the LGBT School Curriculum (I have not had time personally to attend the meetings and read the actual curriculum itself though). Thank you for all you do for our schools and students. Please consider this important curriculum even though there may be some heated debates. Parent 3/29/09 As a parent and a teacher I strongly support this curriculum. Some of us recall a time when books on interracial dating and attitudes about cross-race relations were strictly taboo and viewed as an abomination. The rhetoric of intolerance has not changed. I have read the lessons and find them to be fairly benign and believe they would make some positive steps for our children. Thank you and you have my full support in this matter. Parent 3/29/09 As a community member and former high school teacher, I applaud the AUSD for supporting the LGBT Curriculum. There is nothing in the proposed lesson plans that is shocking or unteachable. Children live in a society surrounded by different types of people. If they are exposed to these differences at a young age and in a respectful manner than they will grow up with more understanding for differences. Our history of ignoring differences has not worked. Please do not be dissuaded by a few very vocal community members. If they feel strongly they can always opt out of their child's participation in the curriculum. Parent 3/28/09 I am writing in support of the LGBT curriculum. I've worked as a middle and high school special ed teacher in Alameda for 10 years. I've heard anti-gay epithets just about every day that I've taught school. Young people who are struggling with their identities should have the basic right to go to school in an environment that is safe and free from hatred. We adults must take the lead. Parent 3/28/09 As the parent of a student in the Alameda Unified School District, I am writing to let you know that I strongly support the Safe Schools Curriculum. I would strongly encourage you and the district to resist efforts by xxx xxxx and other to destroy this effort to improve safety and decrease bullying and teasing in the schools. I am a parent. I am an Alameda voter. I strongly support efforts to make our kids safe at school. Parent 3/27/09 As someone who has taught in the Alameda schools for over 20 years, I applaud AUSD for taking the much-needed step of adopting the proposed LGBT curriculum. I have counseled many AUSD students who report being bullied, taunted, belittled and even physically assaulted by other students for being gay or because they were perceived to be gay. Other students with LGBT friends and relatives have reported how uncomfortable they feel when their peers bully other kids or say negative things like "That's so gay," which is, unfortunately, a common remark in our schools. The LGBT curriculum proposed by the District is a great first step toward ensuring that ALL students, family and staff in Alameda school district have the opportunity to feel safe and welcome at school and in our community. Parent 3/27/09 I write this letter on behalf of my students who can not speak for themselves. Statements of parents and community members regarding the proposed Safe Schools curriculum have been published in local newspapers. While their statements have been passionate and articulate, we have not heard the voices of our students. Here are a couple quotes that I have heard directly from students that I have had the pleasure of teaching. "I have been called a fag and faggot all my life. Just because the way I talk and act does not mean I am gay" "I was gone yesterday because my parents are looking for another school for me. They don’t want me around my girlfriend. I have been to three therapist and several churches, my parents are looking for someone to fix me." "Only my closest friends know that I have two mom’s. Some people that I thought were my friends, quit talking to me after they found out." "Everyone wants me dress like a girl. But I am not comfortable in girl clothes. Why do they care what I wear?" These are just a few comments that have been engraved into my memory. When people ask me why have diversity curriculum that includes diversity of families and sexual orientation I think of them. The experiences of my students did not start in high school or at one particular age. Their experiences have been life long. They have been teased throughout their school career. They have been different all their lives. They have struggled to understand how anyone could think that their loving parents, uncles, or aunties are not okay or "normal", when all they know is they are loved and cared for unconditionally, just like everyone else. As a parent I can understand parental concern. I want to know what my child is learning in school. I want to know that they are not being harassed or treated differently for any reason. As an educator I understand that I am responsible for providing a safe and harassment free learning environment for all my students. I have heard the concerns from both concerned communities and feel that I want it to be known that from my point view, I do not see the curriculum before the board as being an agenda of the LGBT community, nor do I see it as an attack on my ability to parent my child about our families’ religious and political views. This curriculum is for the children. It is for all of our children. This curriculum is for the little boy who is called a faggot everyday on the play ground. Maybe because of the lessons he hears in the classroom, he won’t feel so isolated and he will feel comfortable about going to a teacher for understanding and support. Maybe it will provide his teacher the opportunity to talk about all the hurtful words and actions used on the playground. This curriculum is for the little girl who, no matter how hard she tries, is not comfortable is dresses like the other girls. Maybe this curriculum will help her gain some acceptance by her classmates, so that she can worry about learning more than fitting in. Maybe it will give the teacher an opportunity to talk about the fact that the reason for coming to school is to learn, no matter what clothes you wear. This curriculum is for the little boy who has two mommies that love him unconditionally. Maybe knowing that his teacher is not afraid to talk about his family will break down his feeling of "otherness" and his peers will see that he likes to play the same games at recess as everyone else. Maybe it will give the teacher the opportunity to talk about the fact that the most important thing is that we all have someone in our lives who loves us no matter what. If two 30-minute lessons per year that cultivate respect for everyone, has the potential to change the learning environment for even one child, whether the child learns tolerance for others or the sweet grace of acceptance by others, it is time well spent. Parent 3/27/09 I recently read the document, "Public Schools and Sexual Orientation, A First Amendment Framework for Finding Common Ground." On page 3, under "Finding Common Ground," it suggests making a "common ground task force" appointed by the school board [emphasis added] and consisting of representatives with a wide range of community views. My friend xxx xxx has been working diligently trying to form a "bridge group" that would work together to find this common ground. I applaud her efforts but I fear the group won't accomplish its goals unless it has the proper authority and backing from the Board. Would you be interested in reviewing a proposal of how the group would function and who would be on the task force (with short bios) as well as the group's goals relating to the K-5 curriculum and timeline? As it currently stands, you will lose students and face lawsuits if you pass the curriculum. Yet you will anger many in the community if you don't. This task force may be our best hope for resolution. Let me know if you are supportive of these ideas. Parent 3/26/09 While I support the goal of providing safe learning environments for all students, regardless of their background or sexual orientation, I question whether the Safe Schools Curriculum is appropriate or adequate for ensuring that goal. I certainly do not think it is appropriate or needed at the elementary school levels. At Earhart, which is the school I am most familiar with, my children have never reported feeling threatened or harassed by another student. This is due to consistent discipline policy, good classroom management and strong norms of respect. Therefore, I urge you not to adopt this curriculum for the elementary grades. We do not need to spend scarce resources and teacher time and energy on this. At the middle school level, I do believe that teachers and administrators need some training and support to maintain a safe campus. It's hard to tell how big a problem this is because our district, as far as I can tell, does not collect data on discipline cases disaggregated by type of incident. (While the national and state data cited are suggestive, they do not make the case that there is a problem in Alameda.) My perceptions are based on what I hear from students and other concerned adults, there are indeed incidents of verbal harassment between students and that teachers do not always respond. Dr. Vital, there is clearly huge community concern about this curriculum and suspicions about the agenda behind this curriculum (the numbers are 51% to 49% opposed). Given this concern which I suspect stems from a fundamental clash of values and beliefs rather than the curriculum per se, I think the Board and district would be wise not to adopt it but rather put some creativity into narrowing the interventions to training that help teachers address the bullying and harassment of any student. Parent 3/25/09 I am a long time Alameda resident, homeowner and mother of a son who attended AUSD K-12. He is now 22 and just graduated from college last year. In first grade our son was asked to draw a picture of his family and he drew his two mommies and our cat. The picture hung proudly in his classroom and he eagerly showed it to us on back to school night. Several years later in fifth or sixth grade if his friends asked him who the two women were at his soccer game, swim meet, birthday party . . . he would say one of us was his mom and the other was the maid. I can only imagine what hell he went through at school to go from being the proud son of two mommies, to denying his family unit and calling one of us the maid. How sad for him, how sad for us as parents and how sad for the many Alameda children that are invisible and going through this type of transformation alone. I was really shocked to hear that the board was going to vote on this based on which side has the loudest voice or sends the most comments. I hope this not true. Your first priority should be the children and their education. As a parent, I fully support AUSD putting curriculum in place to help better equip our students and teachers when it comes to bullying and harassment of LGBT members of our community and their families. Editor Note: It is not the Board's postion to use the number of comments on an issue be the sole determinant on how the Board votes on a matter. Parent 3/25/09 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to express our views on the proposed curriculum “Addressing Issues of Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity”. We are parents of four children currently attending Alameda’s public elementary, middle and high schools. We are writing to urge the School Board to reject the proposed curriculum. As parents, it is our responsibility to teach our children values, morals and manners. We send our children to school to learn academics. If there is going to be curriculum relating to character, the curriculum must represent core values that the community agrees on. Instead of presenting a set of principles that most people can agree on, the curriculum is rife with controversy on matters that are currently hotly debated in our society. The proposed LGBT curriculum presents one view of transgender individuals and homosexuals. However, there is huge disagreement on matters of homosexuality including fundamental questions such as, is it a behavior? is it an identity? is it normal? is it natural? is it moral? Also, the divide is great between views on how to best understand and care for children with transgender issues. Is this condition a disorder or is it normal? Are these children ready to choose their gender at a very young age? Are they capable of making that kind of decision? If they are allowed to take on characteristics of the opposite gender, will they eventually face a lifetime of hormone treatments and possible sterility and surgery? There is simply NOT agreement on any of these questions (although it will be inaccurately claimed by proponents of the proposed curriculum that there are). Therefore, it must be left to parents to teach their children how to approach these questions , otherwise the State is taking the position of one small interest group as Truth and forcing it on all. If one does not hold the same beliefs about homosexuality as the LGBT community, it does not mean that one is a “Hating Bigoted Homophobic” – nor does it mean that one is ignorant. As stated, there is plenty of room for genuine intellectual disagreement on the questions that transgender and homosexuality raise. However, there is a large and quiet portion of our city who disagree with the LGBT agenda and are afraid to voice their opinions for fear of these horrible and inaccurate labels. From this perspective, we see that the victims of name-calling and bullying are not members of the LGBT community. If the LGBT curriculum is accepted, it is very likely to impose sexual confusion. Elementary school students will have so many questions based on the curriculum. They are not equipped developmentally or emotionally to sort through these questions that even confound adults. The effects of these teachings on a child’s understanding of his or her own sexuality is also a valid inquiry that should be made. Because the long-term effects are unknown in this regard, this curriculum is certainly of an experimental nature. Proponents insist that this curriculum is not sex education. But, there is simply no way to talk about gays, lesbians and bisexuals without discussing sex. In order to get parents out of the way, it is necessary to convince us otherwise. We don’t buy it. Our common sense will not let us. Fortunately, there is one thing that everyone agrees on. NO child should be hurt, teased or bullied for ANY reason. Is it easy to be an overweight child? Is it easy to have a speech impediment? Is it easy to be small for your age? Is it even easy to have red hair? Is it easy to have a name that people can't pronounce? I don’t know of any laws that protect the self-esteem and safety of these children – but I do know that there are clear and strong laws that protect LGBT people. If there is going to be a character curriculum, it must be for the benefit of ALL children, regardless of who their parents are, what religion they are, what they look like, etc. Which children are most at risk? The LGBT community wants us to believe it is their children. But, this is controversial too. The basis for the claim that a “safe school curriculum” is necessary appears to be set out in a document entitled “Ensuring Safe Schools in Alameda Unified School District” which presents selective statistics and poll results that seem to be manipulated to promote the LGBT agenda. Other studies must be considered which are shown not to have been developed by the group promoting its own program. Unfortunately, some people are uncritically accepting the findings in this document and it may be serving as a somewhat effective propaganda device. Our life experiences suggest that the data presented on the need for the curriculum is overblown. Our son, who is in high school, has rarely heard slights toward homosexuals or students with homosexual parents. Most students are neutral, if not friendly and caring. Our middle school daughters have had the same experience in school in this regard. All children are at risk. They are the most precious, innocent and helpless members of our society. It simply is not fair to single out some of them for special protection where it is not warranted and where it may cause harm to others. If this curriculum is accepted, particularly without an opt-out provision for parents, the religious freedom of many members of our community will certainly be violated. Traditional Jewish, Christian and Muslim parents cannot countenance the public school undermining the religious education of their children. I have hear many parents say they will pull their children out of AUSD if this passes. It is painful to imagine the confusion of little ones when their school essentially tells them that their parents and their religion are wrong. The current climate of political correctness has already muzzled many parents and children of faith. How can a young child hold onto, let alone stand up for, his beliefs if he is told by his school community, where he spends much more time than with his religious community, that he is bad for having those beliefs? From this perspective, we can understand the oppression of those outside the LGBT student body. We ask the Board not to accept this curriculum based on the argument that it has a responsibility to promote a civil right. This is not the Board’s role. And, the claim that the LGBT agenda presents a civil right is yet another controversy. Many African Americans, and others, are highly offended that homosexual advocates have tried to link “gay civil rights” with the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. What we really have in this situation is a conflict of various rights that is well outside the Board’s scope of authority and should be kept out of our public schools.
Parent 3/25/09 I am writing to support my friend's daughter and all children experiencing bullying in schools. She needs Alameda to teach a Safe School Curriculum (http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/). At five years old, she is already experiencing intimidation and bullying because of her "gender neutral appearance and behavior and is told she doesn't act like a 'proper girl'" (to quote her parent). Please implement the Safe School Curriculum. All children deserve this protection and support. Parent 3/25/09 I am writing to support the adoption of the Safe Schools curriculum in the Alameda Unified School District. All children should be safe from bullying including children and teens who are marginalized by their sexuality or gender identification. This is not just about "lifestyle choices". This is about life and death. Gay teens have a higher suicide rate than the general population. It is also about education. If you want students to be free to learn, then you can not let them be consumed with either being harassed and bullied OR patrolling traditional gender boundaries. All the energy that goes into that is energy that does not go into the learning that is, after all, the purpose of school. I attend worship with a transgendered person. I don't know how much each of you knows about this condition, but it is actually a medical condition where a female brain is born into a male body or vice versa. This condition is a fact of life, and the experience of being in the wrong body every moment - and particularly during puberty - is intensely painful. The transgendered woman I know has just realized her truth in the past couple of years, and now, at 52 with two children in elementary and middle school and a wife, is transitioning to a biologically female body and an outwardly female identity. If she had been safe and supported when she was young, she could have made this transition much earlier, before it affected so many others. Sexuality and gender identification is not something that kids take on for shock value or to be different. These are deep internal truths that deserve safe expression. The world is changing. Your duty as a school district is to prepare children for their futures. Some of the children in your schools are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered. That is a fact. Children often know these things about themselves very early on, in elementary school or before. Please think about their pain as you consider adopting this important curriculum. Make your schools places of learning where the students accept each other. As they go out into the world, they will meet all sorts of different people - if you can teach them tolerance, along with reading, writing, mathematics, science, history, language, etcetera, they will emerge from the Alameda schools ready to engage peacefully with others they meet in the world, and see similarities and common bonds rather than just differences. They will truly be educated. Thank you for your deep consideration, and I hope that you will see your way clear to adopt the Safe Schools curriculum. It is important. This is not just politics, this is people's pain, this is creating peace. Parent 3/24/09 submitted by two different parents I am writing to support my friend's daughter. She needs Alameda to have a Safe School Curriculum (http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/). She is already experiencing intimidation and bullying because of her "gender neutral appearance and behavior. she doesn't act like a 'proper girl'" (to quote her parent). Please support the Safe School Curriculum. Please make all children safe from bullying at school. Parent 3/24/09 It is my understanding that the Alameda Unified School District has been considering starting a safe school curriculum. I would like to voice my strong support the adoption of such curriculum. I believe that bullying and marginalization of students who are perceived as different is one of the most damaging experiences a child can have, and I believe that it is the responsibility of a public school to take any and all reasonable measures to protect the children attending their schools from bullying and harassment. Please help protect the self-esteem and well-being of your students by adopting a Safe School Curriculum as soon as possible. Parent 3/24/09 I am writing in support of adoption of the Safe Schools curriculum in the Alameda Unified School District. As someone who has friends and family in your area (and your district) as well as gay family members, and who has four elementary aged children in a district where a transgendered student has been "outed" and harassed, I am absolutely in support of the Safe Schools coalition. All children should be safe from bullying - and this includes children and teens who are marginalized by their gender identification or sexual orientation. Please provide our children with the protection they need. Parent 3/24/09 My five year old daughter is being bullied and picked on by her kindergarten classmates at xxxx Elementary because she does not fit other peoples' idea of what a girl is. She appears slightly gender neutral and does not take part in the typical "girly" activities. She refuses to wear pink or dresses. No flowers. She prefers cargo pants and polo shirts. She recently grew her hair out from a short cut in what I believe was an attempt to stop being harassed. You see, some of her classmates insist that she is a boy. She must argue with them that she is not. She recently lost one of her better friends over this. Her teacher has never noticed this problem in spite of it happening throughout the year. I spoke with her and a few days later she told me that she had a talk with the class in a very generalized way (she did not have details for me). It has continued since the talk. Unfortunately, this sort of thing is not just a problem at school. It happens in parks, the supermarket, the library, the corner store. It happened 2 or 3 times in the last week alone. I would have hoped that home and school would at least be safe places for her. She can not be the only child dealing with such an issue and I imagine many deal with much worse. I urge you to adopt the safe schools curriculum, not just for my daughter but for all children who suffer from bullying. We must not turn a blind eye to them. They rely on adults for protection. All children should be safe in the public school system. Alameda is a wonderful and diverse city. Let us embrace it rather than deny it. Our children need us. Parent 3/24/09 I'm writing to support teaching inclusion and tolerance in our schools. I never thought I'd have to, assuming this was a value my country, state and city held. Unfortunately, Prop 8 has shown that holocausts can happen, right here in our backyard unless people like me - a lesbian, a 20-year resident of Alameda, a business owner, a musician, a voter, an Aunt, and the domestic partner of the love of my life for 10 years - write emails like this. Emails I never thought I'd need to write, emails it is hard to find the words for, so terrifying is the amount of hatred being directed at the LGBT community. At me. Please stand against the uninformed fear of the intolerant and break the cycle of hatred. Don't water down the LGBT curriculum - include it. Parent 3/24/09 I am writing to you today to show my support for this up and coming forum: "Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Schools". My almost 5 year old will be attending Washington Elementary next year. As a mother, I have many concerns about kindergarten and the public school system in general. We chose Montessori for pre-school for several reasons; they teach tolerance and compassion among other important life skills. The child is taught through jobs and skills to be confident and self sufficient. They also are introduced to many family values other than their own. They read books about families having 2 Mom's, 2 Dad's and in some cases 3 parents. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender children are SO vulnerable in the schools and fall victim to the harshness of the other children. Any excuse to make fun of another, as you know, will and does happen. Kids are mean! By educating the children of the sexual and gender differences that occur in school(s) as well as in our homes, we become a more compassionate and caring community. Knowledge is life. I hope not only you but the entire School Board is backing this forum. Parent 3/24/09 I am in favor of the safe schools coalition. Every child should be treated fairly and need to learn the truth about all different kinds of people. Not everyone is the same and the kids need to learn it the proper way. So they are not afraid of it and STOP making fun of and bulling other children. I hope that you think about this really good. There are alot of children who are in need of help and understanding. School should be a very safe place for the kids to be and so many times its not. Please think about this and then rethink it again. It is sooooooooo important. Thank you for reading this and I really hope you go to the website and read it and understand it. http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/ Parent 3/24/09 I am writing to implore you to adopt the Safe Schools Curriculum for Alameda Public Schools. The timing of Board meetings conflict with my work schedule and I have not been able to attend in person to voice my opinion. And the last meeting set up specifically to discuss this curriculum was on Purim. I was unable to attend. (I have forwarded a Jewish calendar to the superintendent. Hopefully, future conflicts such as this can be avoided). But I digress. I have a son in 3rd grade at Bay Farm and a daughter who will be entering kindergarten at Bay Farm next fall. This curriculum is very personal to me because my children have a gay mother. It is sad to me to learn that discrimination and hate still exists against gay people. I thought that we had come so far in the past 20 years and had totally discredited the old arguments of the haters. And, having moved here recently from the midwest, we really thought that things would be different in California. This isn't a matter of morality. It is a matter of teaching fairness and understanding. It's hard enough being a kid these days. They seem to know so much more than we did when we were kids. They shouldn't have to suffer being taunted because some other kid thinks that it's ok to make fun of gay people, or their children. The fact that I have to write this letter, in California of all places, is a little disappointing. Please get this curriculum in place. Let's build a world where my son and daughter will never have to write this letter Parent 3/24/09 I am hearing rumors that AUSD is forming or has already formed additional curriculum committees for Jr. High and High School LGBT Tolerance Programs. IS THIS TRUE? This K-5 Curriculum is causing a division in our community because there was not appropriate notification nor representation of differing viewpoints on the committee. A more balanced committee would have weeded out the problematic components of the curriculum so it would not be so offensive to many members of our community. I fear that AUSD is making the same mistake again! AUSD should not allow another LGBT committee to be formed until the community has worked through the problems with this one. Once that process is complete, AUSD should give proper notification of how to apply to be on the committee and then ensure that all viewpoints are represented on the new committees. AUSD's own document, "Ensuring Safe Schools in Alamed Unified School Disctrict," points out "Involving and informing parents and community organizations, such as the PTA, at the outset [emphasis added] may help stem any controversy before it arises." (p. 10) Please address this issue before it deepens the rift in our community. Community Member 3/24/09 I am an Alameda resident and property owner. I'm writing to ask that you please support the proposed curriculum to teach tolerance in our schools. Despite the objections you may have rec'd from those who may invoke religion when it suits their agenda, or those who selectively denounce bigotry, misogyny and remain silence about LGBT issues, it's my belief that teaching tolerance for all walks of life is the most important skill we can impart to the future generations. While I may not have kids yet, I have always supported education in all its facets, from Prop H to sponsoring underprivileged students for field trips to the state capitol to buying girl scout cookies. I have several nieces and nephews who have known me and my partner all their lives as we live openly and honestly. I'm confident their exposure to positive messages of the LGBT community will have a beneficial ripple effect throughout their lives. I applaud those of you with the courage and common sense to recognize this, and I hope you will look past the narrow interests that would suppress tolerance and recognize the incredible opportunity we have to help our youth create a more tolerant and peaceful future. Parent 3/23/09 I would like to add my voice as a pro-safe schools parent. Parent 3/23/09 I am the parent of a xxxx Elementary School student. I have been following the proposal for the Safe School Curriculum through various on-line community groups and I assumed there was overall support for the program. When I recently learned that there is a group of people apposing this curriculum, I felt compelled to write a letter expressing my support for the Safe Schools Curriculum. Schools need to feel effective when communicating the differences that exist in our families. We need to be able to discuss how families and people are different. Pretending differences don't exist or ignoring them and failing to offer teachers and schools ways to address differences is not the answer. While my family would be considered traditional, we have many friends from different family configurations. Children are curious and need a forum to talk about these differences. I feel very strongly about this matter. Please support the Safe Schools Curriculum. Alameda is a very special place and the diversity is one of the major draws. We have to show our support for this diversity in as many ways as we can. I urge you to move forward in the process and approve the Safe Schools curriculum. Teacher 3/23/09 As a classroom teacher here in the district, I know firsthand the importance of such a curriculum for our students. There are issues on a daily basis on campus that demonstrate the need for lessons surrounding the tolerance and acceptance of people who are different....and I do not mean different than the "norm", but different than what students know (or "think " they know) about other languages, cultures, races, religions, sexual orientation, families, etc. that are unlike their own. The classroom must be a positive, safe environment, if children are to learn. When rejection, exclusion and harassment due to physical attributes, beliefs, skin color, family unit are not addressed as a school community, district- wide, then we send a very clear message to our children----We don't care. We want them to stand up for themselves and be an ally to a victim, but we can not give them the confidence and strength to do this, if we ourselves can not address these issues openly at school and teach that ignorance will not be tolerated, and that acceptance is the appropriate behavior. It is not about conversion or forcing beliefs upon someone, but rather increasing awareness and acceptance of our differences as a population. When a student in my classroom is embarrassed of her family and cries because others are mocking the fact that her mother is a lesbian, when a child feels bad about himself because he is too afraid to share the fact that he is adopted, or a child hesitates to relay the fact that his grandmother raises him because his mom and dad are unable, then I want to be able to teach (with the support of my district) that there are many kinds of families. That a family constitutes a group of people who love and care for each other. In my classroom, the nuclear family is no longer the norm. There are divorced families, step-parents/siblings, racially mixed families, adopted children, children of same-sex parents . . . and all other types of family configurations. Children benefit from knowing the reality of the world they live in. I hope that by the time my students reach middle school and are exposed to even more differences, that they are comfortable in their own skin and proud of who they are. It must begin with knowledge. Teachers move society forward. I urge you to grant the curriculum we need in our schools. Community Member 3/22/09 I understand you are receiving a lot of feedback suggesting the LGBT curriculum is bad. Please don't allow homophobia to set a tone of non-tolerance in our community. We were harassed by school kids because of our sexual orientation. Had they been taught tolerance in school, perhaps they would have have left us alone. Parent 3/22/09 I recently became aware of the proposed curriculum for Alameda school children that would help to educate and counter the negativity surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity. As an Alameda resident and voter I feel strongly about the implementation of this program. I have read “Ensuring Safe Schools In Alameda Unified School District” and wish that such visibility was around when I was in elementary school in the 1970’s. Because I wasn’t particularly strong at sports, I was often ridiculed for being gay, roughed-up on the school yard, or sometimes followed home by a bully. These types of events diminished as I entered junior high school, but they are something I will never forget. When I came out to my parents as a gay man, I told them of some of the things I endured in school, things that a kid keeps to themselves because you feel as if you have done something wrong. The previously mentioned packet that is posted on your website clearly shows what some youth have to endure. The world is a different place that it was in the 1970’s, but that doesn’t lessen the need for early on lessons that the world is a diverse place and we all have right to harassment free life. Being swayed by some that feel that such lessons have no place in a school setting, or that the content is offensive or promotes lifestyles contrary to personal beliefs would be irresponsible. I strongly encourage the addition of the proposed lesson plans. Parent 3/22/09 We are writing to implore you to adopt the LBGT curriculum being considered by the district. We are parents to a daughter who will be attending kindergarten at Edison in the fall and one of us is a teacher in Alameda. We are also a lesbian couple who is married and our daughter has two mothers. We are very concerned about how our daughter will be treated by teachers, other children and parents at her school. Homophobia exist in our society as is evident the passage of Proposition 8. Although this is an obvious act of hate toward gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender peoples, there are countless small and subtle acts of homophobia that occur everyday. This could be a passing comment about “fags,” a put down about “throwing like a girl,” or being denied access to your partner in the hospital because only “relatives” are allowed. And more seriously are violent hate crimes against gay, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender peoples everyday. As an institution that cares for and educates the children of Alameda, it is imperative that the district adopts the GLBT curriculum. Teen suicide and homelessness are statistically higher among GLBT youth. With this curriculum you are literally saving lives. The decision as to whether to adopt the curriculum should not be up for a popular vote from the community at large. This is a matter of protecting children and keeping them safe, not a matter of personal opinions. Whatever the arguments against adopting the curriculum there is no argument that can justify ignoring the diversity of Alameda’s community and the need to provide a safe learning environment for all children. Whatever people “believe” or “think” about gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people it does not give them or the district the right to use these beliefs to deny a safe learning environment for our children. If the district does not adopt this curriculum it will send a message that this district honors intolerance and bigotry over protecting the safety and welfare of all our children. Parent 3/20/09 My son is in the fourth grade. My daughter will be entering school in 2 years. I would very much like them to be part of a school district that took diversity seriously. I see great value in teaching our children about all the types of people and families that they live with. I ask that you implement the LGBT Curriculum in the Alameda School District. Parent 3/20/09 The lesbian and gay tolerance curriculum proposed for the Alameda School teaches about different kinds of families and different kinds of people. Some of the lessons do not even mention lesbians or gay men. Rather, they speak of tolerance for diversity and how bullying is wrong. The San Leandro School District implemented this program several years ago and the amount of bullying has decreased significantly resulting in saved staff time and fewer suspensions. The curriculum is two 30 minute lessons per year. Not much to get excited about, particularly in Alameda which voted 68% last November in favor of same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, the 32% are a very vocal minority. Their phony concerns about wasting school time and singling out one group for special treatment are thinly veiled excuses for their animus toward lesbians and gay men. The fact is, as San Leandro has learned, school time is saved with such programs and other minorities are already singled out in our schools for special programs. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is used to learn about African-American culture as well as our country's horrible history of slavery and denial of civil rights. Chinese New Year is used to celebrate the many Asian cultures which Alameda is home to. Ironically, their hatred will hurt their own families as much as it hurts the families of lesbians and gay men. 10% of the population is gay or lesbian. Just like the rest of the population, 90% of the children of lesbians and men grow up to be heterosexual. We comprise fewer than 10% of Alameda's parents. Since 10% of all children turn out homosexual or bisexual, the vast majority of those future gay and bisexual citizens will be the children of heterosexual parents. Additionally, children who victimize gay and bisexual children are also from heterosexual parents. When one child victimizes another, both children and both their families suffer consequences. Therefore, most mature adults realize that this welcoming, anti-bullying curriculum will help, by number, heterosexual parents far more than Alameda's gay and lesbian parents. Unfortunately, prejudice blinds people to reality, often to their own detriment. This vocal minority of bigots are entitled to their freedom of speech. But the vast majority of tolerant, welcoming Alamedans should politely ignore their rants because our community and our children deserve better. Parent 3/20/09 I am writing to urge you to support the diversity curriculum including the LGBT sensitivity. I am a gay man living in Alameda with a son in 4th grade. I personally felt this type of bullying and pain all through school. Please do what you can to prevent others from feeling anything like what I experienced. My son has already been confronted by other children because we don’t have a mother in our family. Please do what you can to help all children understand that everyone is unique and valuable in this world. Out of Town Support 3/20/09 I urge you to support the proposed curriculum changes that would add sessions about tolerance for different kinds of families and different kinds of people. It is important that students learn about and learn to live peacefully near the lesbian and gay people in their community. Out of Town Support 3/20/09 Please include Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans gender curriculum. As you may or may not know. LGBT youth have higher rates of suicide for youth. Including LGBTQ curriculum is essential as a preventative measure and will help move towards inclusion and acceptance of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transder youth. Out of Town Support 3/20/09 As a long time xxxx homeowner, grandmother and volunteer @ xxx School, I encourage you and others to consider including the proposed lgbt curriculum. Subjects that divide and cause as much pain as does the ignorance around Gay students need to be addressed in early years. It is my experience that homophobia is a prime example of the truth that prejudice survives on ignorance, and is best defeated by knowledge Parent 3/20/09 I am a parent of xxxx School. I have a 3rd grader and a 1st grader. I understand that AUSD wants to bring gay lesbian transgender curriculum to our schools. I have nothing against the gays, lesbians, and transgender. It is their right to choose and I am totally supportive. However, I don't believe that it should be brought into our elementary schools for a couple of reasons: 1) with all the budget cuts, schools are at serious risks in California. The focus should be on academics. Secondary, should be on enrichment programs such as music and sports. We should spend are precious and scarce resources on academics. 2) the children are too young, especially the younger grades. Let's preserve their innocence as long as we can. Can we just introduce the curriculum to the older kids in middle school or high school? Community Member 3/20/09 Come on you guys, Even if the public won't support a little bit of tolerance, you, as public officials, have to lead the way. If this were back in the fifty's you would have the same issue about supporting integration. The public back then did not want to tolerate school busing, but it was the right thing to do. Now do the right thing and support a very small part of the curriculum for tolerance and acceptance of gays and lesbians and all types of alternative families. Don't let that 10% of children who will be gay or lesbian grow up in a community that persists in damning them. Community Member 3/20/09 As a former member of the City of Alameda Social Service Human Relations Board and Commissioner of the County of Alameda Human Relations Commission, I strongly support the teaching of the LGBT curriculum. Only by educating and exposing our youngsters to the concept of what and who LGBT people are can we hope to encourage acceptance and tolerance. I founded Alamedans Together Against Hate (ATAH) many years ago because of the type of hatred and bigotry caused by ignorance and uneducated people. Bias and hate crimes get their roots in this type of unaware environment. Please consider the short and long term impact of not making this curriculum available to all children in our comAs a former member of the City of Alameda Social Service Human Relations Board and Commissioner of the County of Alameda Human Relations Committee, I strongly support the teaching of the LGBT curriculum. Only by educating and exposing our young people to the concept of who LGBT people are can we hope to encourage acceptance and tolerance. I founded Alamedans Together Against Hate (ATAH) many years ago because of the type of hatred and bigotry caused by ignorance and the lack of education about people different than themselves. Bias and hate crimes get their roots in this type of unaware environment. Please consider the short and long term impact of not making this curriculum available to all children in our community. Thank you for opening your mind to the possibility of a hate-free school system. Parent 3/17/09 I am being bullied into accepting the proposed LGBT curriculum. This proposed curriculum is not a product of Alameda families and the community. It is creating an unsafe environment for parents as well as children. I am offended that this proposed curriculum and its proponents are intolerant and have widely labeled me and anyone in disagreement as homophobic. I attended a school community meeting last week as well as examined the proposed LGBT curriculum for Alameda elementary schools at the District offices. Gender identity and sexual orientation is sex education. The difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual is SEX. Sex cannot be isolated and unacknowledged as this proposed curriculum suggests. In the DVD “That’s a Family” for students, a girl describes how her 2 moms wanted to be more than friends and asked a man to be the father of a baby. This opens the door for questions about sex, yet the proposed curriculum guides teachers to say, “We are not talking about sex today, but welcoming families.” Avoiding and not responding to questions of curious children does not dismiss the fact that this is SEX EDUCATION. It is imperative that you reject this deceptive proposed LGBT curriculum. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Parent 3/14/09 I recently attended my child's PTA meeting at xxx and I was surprised to hear that there has been some opposition to the Safe Schools Curriculum. In my circle of Alameda friends and family I have heard nothing but positive responses and support. However, evidently there have been some people opposed to the curriculum and its implementation in the Alameda schools. I am writing to tell you that I am fully in support of the curriculum and that I think it is essential that we implement it in our schools. Children and teachers need a well-thought out way to communicate effectively about the differences that exist in our families. We need to be able to discuss openly (in age appropriate ways) how families and people are different. Pretending differences don't exist or ignoring them and failing to offer teachers and schools ways to address differences is not the answer. I feel very strongly about this matter and hope that you have heard loud and clear from the multitude of Alameda families who support the Safe Schools Curriculum. I feel that it is imperative that we being to deal effectively and openly with the the differences that make up our diverse community. I was heartened to hear that Alameda was taking on the task of developing the Safe Schools Parent 3/14/09 I attended the community meeting last week at Bay Farm and I have to say that it was a great show. The obligation to present this issue to the community was fulfulled and everyone left with a sense that we are all on the same page with this issue. This could not be more wrong. Yes, we are on the same page in that we don't want our children bullied and we want them to feel safe and respected. However, we are not anywhere near on the same page with the LGBT curriculum. I left that meeting with the impression that there will be no compromise on the issue at all and that the side opposed will not have any say at all on an issue that affects our children so greatly. A few things from the meeting:
3. Someone needs to explain to me how a 1st grader or 2nd grader could be transgendered. At that age, how is a child able to process and understand something like that without the intervention of an adult labeling it as such? I have known tomboy girls and boys that have worn girls' clothing. How easily they could be labeled as transgendered, gay or lesbian when in reality, at that age, they really don't know what it means yet. They might turn out not to be LGBT at all. Or maybe someday they might decide that they are LGBT and look back at their childhood and have an "aha" moment, but I feel the process of self-discovery is an important one and that children don't need us to label them as anything. They have enough to worry about. 4. After the lengthy explanation of why we need to have certain words in the curriculum vocabulary, I am still opposed to the use of those words at the elementary school level. I don't believe we need to have words such as "dyke" and "fag" in the curriculum. I'm sure we don't have the "N" word as an allowed word in our curriculum nor do we have swear words. So why should we have deragatory LGBT words? I am actually opposed to the use of all those words. These are words that I would want to introduce to my children in my own way, not through the schools. Because no matter what anyone says, homosexuality has everything to do with sexuality. A person that loves a person of the same gender is not necessarily homosexual, unless there is a sexual attraction involved. I feel it's appropriate to talk about how there are different families, families with two mommies or two daddies, but it's not necessary to use terms such as homosexual, bisexual, lesbian, gay etc. 4. After reviewing some of the materials and talking with friends that have reviewed them, I must reiterate to all those who are reading, GO VIEW THE MATERIALS and decide for yourself whether this is what you want your child to be learning. For example, in 4th grade the children have to cut out LGBT-related articles from the newspaper and debate them in class. Sounds harmless enough, right? But if you look at the teacher training materials, the teachers are encouraged to steer the children towards a pro-LGBT conclusion. How will a child who may not necessarily agree with this view be treated? Will they feel safe speaking up? Will they be reprimanded by the teaching for having a different belief? There are also such incendiary comments in the teacher training videos such as (and I am not quoting exactly), "Christians think all gays will go to hell." Comments of this nature clearly make Christians and all others that oppose the curriculum, the "bad" guys. 5. Teasing occurs all the time and most of it is not geared towards LGBT children or children with parents who are LGBT. My son is teased about being short all the time and was called a "midget" by a classmate. Like the committee member's son, he also came home upset and crying several times. I talked with him about it and told him that you can't control what other people do, only how you react to it. No one wants their child to feel hurt in this way, but it was a life lesson and character building and next time he'll know better how to deal with it. And questions like "Why do you have two mommies?" are just that - questions. They arise out of curiosity and do not necessarily have ill-intentions behind them This curriculum teaches a belief that many do not agree with. Just as you would not teach other belief systems in the schools, this LGBT curriculum does not belong in the schools either. It is something that families should teach based on their moral values and beliefs and at the time they feel is right for their child. How can you teach something to our children when the adults involved can't even come to an agreement on the issue. If we're confused about it, how confusing will it be for the kids? It's not like math where there is a right or wrong answer. The way it is taught will be very much influenced by the biases of the teachers. If a curriculum can't be taught in a consistent manner that everyone agrees on, it shouldn't be taught. Yes, my children do attend a public school and it is that, a public school, not a Christian one, not a LGBT one. I value the diversity of Alameda schools and am glad that my children are exposed to a wide spectrum of children, each different and special in their own way. But I pay my taxes too and deserve to have my opinion heard in developing this controversial curriculum. It's irresponsible to allow a clearly biased committee to develop this curriculum and to ignore the concerns of over 50% of the people. I respectfully urge the Board to consider my concerns and the concerns of so many others in making their final decision on whether to adopt this curriculum as it stands. Parent 3/14/09 Thank you for your attendance at the Earhart community meeting earlier this week. I was very encouraged when I arrived and saw that you were there, as well as members of the board of education. My daughter is a third grader at Earhart and we also have a son that will be starting kindergarten in 2010-2011 school year. I have been an active parent in our PTA and have participated in the school meeting that took place in January where questions were taken. Living in the Bay Area we are fortunate to live in a richly diverse environment. As a parent of bi-racial children, I value this diversity greatly and we work hard to teach our children respect, acceptance and understanding of the cultures and choices that make up our community. I am also a working mother who works in a non-profit and am certified as an association executive, this gives me a perspective of running effective meetings, ensuring diversity and inlcusion, transparency, budgeting, education development, instructional design, volunteer and board relations, legal requirements and the need to build consensus. I was the Earhart community meeting and was appalled by the behavior of your staff and the curriculum group members. The meetings were held so that parents could ask questions and get a better understanding of the curriculum in a safe environment . Instead we were lectured to, giggled at and had heads shaken at us when we asked questions, many of them tough and contradictory to the curriculum group members beliefsand their work product. I know it is tough to have people question your work, but as professionals I expected much more. I am greatly offended by many of the teachers reactions. It makes me extremely concerned about how this will be taught and how the faculty will be trained to be facilitators of these discussions with our children. If they cannot show community parents respect and understanding, how are they going to handle children and their questions if this is adopted. While I feel the LGBT education in concept is a good thing -- teaching children inclusion, acceptance and respect are critical for our future, especially in California. I do have concerns about the appropriateness of the concepts and definitions for elementary aged children. Especially the currents event discussion of LGBT issues for those in 3 and 4th grade and the prayers for Bobby/suicide example that was discussed. You are getting beyond teaching inclusion and non-bullying if you are going to ask the children to discuss current LGBT issues (gay marriage, t-shirt wearing) While the staff at AUSD has classified this as a safe schools topic, it feels from a parents standpoint that is a way to get around the parent notification as required by law. As a parent I want to know what my children are learning so I can help support it -- from math to reading to social studies to family life in 5th grade. We are active participants in our childrens education, if it is important to us, then our children see it as important too! Sexual orientation is a topic that is emotionally charged and leads to many other discussions that many parents do not feel are appropriate for elementary aged children. While your teachers said in the meeting that kids won't go there, I am not so sure. My children ask questions that surprise us daily.. Additionally, I was offended by the book "Who's in a Family." While to many it may seem innocuous, to a parent of bi-racial children, I was concerned that the bi-racial family was compared to a litter of puppies, some black, white, brown. I have experienced my daughter question her race and who she is -- it started in Kindergarten when other children said her daddy couldn't be her daddy b/c he is African-American. Her teacher did nothing, instead said they were just being kids! We handled it on our own. We have read many books on raising bi-racial children and talked to physicians and psychologists to help answer their questions, at no time did they say to compare our children to dogs! Instead direct and honest discussion is encouraged. As your staff said in the meeting that kids love animals, I am concerned that my children will compare themselves to dogs -- they are not dogs and I did not deliver them in a litter! They are no less children and humans than children born to other families. I'm not so sure a single mother would like to be compared to a chimpanzee! A book that covers different families is fine but why compare our families to animals? The process used to develop the curriculum is also another key issue for me. Last Spring, the school board and staff told the community that a process would be used. It was not, instead of getting community input prior to curriculum development, the curriculum was developed first. For a topic that is emotionally and culturally charged, your staff has done a great disservice to AUSD and our families. By not following the process that was promised, your staff has taken the trust that has been built over many years and have turned it into a place where distrust now abounds. Trust is something very hard to build back. This hits hard after all the work that parents and the PTA's did to help pass the parcel tax last year. It makes me feel that when you need our support and money you treat us like partners, when you want to push something through we are just parents who don't know our children. I also have some questions on conflict of interest. At the meeting, one of the curriculum group members was introduced as a consultant who Ms. Wong advised us that she is proposing buying some of the curriculum support items from at a discount. Shouldn't the curriculum have been developed by a group that did not have vested interest in selling the school district books? As a parent I would be much more comfortable with a consultant that was not vested in the books to support the content. I would like to see this slowed down so that the process that was communicated to the community last Spring could be followed. I would like to see representatives from all sides (parents of all types (not just LGBT), teachers from other grades (not just LGBT and 1st grade) and other professionals experienced in child development) included in the curriculum review. I feel that if the school district wanted to address bullying and inclusion you should work harder to deal with the other issues of bullying that occur daily in our classrooms and school yards -- obesity, race, body image put downs, clothing and athletic ability and take your time to address this topic right to ensure that all our children will learn and be safe. I am concerned that if this is approved as is without any consideration to the parents input, that our deisre as parents to be there to support our schools like we have over the past years will dissipate. Up until now I have felt like a valuable partner in my children's education, I would hate to have that crushed. Parent 3/13/09 I attended the meeting at Earhart on Wednesday night and I remain unconvinced about the true motivation behind the adoption this curriculum. The committee’s explanations simply don’t add up. I apologize for the length of this email, but I hope you can see the genuine desperation I feel as a parent who is being asked to trust the wellbeing and safety of my child to you. 1. Ms. Wong said that this curriculum was requested by teachers because they currently hear LGBT taunts on the playground and they do not have the resources and tools to deal with this. If the teachers currently can’t deal with a child being harassed with demeaning names, whether it is regarding race, sex, physical appearance, or gender identity, how does this LGBT curriculum change this? It seems to me that if this truly is the common need of our teachers, we need a curriculum for our teachers, not our children. Ms. Wong’s response said that once this curriculum is adopted, the teachers will be trained. How and when? According to the schedule, the curriculum comes before the board on May 26, 2009. It’s to be implemented for Fall 2009. It doesn’t seem 1 or 2 in service days during the summer is sufficient for training on a politically charged subject matter such as this. Is this normal for any new curriculum to be adopted and implemented in such a short time frame? If teachers currently don’t have the resources and tools to deal with unacceptable bullying and taunting of any kind, that gives me serious concern about my child’s overall well being. I have the expectation that the teachers to have enough authority and common sense to be able to stop a child from being harassed or a child from bullying and harming others. 2. Ms. xxxx presented the first grade curriculum at the meeting. According to the revised lesson matrix, it says that the lesson will be taught either in 1-45 minute session or 2-30 minute sessions, within the first 9 weeks of school. Ms. Wong said that this is the structure that the teachers will follow, with verbal assurances that no additional sessions will be added. Ms. xxxx herself has already presented this to her class multiple times. She said she did the lesson, as provided by the written plan, once. She then made the book available as a classroom resource. She asked children do projects on the child’s family, what is a family, again using the book as a resource. She then followed up 2 months later by re-reading the story and introducing vocabulary from the book. If the lesson matrix stipulates 1 or 2 lessons, does that mean 1 or 2 lessons in following the written curriculum, but the teacher is then free to do additional lessons in the manner Ms. Huhn carried out? Are these additional lessons not part of the sessions defined by the lesson matrix or are they? Ms. Huhn’s use of the curriculum neither seems to fit the 1 or 2 sessions or the 9 week timeframe given in the written lesson matrix. Is this because it was a pilot program? Or is this what I can expect to happen once this curriculum is developed. 3. When parents asked specific questions about how a teacher would answer questions such as What does partner mean? How can 2 men have babies? the teachers said kids that age don’t ask those kinds of questions. Ms. Huhn said kids aren’t even fazed by the inclusion of a family with 2 mommies or 2 daddies as they are more interested in the animal families in the book. She showed us responses from her own classroom and sure enough, kids used very warm and fuzzy words to describe what makes a family and there was no mention of the gay/lesbian family. If this is the case, then how is this curriculum effective for the officially stated purposes? And though Ms. xxxx makes assurances to the parents that kids don’t even focus on the gay and lesbian families, she then turns around and says how she followed up on this lesson 2 months later and made vocabulary words from the book for words the kids would not know. One of those words was “Partner”. She just said kids don’t focus on those parts of the book, but now she’s forcing the kids to focus on that by highlighting Partner as a vocabulary word. Will the curriculum be driven by kids’ responses (as Ms. Huhn stated) or will it be driven by the goal of drawing attention to and reinforcing to specific concepts? On a personal note, I was quite disturbed by the behavior of one of your teachers, in particular. She pleads with us parents to trust the teachers. Then she turns around and dismisses parents’ questions and concerns, making assumptions and becoming visibly upset because of the parents’ dissenting view points. I would like to remind you that trust is earned. She did not exhibit trustworthy (or tolerant) behavior by any means. And if this is how she would react to parents who speak up and raise concerns, on what basis is she asking me to trust her as my child’s teacher? As a committee member responsible for training other teachers on this material, how has she assured me that she will ensure my child will be welcomed, if our family values are different from her own? She certainly said the right words, but her facial expression and tone of voice alarmingly betrayed her speech about inclusion, diversity, and mutual respect. At one point, this same teacher said something about how statistics show that only students with gender identity issues commit suicide. (I’m sorry, I am paraphrasing because I don’t remember her exact words.) This is a gross misrepresentation of what we all know to be reality. The teacher showed clear lack of integrity and judgment in falsifying statistics in order to prove her point of view. Again, on what basis is she asking me to trust her? Even though I hold deep, personal values on this subject, I have tried very hard to keep an open mind and tried to understand the need for this curriculum. I sincerely support any efforts for our schools to be safe and nurturing for all children and families. But this entire process has been mismanaged and your efforts at salvaging this curriculum with the current committee seems too little, too late. I attend forums, look at the curriculum, read updates and emails posted on Mike McMahon’s website with the hopes that I can make sense of it all and support this effort in creating safe schools, but each time, I just get more and more disheartened and frustrated that this committee is committed not to the students and parents of this community, but to their own agendas. I grow more and more convinced that the public school has no place for my child. Sadly, I have begun the process of applying my child to Private School already and I know of handful of other parents who have also started the process. I desperately want to give my child the experience of attending public school, with the richness of diversity it offers, however, I’m afraid that once this curriculum passes, the values we hold as a family will be not tolerated. I am unwilling to jeopardize my child’s safety by putting him in a situation that, to be frank, is intimidating to me, even though I am a professional, working adult, with the language and cognitive skills to stand up for myself. I’m asking you to please consider my child. He means the world to me and I know each child in your schools is precious to their parents, regardless of race, sexual preferences, nationality, socio-economic status. This is about our children. This should not be about political or religious motives or agendas. I will wholeheartedly support making our schools safe, having every precious child from the diversity of Alameda families be equally represented and welcomed in our schools. But, I cannot support this current committee and I ask you to please reject their recommendation and order a new committee to be formed. Their effort simply is not good enough for our kids. Parent 3/13/09 As a parent of one child at Lum Elementary School 1st grade and another child who will be entering Kindergarten in Fall 2010, I am strongly against the proposed LGBT curriculum in Alameda. Please reject the proposed curriculum!!! Parent 3/13/09 As a parent of one child at xxxx Elementary School 1st grade and another child who will be entering Kindergarten in Fall 2010, I am strongly against the proposed LGBT curriculum in Alameda. I was not even aware that the Alameda Board of Education was trying to pass such a curriculum until my friend who attended one of your meetings made me aware of this. I am outrage that you guys will even think of bringing this subject into our public schools. I believe it is my job to teach my child morals and values and not the school district's job. Please reject the proposed curriculum!!! Parent 3/12/09 I am a parent of Earhart school xx grade. I know there are two meetings conducted at Bayfarm and Earhart this week. However, when I mentioned the LGBT curriculum issue to a few parents from main island recently, I found they have no idea about it but they are involving parents. This issue has been on in the district for a while, I feel some communication channels are missing. Do schools inform parents about the issue? Will the school district have meeting on other elementary schools besides Ruby Bridges in main island? I hope school district can reach out parents through differnt channels and let parents well informed about the process, make the lesson plans for each grade easy accessible to parents, conduct survey from parents. I hope this issue can be better handled instead of rush for implementation. Parent 3/12/09 I am a concerned parent in Alameda who attended the meeting at the Earhart School this evening. I am quite disappointed at how one of the school teachers (I believe she teaches at Ruby Ridges) conducted herself when addressing our questions. To make a long story short, I asked her how she would answer a child if he or she asks, "How can two men have (i.e. conceive) a kid?" (This question was asked in response to a first grade curriculum that addresses a man and his partner with their kid.) Right away she snapped back, "They will never ask that! They don't think in that way." As a parent, I think her attitude is quite dismissive and disrespectful. Her answer was not only inadequate but condescending. As a parent, I am genuinely concerned what kind of education my child will be receiving in a public school if this is the kind of answer I get from a teacher. My second concern has to do with another question that was asked, but again never quite addressed. One parent asked about how talking to kids on different kinds of families will directly address the issues of bullying in the playground. She added, "Wouldn't it make more sense to address the specific issues of bullying rather than talk about different kinds of families?" Again, no direct answer was given. I went away from the meeting feeling completely dismissed as a concerned parent and as a tax payer. As representatives of our community, I hope you can help me make my voice heard. Parent 3/11/09 First of all, I would like to thank the district, esp. Debbie, for leading the meeting @ Earhart school tonight. In the midst of budget crisis, I know that this issue is taking up a lot of time and resources that you may not have anticipated. If this curriculum does not get passed what is the consequences? is there any financial disavantage? Will we be out of compliance with the State or even Federal laws? Will the government entity require a corrective action plan if we don't have this curriculum implemented? It seems that only 4 school districts in this area have adapted this curriculum and therefore, I can assume that not passing this curriculum will not effect the revenue, but will increase spending.... is that a correct assumption? How much are you budgetting for this curriculum? It was mentioned tonight that the proposed math curriculum for K-12 will cost about $700,000. We know the financial impact of this curriculum, but how about LGBT curriculum? What is the proposed or projected cost to buy the materials? This also should have been calculated, no? Also, how many kids in AUSD elementary schools are from LGBT families? Do we have a good figure about how many people this will impact? Can you do a study or survey to see the # of people impacted by this curriculum? Teachers have lots of other things to worry about. They are pulled in all directions as is. I am afraid that this will add to their burdens and some of the good teachers may decide to leave b/c they don't want to deal with it or their beliefs do not agree with this curriculum. Not only the teachers, but the parents who are concerned may pull out their kids from AUSD. As is now, the enrollment has been declining over the years and b/c of the sensitivity of this topic, a lot of parents will think about other options for their kids' education. There are charter schools being started in Alameda... there are private schools close by... or even home schooling may look tempting. I must say that one of the reasons that I decided to settle in Alameda was the good reputation of AUSD. I would love to keep that legacy and see AUSD flourish. With budget crisis (yes, it is a CRISIS) and the factors that worry the parents such as how the developement of the curriculum was handled from the beginning and how we don't even know the impact of this curriculum both financially and # of people impacted, I suggest that we do not pass this curriculum this time and focus on building up AUSD in its financial solvency as well as its reputation as a good school district. Let's focus on what is more important and urgent. Parent 3/11/09 I have two children in the Alameda Unified School District and I would like to express my opposition to the curriculum that is being presented. My oldest child went to elementary school with a child with two moms. My daughter and the girl with two moms were good friends all throughout elementary school going to each others birthday parties and having sleepovers. To this day I am sure that the two moms have no idea that my family believes that God intends for a man and a woman to be together. That's because I have respected their right to live their lives the way they choose. I am in no way "homophobic", and I believe that it is discrimination to label me so because I believe that the Bible clearly states that a man and a woman should be together and not two women and two men. I expect my children to be able to live their lives according to the believes that I have instilled in them. It is not the School District's job to teach my child morals and values. That is my job and I do not want that job taken away from me. The law does not state that this curriculum is required. Any type of discrimination and bullying should be addressed equally and as necessary. There should not be an entire lesson plan around one type of bullying unless there are entire lesson plans on every type of bullying. I do not believe that you can possibly ensure that our beliefs will not be denied by a teacher who is told to present this lesson. And the District has no right to deny our beliefs, just as I have no right to deny anyone elses. Please do not allow discrimination against religious beliefs by allowing this curriculum. Parent 3/11/09 I am a parent of a student at xxxx Elementary School and I also have a student at xxxx High School. At our PTA meeting we had some representatives come in to discuss the sexual orientation curriculum. As they went over the lessons everything seemed fine. It all seems to be in the interest of acceptance. Which I think is great. But, I still have a concern that students' religious beliefs that they are being taught at home will be somehow denied by their teachers. I want to make absolutely sure that if a student says to their teacher after this lesson is presented that "the Bible tells me that you have to have a husband and a wife" that the teachers are not allowed to dispute that. If they dispute that in anyway they are then discriminating against that person's religion. We had a parent ask why this was not part of the rest of the harassment curriculum and why it needed to be its own lesson. And I agree with that thought. Why can't this all be done at once? If you single it out you are drawing more attention to it that could have a negative impact. I completely accept that everyone has their own beliefs and teach my children to be respectful of everyone's differences, and I fully expect that the School Board will respect my religious beliefs and not allow discrimination against them. I would truly appreciate you considering my concerns when voting on this. Parent 3/10/09 I was at the Bay Farm School meeting and I came away more convinced you MUST reject the district’s LGBT curriculum recommendation. The following are my reasons for my conclusion: 1) It was clearly asked by a parent and answered by Debbie Wong that our current safe school curriculum meets the requirements under law in SB537. Ms. Wong had misled the parents in the Lum forum that the adoption of the LGBT curriculum is required by law. She stated in the Bay Farm School meeting that this is NOT required by law but the district would adopt this curriculum voluntarily. 2) A question was asked to Debbie Wong at the end of the meeting “if the LGBT staff was organized by volunteers in the district, it is clear that all the members of the committee are supportive of this type of curriculum. Isn’t it the responsibility of the Asst Superintendent to find balance in the committee?” Debbie Wong’s response was “that is the reason why we are here to get your input”. She missed the point that the balance should have been in the creation of the curriculum. How irresponsible is the Asst Superintendent to recommend a curriculum created in a vacuum of only supporters without input from an opposing viewpoint. 3) How is this fair to the teachers that don’t want to teach this curriculum? Most of the teachers are too afraid to speak up in fear that they would be labeled a bigot, homophobic or just not politically correct so they just avoid the issue hoping that it would just go away. If it were not intimidating enough that the Asst Superintendent is leading the committee, there are some very outspoken teacher/supporters in the committee as well. There are teachers that do not speak up against this curriculum for fear of being disciplined or losing their job. How can you pass a curriculum that will put your teachers in an uncomfortable position to teach something he/she may not support? And if they refuse to teach this curriculum – will they be disciplined or fired? 4) All the statistics presented in support of the curriculum were created by gay/lesbian advocacy groups and not by an impartial source. I found that there was impartial data collected by Wested.org for Alameda Unified School District for 2004-2007. The rankings for harassment (2 or more times in a year) were as follows: Again we allowed the information by the LGBT committee to mislead us in thinking sexual orientation harassment is an epidemic. 5) How is this fair to the child and family that states this violates his/her religious beliefs? Now you are violating the right of an individual to religious freedom. In summary, this is NOT required by law. The name calling and harassment seems to be coming from the supporters of the LGBT curriculum by calling any opposing view as bigotry or homophobic. The LGBT committee is lopsided in not having any opposing members – without an opposing view refinement cannot occur. It is unreasonable for any board to accept a policy where it alienates the community. A policy is only effective and good when the majority sees the benefits. Conclusion: It is NOT required by law – let’s not accept a policy that does not respect all the protected classes in #4. Recommendation: Form a new safe school committee that includes input from all the community and not just the supporters of the LGBT. And the goal should be to create a curriculum that garners 80% acceptance in the community. Parent 3/8/09 As both a parent and an AUSD teacher, I am writing to support the adoption of the safe schools curriculum. While my children are growing up in a family with both a mother and a father, they are surrounded by children who come from families that look nothing like ours. I have no idea what my children will be like when they grow up but what I do hope it that they will be kind and sensitive to others and respect them for who they are. The best way for us to support the very values that any religion preaches is to model the behavior we want our children to aspire to as adults. There is no room for hate and denying children the opportunity to understand that different only means different and not bad. As a parent, last year, I was on the yard of my son’s wonderful elementary school when I noticed a child approaching other children on the yard. The children he was approaching were responding with an emphatic “NO!” to whatever this boy was asking. As I got closer and the boy approached my son, I heard that he was asking children if they were gay. I was both shocked and saddened by this. While it is not anyone’s right to ask this question of someone, it spoke to the need for us to educate our children so that they realize the power of their words. Those parents who do not want their children to learn tolerance are naïve if they think that their children are insulated from this controversial topic. Words can be weapons if there is no education to accompany them. There is no school in our society where children are insulated from the real world and the option to educate our children through age appropriate language is the best way to address this issue versus having our children exposed to language based on ignorance and hatred on the school yard where it is, despite what we may want to believe, going on every day. I trust the teachers who teach my children to continue to do an amazing job and to have a curriculum that supports teaching children that there are all types of families and as that coming from a loving home is should be what we hope all children experience Parent 3/8/09 I had reviewed the curriculums posted on your website. I thank you for doing that so that parents can look at these curriculum. Since the topic is LGBT, I suspect that the entire class would be devoted to talking about LGBT family issues. What is taught about other families? I know that this question/concern has been raised in other meetings, but I had not gotten an answer to this. I am kind of wondering how much time is devoted to other types of families such as single parent or divorce parent. Do you show video clips of kids talking about how they feel about their family situations? I am talking in this way, b/c the topic of this curriculum is "safe school". They must also feel "alienated" for having divorced parents. I am sure that some kids don't even have their own parents living with them. How about foster children? How do you address their emtional needs to feel "safe" at school and "accepted"? I don't support spending tax dollars on 1 hour or more of lessons on LGBT while other families are not addressed appropriately. As you can see, the list can go on and on to address different family situations. In this light, I see so clearly that this curriculum has been pushed by and for another agenda; an agenda that does NOT belong in our schools. I read the document, “Public Schools and Sexual Orientation - A First Amendment framework for finding common ground” I strongly agree that the school has to address the needs of the entire community. This truly is a tall order to fill. But one of the suggestions in this document to get people from all sides involved in the process and I do feel that the other voice has not been considered during the developement period of the curriculum, as there was only 1 representation of the parents and he is a supporter of this agenda. I realize that this will be a painful process for the parents and for the community as a whole, but it is necessary to have civil and honest conversations on this topic. I am equally afraid to voice my concerns and point of view as those who support it; perhaps more so than those who support it, b/c I am afraid of "retaliation". In a perfect world, people can go home after a heated argument and not have any lasting feelings about those who opposed them fiercely. Well, I don't think that's going to happen b/c of the nature of this topic. I really hope to find a common ground for all parents, but as the document stated, that will be very difficult on the issues of LGBT. I understand the diffculities that you are facing and I am thankful that you are taking this very seriously. I just want to ask for a fair process in development of the curriculum that will incoporate all sides and address all familes with equal importance as much as possible. Community Member 3/6/09 I have been an Alameda resident for 3.5 years. I am writing because I am very concerned about the proposed LGBT curriculum for the Alameda Unified School District. First, I am concerned because this curriculum has been advocated by one small special interested group and the public as a whole has not been given an opportunity to have an input in the curriculum material. Moreover, I do not believe that it is right to categorize this new curriculum as part of the "Safe Schools" program because it overly represents the interest of just one group. I fully agree that tolerance and respect should be taught in our schools and I would support a generalized curriculum on this topic. However, I do not believe that it is fair to single out one group and justify it by categorizing it under the Safe school program. Homosexuality is a very politically and morally charged topic, and I do not believe that public schools is the place where kids should be taught about this issue. I do not want my tax dollars to go to support this curriculum. However, if this curriculum does somehow pass, I believe that parents should be given the right to opt their children out of this. Ultimately, the parents should be the ones who teach their children on morally charged issues such as homosexuality and not public schools. Community Memeber 3/5/09 Parent 3/5/09 As a parent of two boys in the school district, I felt that it was important to express my feelings on this matter. First of all I am a Christian and I know a minority in this community, however I would greatly appreciate your ears on this matter. I have two neighbors that are gay, and I would welcome each of you to contact them in regards to how I or my family treat them. The bible is very detailed in regards to loving your neighbor ,which I do. I may not always agree with the moral side of this behavior but I would take care of each of them as any of my family members. I'm not asking a lot from the board in regards to this curriculum but I am asking for the opportunity to opt out for my children so they do not have to attend. I think it is very important they understand treating anyone unfairly is not acceptable. I hope you will give me the opportunity to keep my children in public school and let the parents teach this very important lesson of kindness and love rather than hate. Student 3/4/09 I know I'm not a parent, but I am writing in support of the LGBT Curriculum it covers many topics including gender Identity which is important. As a out gay student of the AUSD district I think that it is very important to have this curriculum in place. Phrases such as "that's so gay" have started as early as 3rd grade. I constantly hear the words "fag" and "queer" around campus. I am a student attending xxxx high school; where tolerance is constantly emphasised. This bullying and phrases need to stop. In short parents who say they teach tolerance to there children I'm proud of you. But the question of what kind of tolerance do you teach still bothers me. This curriculum is designed especially for LGBT students and it needs to be implemented As Soon As Possible. Parents need to understand acceptance of an LGBT child. They're looking for a safe school to be at, and if this district can't support that kind of acceptance and tolerance, whats the next step? Parent 3/4/09 I am a parent of two children in the Alameda public schools. I strongly oppose the "Safe Schools" curriculum. We teach our children to treat all people with respect, period. It is apparent that special interest groups are increasingly using public schools as a platform to further their agendas. It is the school board's responsibility to be proper stewards of our educational system, to ensure that our children are being taught the fundamentals of math, science and English and not be swayed to defer what little funds we have left in the school district to teach a curriculum that will not only divide the community, but will take away time and resources from the teachers who should be supported in teaching our children the basics. Take a poll from the teachers and ask them if they would prefer to maintain smaller class sizes in the K-3 grades and if they would prefer to maintain music and P.E. OR if they'd rather implement the LGBT curriculum, and with the results that you get,, I can predict that you will have your anwser to what your vote should be regarding this curriculum -- that is if you truly are making your decision in the best interest of the majority of teachers and students. Parent 3/3/09 I am writing to you to express that I am strongly opposed to the proposed LGBT “safe schools” curriculum. I believe we should teach our children to accept all people and that all people should be respected regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion or disability. The proposed “safe schools” curriculum cannot be limited to one specific interest group as proposed namely LGBT. These values of treating all people with fairness and integrity that we want to instill in our children are learned and reinforced by years and years of training at home and through experiences at school and in the community and cannot be taught in a “curriculum” and especially through a curriculum that seems to focus only on the LGBT lifestyles. Please reject the proposed curriculum and promote safe schools for ALL not just for a selected group in our society. Parent 3/3/09 I’m writing this prior to reviewing the curriculm, but it is suspicious to me. Thank you for giving the community a voice in this matter. No child should be teased in school for any reason. I do support a safe school curriculum and appreciate the school taking reasonable and appropriate action to prevent the problem of bullying. However, if the curriculum impinges upon religious freedom, it must give parents an opportunity to opt out. We have to have balance in our action. To be extreme is going to cause problems. Alameda is a very diverse population, including many people of faith. Any curriculum including values and morals training must accomodate these parents right to religious freedom. Everyone, whether you agree with their religious views must be tolerated. While in kindergarten, my child came home one day and said, “Mommy, it’s not ok for me to talk about God in school.” Where is sensitiivy training for people of faith? Parent 3/3/09 I am writing in support of your new curriculum "Addressing Issues of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity". Your mission to make our public schools safe and appropriate for ALL families including our LGBTQ families, their children, and LGBTQ youth is long overdue and inspired. I believe this work is paramount to making our schools safe and supporting the diversity in our community and in the world at large. Teaching children about tolerance and how to respect diversity is not something that should be confused with a "moral issue" or "sex education". To allow these issues to become entangled muddies your mission and this is what very much concerns me; we are not talking about a moral issue or sex education. Please resist the temptation to allow people to try to brand the curriculum as such and keep up the good work. You have my support to address this issue in an age-appropriate way in our public school system. Thank you. Parent 3/3/09 I am strongly in favor of the safe schools curriculum. Parent 3/3/09 I am writing in support of your new curriculum "Addressing Issues of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity". All of our families need to feel welcome and respected in our schools regardless of race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation. Being able to talk about these issues is a key component in helping our children understand the world around them. Thank you for your efforts to make our schools safe for all, Parent 3/2/09 We applaud and support Alameda Unified School District’s proposed LGTB curriculum. We believe the LGTB curriculum developed by the District will provide our children and the members of our community with an improved sense of safety and will cultivate invaluable skills of awareness, sensitivity, and respect for the diverse nature of human beings. Our family has experienced the benefits of acceptance and support within our local AUSD community. We are but one example of how the LGTB curriculum can make a difference at school and in the community. Our child is a biological boy who has wanted to live as a girl since he was a toddler. Our child was depressed and sad at not being able to express his true self. As parents, we felt isolated and alone in our situation that had no precedence in the AUSD. The positive response from our school principal to our concerns for the safety of our child facilitated District-sponsored training on the theme of gender variance to both faculty and students. In March of 2008, our child made the transition to dressing as a girl at school in a very positive and supportive atmosphere. Our child’s self-esteem and attitude towards school improved dramatically as a result of the transition, and developed a much more out-going personality. Our child feels accepted by peers and faculty. We are now aware that our situation is not as unique as it may seem and have met other families with similar stories trying their best to create a safe and accepting environment for their children in Alameda and beyond. We feel fortunate to live in a time and place of increasing acceptance and tolerance for human diversity. In our view, AUSD is taking a position of leadership by promoting the LGBT curriculum that has the potential to be a positive model for school districts in the Bay Area and beyond. Thank you! Disclaimer: This website is the sole responsibility of Mike McMahon. It does not represent any official opinions, statement of facts or positions of the Alameda Unified School District. Its sole purpose is to disseminate information to interested individuals in the Alameda community. FAIR USE NOTICE |