|
|
Comments Received From May 13 through May 18May 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 18 and the background information can be found on the LGBT curriculum page. Comments prior to March 1st are here, comments from March 1 to May 9 are here and comments made from May 10 to May 12 are here. Alameda Student 5/18 I am 16 years old, a sophomore, a Dungeons & Dragons nerd, a metal-head, and gay. At first, I didn't get any trouble from my fellow learners about my sexual orientation, who all seemed to be pretty accepting. Then a group of new students came in and I started hearing slurs like "fag" "faggot" "homo" "dyke" and "GAY DD" (like ADD but with gay in it). These insults have been made not just in the same way "stupid" or "lame" are used. I have had these words and various other insults thrown at me and have heard other gay students called these names. I have been harassed by other learners in my classes and even began to consider just stop trying in school and just give up on life. I believe that the Safe School Curriculum is necessary to stop other students from having to go through them torture I went through for my sexual orientation. Some members of our community have said the curriculum is "giving special rights to gays and lesbians". If this is true, does this mean we should stop teaching about the civil rights movement, because that gives African Americans special rights? Should we stop teaching about the Holocaust because that gives Jews special rights? Students have a right to know that LGBT people exist snd that they are also people with their own dreams and desires like everyone else. I know there are many out there who are against this curriculum. Some say that we are teaching kids sodomy or promoting a lifestyle. this is not true. This curriculum is 45 minutes out of a year to help the kids of Alameda learn to accept others the for characteristics they cannot change, so that they can go out into the world as prime citizens some day. Alameda Resident 5/18 I strongly support the Caring Schools Curriculum. I am a parent of three children, all of whom will pass through the Alameda public school system. My oldest son attends Edison School. I applaud your efforts and your patience and look forward to seeing you stand up to those who are fearful and/or hateful. You are courageous and doing groundbreaking work here. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am Alameda resident and parent of AUSD student. I'd like to share a true story that happened to my friend not long ago. My friend has an 8-year-old son who is in San Leandro school district, where a curriculum similar to the one to be voted is taught. The boy plays with a girl named J, who has two older brothers and she wears his old brothers' outgrown jeans from time to time. One day my friend's son told her, "Mom, J is lesbian. " My friend was shocked and asked why. The boy explained that a girl is a lesbian if she has boy's character. He concludes that J is a lesbian since J wears boy's clothes. The boy told his mom that he learned this concept from his teacher at school. After listening to my friend, I felt really sorry for her and her son. Having learned AUSD is proposing a similar curriculum, I'm deeply concerned. How confused would my child's little mind be if AUSD taught this curriculum?! I strongly oppose this curriculum. I really don't want to see school misleading our children. Please protect our innocent children. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am an Alameda resident and have lived her for over 30 years. I want to express my full support for the LGBT curriculum. These teachings of acceptance and love and respect of all people are so important for our children. We need to be inclusive of all types of families and people, not just certain ones that fit a certain mold or image. Why should any child or family be left out just because they are "different"? Teaching this type of curriculum will show our children to value and accept all differences and teach valuable skills for life. Let us embrace tolerance and show are children to do the same. What a wonderful and critical skill to learn at school at such a young age! I am the mother of two young children and I would be so proud for them to learn this curriculum. In fact, had we had this type of curriculum when I was growing up, I would not have been ashamed of the fact that I have a homosexual father and would have felt much more accepted and able to share my life with my classmates. Instead, I felt like I could not bring my friends home for fear of how they would react. I did not feel "normal" because my family at home did not look anything like the families of my classmates. An openness about all families, including LGBT families will allow many children to feel "normal" and accepted by others. Let's give our children something that we did not have - an amazing curriculum that respects, accepts, and embraces ALL PEOPLE. Alameda Resident 5/18 Thanks for putting in the long hours for lesson 9. Still in favor of the proposed curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am writing in horror at the idea that you would put an activist agenda for a lifestyle choice ahead of parent's right to teach their children the values that they hold dear, whether from a traditional or religious view. We already have laws regardiing bodily harm to anyone regardless of the reason and also schools have policies on no teasing or bullying (also no matter the reason). I teach my children to respect others, while still being able to disagree with their views. This is called "Freedom of Speech". There is also something called "Freedom of Religion" which our forefathers came to this country for. It is the parent's right to choose whether or not homosexuality is normal and right or not! It is the duty of the school to teach our children what is needed to function in a technologically oriented society, enabling them to get jobs and be productive members of society. Along the way, we support the "Character Counts" in the schools to reinforce respect, consideration, integrity, etc. Parents have the responsibilty and joy of training their children and handing down the legacy of THEIR values. This is simply wrong and a hijacking of the parental responsibilty!!!! Alameda Resident 5/18 I support tolerance, I support the Safe Schools curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 I wanted to once again email concerning my opposition to this SAFE school curriculum. I'm 30 years old and I have lived in Alameda for 14 of those years, and as a long-time resident of Alameda, I want to say that I do not approve of this curriculum. I have a daughter who will attending the Alameda school system in a few years, and the contents of LGBT are not age-appropriate to someone of her age. Furthermore, this is something that we cannot opt out from. So, as a proposed solution, I would like to have you reconsider changing the curriculum altogether to address the specific issue of bullying, rather than trying to teach sex education to elementary-age children. Bullying is not acceptable, and so there needs to be ways that the school address this issue on that level, rather than trying to adopt a new curriculum that protects those who come from homes with same-sex couples. I will be extremely disappointed if this curriculum passes, and I and some very concerned neighbors of mine will not be voting for this current board for the next election if you allow this to pass Alameda Resident 5/18 I'd have to vote in favor but with an opt out provision. I would also ask staff to report numbers from each school who choose to do so. This has become so controversial and so divisive that to do otherwise not only invites an inevitable lawsuit but also leaves the community divided at a time when we should all be focusing on a Master Plan and Parcel tax renewal. I obviously have not had the benefit of hearing why legal counsel recommended against this option but feel that this could at least be presented as a 'half a loaf' compromise - and while it would obviously not satisfy everyone, it could be presented as a step along a path down which this community is not yet fully ready to march down in solidarity. I feel that half the folks that would intend to opt out would probably forget to do so, and half of those would realize that their kid didn't get brainwashed into turning gay and so would care less the next time around. Eventually, it will become a regular part of the curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 I just signed in, and some people saw that my vote and they stared me down. I was just reminded that adoption of this curriculum is unsafe to those who disagree. We can't stop bullying in the playground. If you adopt this then the teachers will be bullying the children to believe beliefs that their parents do not hold. It's not a moral issue. It is a legal issue. This curriculum as it stands is not legal, as pointed out by several attorneys. There are a lot of people here that I've never seen in Alameda or the hearings. I have a hunch that they do not live here. I am here as a reisdent with two children at Earhart. For me it's not about politics, but about Alameda. I live here. Please honor the number of alameda voices speaking against the lgbt curriculum. Why do those who disagree with we who oppose it "boo" us? They're not showing respect for our right to free speech and disagreement Out of Town Resident 5/18 I am a Christian pastor, a mother of 3 and a concerned Chinese American in the Bay Area community. I would like to express my support for the anti-bullying curriculum that Alameda School Board is considering. Making the schools a safe environment that respects and honors difference and diversity of all kinds is one of the most important teachings that a public school can provide. I believe that public schools as public institutions must uphold the highest values of our nation, and that is one that respects difference, human rights, tolerance and non-violence. Professionally I am a clergyperson and the Program Director of an organization which represents Asian American and Pacific Islander religious communities. These values of equality, love and acceptance are also important values in our cultures and religions. I am sorry that there are Asian American and Christian folks in the community who are opposing this curriculum. We have seen this issue used as a wedge issue before in our communities. It is of critical importance that we see the connections between anti-bullying based on race, gender, religion and sexual orientation as part of the same systems and patterns of violence and exclusion in our society. The anti-bullying curriculum is a great beacon of hope and something sorely needed in all school districts to protect our children. We need only remember, that indeed “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world.” Please do continue your adoption of this curriculum and protect all of Alameda ’s children. Alameda Resident 5/18 I tried to attend your meeting on May 12, but got turned away, and was planning to come tonight, but my son came home sick from school. But I still would like to share my thoughts on the Safe Schools Curriculum with you. Our schools have rightly been educating our children that it is wrong to insult or bully others based on their race, religion, mental challenges, physical stature, lack of physical abilities, etc. Along with this, the children learn things to respect about others that they see as "different". If it is wrong to call someone a "retard", a "spaz", or use the "N" word, why is it not wrong to teach students that they shouldn't use phrases such as "That's so gay" or call someone a "fag"? And along with that, teach them to respect "different" families. Some people worry that their kids will learn about homosexuality at school, but the fact is, their kids are already hearing about it from other kids, when they hear the words "gay" and "fag" on the playground. Isn't it better that they learn what these words mean, and why they are hurtful, in a matter-of-fact atmosphere in the classroom rather than from (misinformed) schoolmates? Parents can't prevent their children from hearing about homosexuality unless they homeschool them and don't let them mingle with children they don't approve of. Homosexuality has always existed, and not talking about it isn't going to change that! I have looked over the curriculum, and no where can I see that kids will be "taught to be homosexual". The curriculum is only 45 minutes per year, and will teach them that classmates who have two mommies or two daddies are not to be mocked, and, in the older grades, that people who identify as gay or lesbian are still people who have the same abilities, dreams, and right to respect as anyone else. I hope that you will look at the reality of what the curriculum is and what the society is rather than just at one groups fearful messages when you cast your votes. Alameda Resident 5/18 I'd like to urge a rewriting of the curriculum to not focus on one protected group, but to rather focus on the building of children's character and why bullying in general is bad, be it against a legally protected group, or be it against someone who has small eyes, a big nose, large feet, a missing finger, excessive freckles, etc. as for the what is now the LGBT-focused curriculum, I ask you to reject it Alameda Resident 5/18 I am looking forward to the public hearing today, although I am a little apprehensive at seeing all of the media attention regarding this issue. I hope that in the midst of all the public attention, you would pay closest attention to your own constituents, the Alameda RESIDENTS whose children and friends will directly be affected. I have been reading the emails that Mr. Mcmahon has faithfully been posting (thank you very much for that), and I would really to clarify that I am voicing my opinions as an Alameda RESIDENT. I also do NOT live in Bay Farm as one person speculated at the last public hearing (the very assumption of which I thought was quite inappropriate and ironically, based on prejudice), but on the main island. I would also just like to reiterate that I am OPPOSED to this curriculum, and respectfully ask that the board members NOT pass it. There are many other EFFECTIVE ways to teach children not to bully. A series of lessons on being kind, considerate, respectful regardless of ALL differences, including what kind of a family a child has (whether based on sexual orientation, race, disability, religion, etc) for example would be an excellent way to teach children not to bully, and it would not need to focus merely on one particular characteristics. The current curriculum goes beyond this goal of teaching children to be tolerant and respectful to teaching a MORAL viewpoint that EVERY lifestyle is equally valid, that every relationship is morally okay and should be accepted and normalized. While I respect every person for their inherent worth regardless of the different in our own beliefs and convictions, I cannot agree with passing a curriculum that would impose ONE viewpoint, ONE opinion on my children. I urge the board members to please reject this curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am for safe schools and I am for tolerance. But I am against this curriculum. I appreciate the efforts of the District to create a curriculum to "protect" the children of Alameda, but I don't feel that this curriculum adequately addresses the issues of school safety. It excludes so many other minority groups that need to be addressed, and the curriculum itself fails to appropriately address the actual issue of bullying. I cannot vote for any Board member who does not see this curriculum as a failure in pursuing to address the actual issue of safety. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am an Alameda resident. i have heard about the safe schools curriculum being proposed. i am against such program. please do not implement this. Alameda Resident 5/18 As an alameda resident, homeowner, parent of 2 young children, taxpayer and voter, I would like to express my opposition to this curriculum.
Alameda Resident 5/18 I am an Alameda resident and recently heard about a proposed curriculum that is up for a hearing this evening, and I wanted to quickly voice my opposition. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am writing to you again, to plead with you, to take the points from both sides in your decision making. It seems that one side can mobilize the mass better than the other sides and it may seem like there are more supporters for that group. But the fact is that the group that will be impacted most is the parents and future parents of Alameda residents. Our votes count to elect officials, approve bonds to help school, etc. And we deal with the district all the time and our kids are in the center of all these. So, please do not be swayed by the number of poeple showing up tonight in support of the curriculum. Please listen to all the concerns from the people living in Alameda. I plead to your reasons, not your emotions or feelings,in this matter. There are unclear legal arguments from both sides. This should be clarified before you decide to adapt the curriculum, otherwise, it is clear to me that there will be a lawsuit... I know that you are in a very hard situation and you probably did notthink that this would happen in your term. But the reality is thatthis issue is very controversial and people have strong feelings aboutit. I wished so much that the district was more careful and prudentin their approach to this curriculum, but what is done is done. Let's look for a way to meet the needs, legal and otherwise, of the students in a different way. Please reject this curriculum as proposed and start all over again. Alameda Resident 5/18 Hi, just wanted to say that I'm AGAINST the LGBT curriculum. While I agree that our children need to be taught to respect others, I don't think this is the best way to do so; it's far too exclusive. What about people with different religious backgrounds? What about those of different ethnicities? Wouldn't it be odd to have a curriculum focused on Chinese people or Hindus under the umbrella of "acceptance"? In the same way, the LGBT curriculum zooms in too much on too little. I would definitely support a curriculum on general acceptance, but this is not it. Alameda Resident 5/18 As a tax-paying Alameda resident and voter, I'm concerned about the direction the school board seems to be taking in considering the Alameda LGBT curriculum for our children. With so much opposition from concerned parents about the legal legitimacy (and implications), as well as the potential fall out from other parents with children removing their children from our public schools, I don't think this is the right direction. It seems a plain reading of the law would suggest the proposed LGBT curriculum crosses boundaries, curbs children's rights, and imposes on parents' sensibilities. I'd like to voice my opposition to this curriculum. If this curriculum is instituted in public schools, I would be hard-pressed not to pull my daughter out of Alameda elementary schools. I'd like to propose that the process for putting together the curriculum be revisited. Rather than putting the curriculum together under the radar with a small party of people, why not open up the process to a larger group of collaborators who properly represent Alameda? It would mean starting over, but there's also proper representation and greater hope for a balanced, fair curriculum acceptable to the majority of Alameda parents. Alameda Resident 5/18 Please pass LGBT Safe School Curriculum # 9. As a resident of Santa Clara County and a third year student at Stanford University, I know that I would have gained more from my schooling had I been presented with a safe space. Some opponents argue that it is inappropriate to teach such values in schools, but we already teach values of listening, politeness, and acceptance -- all values that are directly linked with LGBT tolerance. We send our kids to school to learn how to be productive members of society. Moreover, teaching such lessons lets LGBT students (and I knew at a very young age) and students from LGBT families know that their school supports them and will encourage them to invest more in their education. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am a homeowner in the City of Alameda and a professor at the College of Alameda. I support the Safe Schools Curriculum and urge that it be a adopted. All families and children need to be respected regardless of their gender, gender identity or sexual identity. The matter needs to be treated with the same level of concern as harassment based upon religion, race, ethnicity or national origin. Please approve the Safe Schools Curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 Thank you for accommodating the community and giving us a place in this discussion. I would like to voice my opposition to the adoption of the safe schools curriculum. Please replace it with something that actually addresses the issue of bullying through character building. The current curriculum seems to focus on normalizing the LGBT lifestyle rather than directly address the problem of bullying. No particular protected class is the unique victim of bullying, and a curriculum that seeks "safe schools" should reflect that reality. Please vote against this curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 As parents of a second grade student (and two additional soon-to-be students) and members of the PTA at Franklin school, we WHOLEHEARTEDLY support the LGBT curriculum in the public schools. It is absolutely essential that the school board adopt such a curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 As a second grade teacher at xxx School , I would like to voice my support for the proposed LGBT curriculum. I commend our school district for being courageous enough to take on this very important issue. Discrimination of any sort is unacceptable, and I believe that we as educators should do all we can to combat it. On behalf of the LGBT friends and relatives in my life who have faced discrimination and hatred for so long, I strongly encourage you to support and adopt this vital curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 As a native Alamedan who attended Paden, Longfellow and Encinal and a mother of an entering AHS freshman, I would like to go on record in support of the proposed Safe Schools LGBT Curriculum. Tolerance for diversity is a critical lesson for students. Alameda Resident 5/18 As an Alameda resident of 7 years and a property owner, I strongly oppose the LGBT curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am sure that you are also aware of the fact that certain group has been intending to fill up the seat ins the auditorium so that the speakers listed on your list would not get a seat or even enter the room b/c of fire code. This poses a great threat to those who will be speaking out against the curriculum. Please cosider the barrier that these people have to get over to even show up tonight. On this note, I suggest that ONLY the speakers listed on the list should be given time to speak and no one else. If they were not able to get in b/c the place is full, then they need to be given yet another chance at the next board meeting to speak. Please be reasonable in your decision to listen to ALL the concerned people in Alameda. Please do not give into any special interest group who may be giving you pressure. I plead to your reason and common sense in this matter. Alameda Resident 5/18 I have been an Alameda resident for the past 10 years and I am opposed to the Safe Schools Curriculum. It does not fairly represent the wide range of people who get bullied because it only emphasizes this one particular group of people, LGBT. In fact, it discriminates against other groups by the inordinate emphasis placed on it. Please reconsider implementing this curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 As a concerned parent and Alameda resident, I strongly oppose this curriculum.
I asked many parents in Alameda, and many of them loved these 2 ideas. Alameda Resident 5/18 I’m opposed to the safe school curriculum. I really believe we should provide a wide range of people represented rather than focusing on this LGBT interest group. It’s clearly, obviously a huge agenda. We should provide all the 5 under represented minority groups and not just one please. Alameda Resident 5/18 As an Alameda resident, I oppose the proposed "Safe Schools" curriculum. While I do believe respect for individuals of all kinds of backgrounds is important, this subject has many political and moral implications, which are hotly debated outside of the classroom. Schools should not have the right to give teachers free reign to teach in a manner that will favor one side over the other, which is what this curriculum seems to enforce. Alameda Resident 5/18 have been an Alameda resident for the past 5 years, and I wholeheartedly disagree with the Safe School curriculum. The material presented has very little to do with bullying and is pretty much sexual education. Please classify it as what it is and do not place it under the banner of safety, which does not allow parents to opt their children out of this class. Alameda Resident 5/18 This curriculum is so very much needed in our schools in order to build acceptance, knowledge, and awareness about slurs and derogatory words that are used against lesbian, gay, bisexual people. We are a community of great diversity - that diversity should be embraced and accepted by all! Alameda Resident 5/18 Thank you for taking the time to post to the AUSD website the 7 lesson plans under consideration for inclusion as part of a sexual orientation curriculum. I have done a thorough review of the content and am very disturbed by much of it. I do not believe much of this content is appropriate for inclusion in our public school system, especially not at the early ages several of the lessons propose to target. I believe you have probably received many emotional phone calls and letters from adamant proponents on both sides of the discussion. Regardless of how strongly ones personal feelings on the issue are, we need to make sure that our institutions of public education make their best attempts to stay aligned to the laws and constitution of the state which provide their funding. The majority of the proposed lessons assert positions, views and definitions that are contrary to our current state constitution. Challenging our governmental system is a healthy right of passage for many college aged students, but fostering this in elementary school children at ages where they haven’t yet learned the workings of the government they are being spoon fed undermining lessons on is sinister at best. I am disappointed how much of the support for these proposed lesson plans has been waged like a political campaign that distorts facts as a vehicle to propel special interest and personal agendas to undermine our states constitution. It is despicable the way outspoken proponents of this elementary school inappropriate content have chosen to blindly label any view contrary to theirs as ‘pure hate’ or ‘bigotry’. The decision by the majority of the state of California to pass proposition 8 has often been labeled as a defeat by many of the proponents of the proposed lesson plans. To “take the battle to elementary schools” is a disgusting but well calculated double-down strategy by a small group. I appreciate your continued focus on student success. Please maintain this focus and do not let special interest efforts turn our public schools into the next battle ground for special interests where our children are unknowingly used as pawns in a broader political campaign to re-amend or change current state law. Alameda Resident 5/18 Pls oppose curriculums address to sexual orientation and gender identity. I think this issue is the responsibility of we parents to teach our kids the true facts at home instead of teaching them at school. Plus it is too early to expose this issue to kids. Alameda Resident 5/18 I would like to again express my opposition to the potential new Curriculum. I believe it is sex-Ed that is not appropriate for children at such young age. I hope you re-considerate implementing the curriculum Alameda Resident 5/18 I am an Alameda resident and would like to express my opposition to the LGBT curriculum that is being proposed. In its place, I propose a curriculum designed to address more fundamental character values. This would be more powerful in equipping children for future encounters with people different from themselves. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am opposed to this curriculum, and furthermore, would like to see it in full. Parents in our community are incensed, and I'd like to take a step back and actually look at what we are doing. I am an alameda resident and I just can't believe this curriculum was written and formed without the consultation of the larger community. I am opposed, and would like to start with a new committee inclusive of different parties to create a new currriculum and system to combat bullying in the schools. Alameda Resident 5/18 Hello, I'm a resident of Bay Farm in Alameda, and I'd like to express my disapproval towards the Caring Schools Curriculum. Please do not pass Lesson 9 in the Caring Schools curriculum. It is unfair and unequal. It gives privileges and focus to a minority group while ignoring the other minorities that experience the same kinds or misunderstandings and bullying. Please reject this curriculum in favor of one that is more comprehensive and equal. Alameda Resident 5/18 I sincerely hope the Board takes the responsibility to provide education equally to all very sincerely. These discriminated-against kids do not have employment laws to protect them whilst they are in public school. If the Board becomes influenced by the vociferous group of parents do not want to acknowledge the LGBT unfair predicament in our society and laws, then the Board will fail to ensure the education of our students about their contemporary society, and this would be an abdication of your responsibility as AUSD Board Members to our children and our society at large. Contemporary trends of certain religious groups should not interfere with the core functional system that is consistent with our federal constitution: all people have the same rights, or should, and we should learn as a society to be plural, to enjoy our diversity and learn therefrom. Not shun, hate, and fear. Out of Town Student 5/18 I read about the fight going on in your district right now and am sad that I cannot be at the meeting tonight to voice my strong support for the Safe Schools curriculum. As someone who is Chinese and lesbian, it pains me to read that the majority of the people who have voiced their opposition are Asian American. It is very unfortunate that people in the Asian American community are acting out of fear over topics and lessons that they do not understand because of course, they didn’t have Safe Schools curriculum in their schools when they were young. Having a Safe Schools curriculum in my elementary and middle school years would have made a world of difference to me growing up. Though there might be loud voices of protest tonight, please keep in mind all of the voices that go unheard and will continue to go unheard if this curriculum is not adopted. Some of these voices belong to the children of these parents in opposition to the curriculum, their struggles silenced by anti-LGBT bullying from not only their peers but their very own parents as well. We cannot depend on these parents to address bullying on their own. If it weren’t for me coming out to my parents during high school, the topic would have never been approached. Contrary to the views of some of these parents, kids can never be too young to learn about tolerance and respect. I am very proud of Alameda for proposing and designing this curriculum. I wholeheartedly support your district and hope that the curriculum passes. Alameda Resident 5/18 After hearing all the different protests and arguments and concerns regarding this curriculum, I believe that we shouldnt be wasting so many resources on this program that influences such a small population in our schools. If necessarily, it would be great to focus on building a child's overall character and values if possible. But ultimately, seeing that California is one of the worst educational systems in the nation, I'd rather have more programs on the basics such as math, english, writing, reading comprehension, etc. Alameda Resident 5/18 My husband and I are residents of Alameda. We have a daughter who will be entering Kindergarten in the Fall of 2010. We love the diverse and friendly community we have found within Alameda and are surprised and saddened by the number of people who have come out against the LGBT curriculum. It is our duty to teach children the true principles of democracy and equality for all. We have taught our daughter that in order to treat all people equally one must first show respect to all people. To respect even someone that you disagree with is what tolerance and equality is all about. We are terrified by the lack of separation between Church and State that some people are suggesting should be supported in our public schools. We have so many friends who are creating loving, supportive and educated Lesbian and Gay families. We have also heard children on the playground yell out nasty and ignorant slurs. I personally know of at least 2 children who have been bullied at Alameda schools because of their parents or their own sexual orientation. Public schools are a place where ALL students and their families should feel safe and welcome. The stakes are simply too high for the status quo to remain. I urge you to vote in support of the LGBT Curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 We are residents/parents in the City of Alameda. We are stunned and concerned by the proposed LGBT curriculum for Kindergarten to Grade 5 students. We are writing to urge you to reject this proposal. To start with, if there is any curriculum or lesson on diversity, it should be including teaching against discrimination of various types including discrimination based on race, sex, age, and national original, but not just based on sexual orientation. To single out just one category is unfair and may even produce different negative effects. For example, young children may not like this type of preferential treatment of people of a single category and thus the curriculum may produce the opposite result. Why should sex orientation become the most momentous category? Why do we need to protect people with different sex orientation more than people with different background based on race, sex, and age? Parents, moreover, should have the right to let their children opt out of this type of LGBT teaching regardless. Even though explicit sexual terms may not be used, this type of teaching covering sexual orientation is related to sex education. Children from K to 5 will be very confused and be hurt. The School District has no right to force our children to learn about sexual orientation at this young age. This is especially true for students from K to 3. Alameda Resident 5/18 As an Alameda resident for 9 years, I am strongly opposed to this curriculum. Out of Town Interest 5/18 Here are written comments regarding the proposed elementary school Sexual orientation/gender identity curriculum, which is the subject of tonight's hearing, Attorney at Law and Communications Director for Citizens for Good Government Alameda Resident 5/18 I oppose to the curriculum because the nature of the curriculum is not about Safe Schools. It is a value-based agenda that a special interest group advocates. It is not proper for our schools. Out of Town Resident 5/18 As a resident of Oakland with many friends in Alameda, I would like to commend the school district for proposing LGBT inclusive cirriculum. It is one step in the direction of civil rights for yet another minority group. It is also a way to protect our children from being assaulted or assaulting by teaching tolerance and acceptance at a young age. It is a way to tear down the walls of prejudice and open our arms to all children unequivocally. This extends far beyond the subject of sexual orientation. The opposition group argues that this is an afront to their morals and will taint their children. Clearly teaching children about a certain family model does not make the children follow that model. If that were the case, there would be no LGBT families anywhere. And clearly children are already well aware of the meaning of gay as I have seen it used in a derogatory manner by kids for as long as I can remember. Why not give acceptance a chance? Our president is living testament that this is possible and we can change Alameda Resident 5/18 would like to say again that this Curriculum is inappropriate to teach to young kids, and thus illegal. The LGBT vocabulary posted on the website noticeably omits the definition for the word “transgender.” Hmm, I wonder why that is. Perhaps it is because, according to Webster’s dictionary, “transgender” means “having personal characteristics [such] as transsexuality or transvestism.” “Transexual,” in turn, means “a person who strongly identifies with the opposite sex and may seek to live as a member of this sex especially by undergoing surgery and hormone therapy to obtain the necessary physical appearance (as by changing the external sex organs).” I do not know how one expects to teach kids what “transgender” means without talking about human sex organs and their function, which is, by law, the definition of sex education. The same argument applies to “homosexual,” which is defined as “of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.” Please do not be mislead by the Curriculum’s intentionally vague and incomplete definitions of LGBT, or allow its proponents to insult the intelligence of this community by thinking they can whitewash sex education and pass it off as lessons about “safety.” Alameda Resident 5/18 Please reject the LGBT Safe School Curriculum # 9 and adopt a more inclusive lesson that protects the major classes of discrimination (instead of just favoring one political group) and that does not amount to moral viewpoint education. Out of Town Resident 5/18 I am so sorry that my husband and I are unable to attend your meeting tonight as we are in Vermont visiting our grandchildren. We have been involved in PFLAG for over 15 years and have heard again and again of how painful it is for kids who realize they are "different" but feel it's shameful and try to repress the feelings. The bullying that takes place also is very detrimental to their mental health. It is so important for kids to hear stories about GLBT families portrayed in a respectful and positive light. I wish there had been such lessons when my adult child was in school. We urge you to please continue with your plans to adopt a curriculum based on It's Elementary. There is too much Homophobia and (a term I heard recently) Homo-ignorance in our country today. None of our school curriculum should be based on anyone's religious beliefs. Family values means valuing all families, including our family and that of our daughter. It makes me so sad and angry to think how hurt a child would feel when all families but his are held up and talked about. To allow any child to feel shame about his family (which the opposition seems to be OK with in asking that families with gay members not be discussed) is a heartbreaking crime. No matter how people feel about gay families and gay people, they are living in every community and attending every school. And we, as a society, can't in good conscience treat them differently from other families. Alameda Resident 5/18 I was at the meeting last Tuesday night, and I felt that though it got emotional at times and with the exception of a few, the atmosphere was very civil and respectful. The public hearing this past Tuesday is an example of exactly what we want to teach our students to do: disagree with civility. I can absolutely imagine hanging out with the LGBT supporters, watching a game with them or having our children play together at the park. Many of us have coworkers who are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Atheists, and in some ways our beliefs, traditions, lifestyles, and families are very different, and yet we are able to get along without bullying and name-calling. I couldn't help but think that this is what our children need to learn, to handle differences in a mature and civil way. Alameda Resident 5/18 I know you must be receiving many many emails for or against the proposed curriculum to teach our students tolerance towards the LGTB community. There are two points I’d like to make about this curriculum:
We all need to learn to get along in peace in this world. If we are not free to teach tolerance in school because of a small minority of hysterical people worried about some nonsensical ‘hidden gay agenda’, then we are not free at all. I know you will do the educated, kind and responsible thing and will approve the new curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 I wish to convey my strong support of the LGBT curriculum. Please help keep the Alameda school system safe and supportive of all families. The curriculum nurtures empathy, affirms family diversity, and develops skills to be allies to anyone being bullied. It seeks to provide a much needed and currently absent way to learn affirmatively about LGBT persons and their families. Alameda Resident 5/18 Please note my support for the anti-bullying curriculum currently under discussion. I’m an Oakland resident, but I believe that bullying and anti-gay sentiment isn’t limited to our municipal borders. Please pass the curriculum as it is—don’t be swayed by the bullied by the conservatives. Alameda Resident 5/18 I would just like to say again over e-mail before tonight's hearing that I am opposed to the Safe Schools Curriculum currently being deliberated by the board. I do recognize that bullying can be a problem in our schools, but I do not believe that the curriculum in its current state will be effective in rectifying this problem. In addition to that, the fact that it puts a disproportionate amount of focus on sexual orientation as opposed to race, religion, gender, etc. is not fair and not acceptable. As an Alameda resident, I ask you to reject the curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 I FIRMLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED TOLERANCE CURRICULUM IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Tolerance and equality should be cornerstones of our education. No child, no family should be left out. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am an Alameda residence and before tonight's meeting, I would like to express my opposition to the proposed LGBT curriculum and also offer an alternative. Having read and heard many of the comments about the need for curriculum that will prevent bullying, harm and harassment of young members of the LGBT community...I wholeheartedly agree and think that we should address this issue directly. Rather than force students to take an approving moral stance on the LGBT sexual choices, why not teach them rather to accept and love all people, regardless of differences of opinion. Alameda Resident 5/18 I support the proposal to introduce a LGBT curriculum that teaches respect for all families and children into the Alameda schools. If we as a community are to truly embrace tolerance and respect for each other, then we must be tolerant of all types of people and introduce these concepts to our children at a young age. Unfortunately not all children are taught respect for others in their home environment and we need to open our children’s eyes and hearts; not teach them to be fearful of those who are different from them. I have a 15 year-old son who attends xxx High. During the controversy of Proposition 8 last year, he and his friends spoke openly about the need to accept people for who they were and to not discriminate against people just because of their sexual orientation. I am proud that my son holds these values and is not afraid to express them to others. We need to provide a non-threatening environment in which children can voice their opinions and learn from each other. Alameda is a community of many types of people and pretending that tensions do not exist will not make the problems go away. We need to introduce these issues to our children and give them effective tools to deal with conflicts and teach them compassion for others. I believe that the majority of Alamedans hold a similar viewpoint; I encourage a vote for openness and tolerance in our schools. Out of Town Resident 5/18 I work for UC Berkeley but have resided in Alameda for many years. I have many friends among the LGBT, including one of my current supervisors. But please DO NOT pass the Safe Schools Curriculum. I believe there should be a premium on tolerance, but this is not the way to teach our children how to be tolerant! Please consider a new curriculum that incorporates input from a much more diverse set of people, not just represented by one interest group. I love Alameda and am planning to raise my future kids here. Please consider those of us who strongly believe in tolerance for people of all lifestyles, but should have the right to teach our kids our own values! Alameda Resident 5/18 As a long-time Alameda resident, I am writing to express my support for programs that encourage tolerance of diversity and address the continuing issues of discrimination that plague this country. To this end, I strongly encourage you to support the Safe Schools curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 Please support the "It's Elementary" one 45 minute lesson per grade level stories about families that teaches about diversity in our lives within our communities today. Parents are not equipped to deal with many subjects that our children need to learn about in order to live in today's society. This is probably one of those areas. We have a mixed race President. We are an open society. Historically we have embraced and accepted peoples cast out from their own countries. Let us continue our freedom rights by embracing those members of our society that might be different from us, different by birth but just as loved as any other children we may have birthed. Education is always the key to a better world. Educate our children about LGBT children so they can have empathy and understanding for others that are not like them! When I was a child, a mixed race President was unthinkable - now, President Obama won the majority of the votes and became President, forcing many white Americans to open their minds to embrace someone who might be different from them. To be able free to live in a free and equal society we must embrace diversity. It all begins with the children. Let's give them an edge by teaching acceptance and love, and avoid teaching racism, bias, and intolerance for a segment of the population that has always existed, but has not been accepted until recently, and still not accepted in all areas of our country. Mixed race people were once shunned and are now being accepted, as our one world becomes accessible to all and different peoples meet and form family unions. Sexual preference is a private and individual matter. People are attracted to others that attract them. I can not talk you into being attracted to sombody you don't feel any pull to, any more than I can talk you into sending me a million dollars! You will do what you feel is right for you, and I have to accept that. Please make this a better world for ALL of our children! Support this program!!! Make a difference that counts!!!! Build our future together !!!!! Alameda Resident 5/18 Although I don’t have children myself, I love kids and am a strong supporter of public schools and the role they play in shaping our future. During my five years as a volunteer at Washington Elementary School (from 2000 to 2005 in Marla Kearsley’s classroom), I often saw the effects of bullying on the playground, and wished that the children had something like the Safe Schools curriculum to encourage their acceptance of our wonderful array of individual students and families. I urge you to vote yes on the Safe Schools Curriculum to ensure that all students and families – including those with lesbian and gay members – can be confident of a school yard and classroom free from bullying and teachers and students who see and understand the value of our myriad differences. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am writing in support of the proposed Safe Schools Curriculum being considered for Alameda's elementary schools. I feel it is important to have an inclusive, age-appropriate anti-bullying curriculum such as this one, and hope you will not let the loud voices of anti-gay activists (many from outside of Alameda) drown out the voice of reason which led to the creation of this curriculum in the first place. Alameda Resident 5/18 Please vote no on the adoption of exclusive curriculum being pushed onto our children. As a parent it is MY right and MY responsibility to teach my child about what makes a family, and that it is never okay to bully or tease a classmate. Please keep your focus on the rights of all students. Being fair does not make you a bigot. Alameda Resident 5/18 would like to reiterate my opposition to this curriculum. This curriculum is a very poor and irrelevant way to address the issue of bullying in school and is instead a special interest push to impose the values of the LGBT community upon children. I believe it is the parents' responsibilty and role to impart values and not the schools. Furthermore, I do not want to expose children to topics of human sexuality as such a premature age. This could lead to other confusing and jarring information for children who are still developing and forming their sexual identity. This curriculum is better placed in a sexual education class rather than making a 5 year curriculum for children to be brainwashed to believe in this curriculum's agenda. This curriculum has nothing to do with promoting a "safe environment" for the discussion of ideas and instead imposes a value system upon children and does not allow parents to remove their children from the school's teaching of non-academic material. I strongly oppose this curriculm and refuse to support any legislation or board members who support this curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 would like to express my opposition to the safe schools curriculum. It is not well written, and does not include a number of categories that matter to me personally. I hope you vote to reject these lessons. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am an Alameda resident, and while I don't have children myself, I know same sex couples here in Alameda who do have children. They are wonderful parents and I want to support them 100%. Please vote for tolerance, vote for your constituents who deserve to have Safe Schools for themselves & their children. Outsiders should not be able to dictate what we do in OUR schools. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am a resident of Alameda and I support the LGBT curriculum. As a former school teacher (first through fourth grades) I know how mean children can be in relation to gender issues. I'm so glad someone is trying to address these issues. It makes it much easier for the teacher to address bullying if there has been some education on acceptance of differences in people and families. The materials for the program look wonderful and I hope it will be adopted in the Alameda schools. Alameda Resident 5/18 I Support LGBT Families In School Curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 I'm an Alameda resident and heard about the proposed lgbt school curriculum. I just wanted to voice my opinion against the curriculum. If the aim of the curriculum is to reduce bullying, I would be more open to it if the curriculum focused on all issues of bullying in addition to lgbt issues. Overall i feel such a curriculum would not be effective as training a child's character. Alameda Resident 5/18 I oppose this curriculum because it is exclusive to children of all other kinds of backgrounds and/or are bullied at schools for other reasons than coming from an LGBT family background. I would like to suggest a curriculum that is all-encompassing, that teaches dignity and respect for all people. Please take this into consideration when you vote on this issue. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am a teacher and a parent of elementary age children. I am aware of the proposed curriculum for elementary education and I am very disturbed. It is not our responsibility to teach or indoctrinate children in beliefs that may be different then in which they are raised. It is a teachers responsibility to teach reading, math, and how to learn. By even proposing curriculum that questions a families morals will cause more harm than just having students treat each other nice and respect each other period. They don't need to know personal details of someone else's private life and it is not appropriate to discuss sexual content in a classroom and that is where this curriculum really crosses the line. Just because behavior like this is accepted by some does not mean that every one accept it as normal (it is after all a very small percentage of people that are gay or lesbian). If it was acceptable and normal for any other species that species would be extinct according to the Darwin theory. Sex does not belong in the class room. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am writing to support in favor of diversity/supplemental cirriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 Will the board be deciding anything tonight or will they just be hearing testimonies? I just wanted to say I will likely be in attendance at Kaufman tonight and I look forward to hearing the many point of view out there. Upon reviewing the curriculum I am particularly appalled at the 4th and 5th grade levels. Is the point of the curriculum to stop bullying or is it to promote the validity of the LGBT lifestyle? There is very little in the curriculum that really prevents bullying. For the most part it seems all the curriculum does is to push the acceptance and validity of the LGBT lifestyle without excuse, without shame, and without any purpose other than to say it’s out there, and if it’s out there then it means it’s ok. I am strongly strongly against the curriculum. I cannot logically conclude that this curriculum is the best means for the students. I really believe it should be up to parents to teach morals in the home, and I believe an issue such as this should be left up for people to decide on their own without school districts trying to force a worldview that is not consistent with the majority of parents. Alameda Resident 5/18 I do not approve of this curriculum. I oppose it. Alameda Resident 5/18 As a concerned Asian resident, I see the news of violence and harassment of young people in other states, including the suicide of young people after being harassed by their peers. School environments can be quite cruel and it is only the wisdom of adults who oversee the school environment that can really prevent such tragedies from happening. Please bring up this issue of violence tonight when you discuss whether to include LGBT education in schools. In Taiwan, where I recently lived, the public schools teach tolerance of gay people. Why can't Alameda and other California school districts be at least as farsighted and progressive? Your input towards positive change and greater protection of all minority groups is so valuable here. Alameda Resident 5/18 Thank you for taking the time to read my emails and inform me of the meeting times and locations. I just wanted to send another email stating my OPPOSITION to adopting this kind of curriculum. It does not belong in the classroom, is a waste of tax dollars, takes time and energy away from teachers being able to teach what really matters when California's education system is behind. If it's really about keeping students safe from bullying, then the curriculum shouldn't be teaching about LGBT families and sexuality but rather about respect and building character. Alameda Resident 5/18 As a concerned citizen, I wanted to write and give some input. I know this is a very controversial and delicate subject. I have seen a similar program implemented. The program was focussed on not teasing and bullying, which is something that is good for our children to learn anyway. There was nothing explicit or inappropriate, which is important on any lesson for our children. The result of the program was an environment of respect and safety for all children--no matter who their parents are. I believe these are the conditions under which education and learning can happen and our children can grow and succeed. Alameda Resident 5/18 I like to let you know my opposition to the Gay, Bisexual and Transgender curriculum for K-5 students. Telling 1st grade student that anyone who are in love with another person is all that is necessary to form a family is misleading. A brother can love a sister, Can they form a family/marriage? The book they use in 2nd grade, And Tango Makes Three, could teach children who like to play with same sex friends that they could be gay. It has potential of bringing more sexual identity disorder. Hence not suitable for 6-7 year old children. The method they use in 4th grade to single out those who do not agree with Robert could intimidate the children. Forcing children to behave a certain way by such scare tactic is harmful to children. Stop that, return to the truth. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am writing in support of the school curriculum that includes LGBT families. I commend the district for taking equitable action which also has the potential to curtail bullying about this. This is a bold step in the right direction and will put Alameda School District in a position of leadership in the East Bay. Alameda Resident 5/18 The Asian-American community in Alameda is a very large and influential. Our opposition knows this and is engaging in a cynical racist game of trying to portray the Asian-American community as solidly anti-gay. This is absolutely not true. As I have stated, over 70% of Alameda's Asian-Americans voted in favor of same-sex marriage and, I believe, a similar number support this curriculum. I have been told that there are two Asian-American churches who's members are voicing their objections. But it would be naive to believe that these two churches are acting independently of the larger movement of right-wing fundamentalist which is mostly run by white people. Given Alameda's demographics, it is a politically smart move on their part. But make no mistake, it is racist politics in an attempt to strike political fear into the electoral hearts of the four white Board members. Indeed, I have heard several Board members voice their concern about "Asian" objections to the curriculum. That is why I sent Board members the same information I posted here. Most Asian-American Alamedans, like most Alamedans, are welcoming and working to end discrimination of every kind, including anti-gay discrimination. To try to convince the Board that this is not true is a reprehensible lie and an ugly racist tactic which, armed with the facts, all of us should see through. I believe our School Board will be able to see through it also. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am OPPOSED to the gay, bisexual, transgender curriculum! Alameda Resident 5/18 This proposed curriculum needs to be done away with. Quit trying to take away our rights and freedom to decide for ourselves what we want our children to hear! Alameda Resident 5/18 I'm an Alameda resident and I think there should be a different curriculum that addresses school bullying or character traits rather than emphasising the different types of families. I want bullying to stop. I don't want to give bullies more ammunition by having some children be unnecessarily exposed to this curriculum.
Alameda Resident 5/18 Just to further reiterate, my proposal is that we change the curriculum altogether in such a way to focus more on the child's character. The unfortunate bullying against the children of the same-sex marriage may be merely one area of bullying. The curriculum should focus more on the broader scale of bullying, not just on the same-sex marriage. It should focus on what it means to have integrity, character, chivalry, courage, love, morality, endurance and perseverance, NOT mere tolerance towards what is morally wrong. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am writing to express my strong support for the adoption of anti-bullying curriculum inclusive of LGBT concerns. Schools should be safe havens of learning and respectful engagement. Such an atmosphere is only nurtured through pro-active and compassionate curriculum addressing problems such as bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity. I applaud the Alameda School Board's efforts to include LGBT issues into the curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am writing in opposition of the safe school curriculum. It should be rethought and completely redone to encompass all categories of bullying. It makes more sense for the curriculum to focus on a child's "character" rather than unnecessary individual categories of bullying. Bullying happens regardless if the victim falls into certain categories. Where there's a will, there's a way. Bullies will find out anything then can about another person that's worthy of being made fun of. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am a concerned Alameda resident and would like to express my desire to oppose the current SAFE schools curriculum. I ask that the curriculum be re-done so that it doesn't just focus on one of the protected classes and that all issues of bullying be covered to make it more fair. Alameda Resident 5/18 Just in case my position wasn't clear with my original subject title: I vote NO to Safe Schools curriculum or at the least I would accept the redoing of the curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 I wanted to express my opposition to the LGBT curriculum that is being proposed as a part of Alameda elementary schools. Please leave such sensitive topics to parents to talk about with their own children and schools can address the issue of bullying and children's character in how to relate to one another. Out of Town Resident 5/18 I am a resident of Alameda County. I work for a Berkeley-based non-profit, The Pacific Center for Human Growth. The Pacific Center provides low-cost mental health services to the LGBTQ and ally communities in the greater East Bay, many of whom are Alameda residents. We also provide a strong and growing after school program for youth ages 14-23. This program offers youth a safe space, skill building, activities, and encourages youth to become involved in their local communities. As part of an anti-bullying initiative, youth participate in a speakers training program and gaining valuable skills while sharing their experiences and educating their peers at local schools. Often, these same youth have experienced bullying by their peers, have been harassed, and/or beat up because of their sexual orientation or gender presentation. Alameda Resident 5/18 Thank you for all the effort you are putting out to make sure that Alameda citizens as a whole are being heard in regard to the Safe Schools program. With all the hearings that have been conducted, it is assuring me that we will have a fair chance to be heard. With this in mind, please note that as an Alameda resident of seven years and a parent of a child who will enter your schools, I propose that the curriculum is removed, or redone. Bullying is a valid issue to speak on, but only one aspect of what it means to build up a child of character, in addition to compassion, selflessness, and courage. In light of all other virtues to teach, please allow Alameda parents - and not one interest group - to have a say in what is taught when it comes to shaping a child. Alameda Resident I am a parent of two Lincoln Middle School Students, a past president of the Edison School PTA, and a past Chair of Edison’s SSC. I strongly support the addition of LGBT lessons to the Safe School Curriculum. I have heard countless “gay-bashing” jokes from elementary and middle school students which are both hurtful and intolerant. We need to teach our children to be tolerant and understanding of all kinds of people. I have read the proposed curriculum for each grade level and it appears to be age-appropriate and well-conceived. Perhaps with this curriculum in place, we will be well on our way to preventing “Matthew Shepard -type” hate crimes in our community. Unfortunately, I cannot attend the meeting tonight on this subject, but I wanted to voice my opinion by sending this email. Out of Town Resident 5/18 I am in full support of the new curriculum being proposed. Please do not allow small minded persons to keep you from initiating a much needed new curriculum!! Out of Town Resident 5/18 I understand you are in the midst of a fervent controversy about including a lecture about LGBT experiences in your curriculum. Having just listened to Barack Obama's speech at Notre Dame, perhaps that would be an apt model to follow. I believe he advised everyone to listen and be fair minded as well as to find the commonalities that exist among all human beings. Whether someone is gay or homophobic, everyone has been bullied, teased, mistreated, etc. I don't think one has to be "pro-gay" to allow students to learn to treat one another with respect and fairness. Please allow the curriculum to include teachings about all people and experiences Alameda Resident 5/18 As a Alameda resident, I strongly against the safe schools curriculum. It should not promote one specific group and it should at least to allow option out for those who disagree with the curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am very concern with the proposed curriculum related to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender tolerance. I believe everyone should be treated with respect. No one should be bullied. Bullying should never be tolerated. And that’s what I teach my 2 school age children. Alameda Resident 5/18 Everyone should be treated with respect. No one should be bullied. Bullying should never be tolerated. And that’s what I teach my 2 school age children. But I am very concern with the proposed curriculum related to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender tolerance. I believe that this curriculum goes beyond anti-bullying. It is going into areas of lifestyle and sexuality. The school has no business getting involve in these areas, no matter what position the school takes. Also the children are way too young to be exposed to these topics. I strongly object to this LGBT curriculum. If adopted, I would be forced to transfer my children to private schools. My trust in the public school system will be greatly diminished. Alameda Resident 5/18 believe it is important for AUSD to provide leadership to support tolerance in the schools. This begins at an early age when many of these basic concepts are developed. One good example is when my daughter was in kindergarten 11 years ago. She formed a friendship with a girl who was Muslim. At the end of the school year I took both girls to Great America for the day. We went to the hotdog/hamburger stand and my 5 year old daughter said, "Mom, I think Anna should have a hamburger instead of a hot dog." I asked why and she said, "We do not know is the hot dog is all beef or not." I asked how come she wanted all-beef. My daughter simply stated "She is not allowed to eat pork because of her religion." My son, too, has a Muslim friend from kindergarten. He has always shown tolerance and respect for his friend. He makes sure there is always "cheese pizza" when ordering pizza with his friend. I believe that AUSD's program addressing discrimination and tolerance (e.g. racial, ethnic, etc.) should include LGBT families. The curriculum is about teaching respect for all families and all kids. The curriculum should not favor one group over another. All groups are protected by the law. Alameda Resident 5/18 Thank you for informing me of this meeting. I am planning to attend. I also want to thank you for responding to my email. I'm sure, mine is only one of the several hundreds you are receiving each day. I really appreciate the members of the Board for making every effort to allow the residents of Alameda to voice their concerns regarding the LGBT curriculum. I can only imagine that this is not an easy decision for you to make and I want to thank you for taking the time to hear both sides of the argument. I have read through the curriculum and after much consideration, I am still opposed to this curriculum being taught in school. If this curriculum is truly about teaching children to be respectful of people and to teach them not to bully those who are different from them, then shouldn't the curriculum include other groups of people who are also commonly bullied, mocked, or ridiculed? When it comes to teaching children to be respectful of others and to not bully other kids, especially those who are different, I am completely on board. But to exclusively teach about accepting and being tolerant of a particular group of people, that seems to be inconsistent with the stated purpose of this curriculum. Another objection I have to this curriculum is that there is no way for parents to have their kids opt out of the curriculum and there is no notification to the parents about when these lessons will be taught in class. Other curricula, such as sex education, have given the parents the freedom to have their children opt out of the course. The argument has been made that the LGBT curriculum is not the same as sex education in that there is no reference to the specific functions and mechanics of sex, but I don't see how this topic can be avoided when that is what differentiates this group of people. These are only a few of my reasons for my objections to the LGBT curriculum being taught in schools. Thank you for your time and consideration. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am writing to express my support of the boards plan to expand the existing safe schools curriculum to include the LGBT community. 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 program that are designed to reduce anti-LGBT bias. Alameda Resident 5/18 I want to register my voice in favor of tolerance education that includes tolerance toward people of alternative sexual orientations and lifestyles. I am a mother of four Alameda Unified School District students, and the slurs I most ofter hear are those related to sexual orientation. I am so sick of hearing kids calling each other "gay" or saying "that's so gay!" This should not be a slur! Our kids need to know this! Alameda Resident 5/18 Please vote no on this curriculum. There needs to be more visibility into what schools are teaching our students especially if it has a moral and values aspect to the curriculum that isn't apparent from the way this curriculum is disguised. Alameda Resident 5/18 I was at the public hearing last week, but didn't get a chance to speak. First of all, let me thank you for scheduling another hearing tonight to allow others and myself the chance to voice our opinion. I am writing to say I am strongly OPPOSED to the proposed curriculum. After reviewing the curriculum and hearing many arguments from both sides, I am more confirmed in my belief that children at such a young age cannot understand all the issues surrounding the LGBT lifestyle, and we cannot promote one lifestyle over others as normal or even widely accepted. I believe we should re-write the curriculum to teach kids the character traits needed to become tolerant people, rather than force them to accept a lifestyle and values they and their parents may not agree with. Alameda Resident 5/18 We are the parents of an eight-year-old boy at Edison School. We are writing to register our strong support for your proposal to expand the existing safe schools curriculum to include the LGBT community. We are extremely disappointed in members of our community who find this a threat or have a negative viewpoint regarding this issue. It is those who want to opt out whose children need this most. The fact that anyone’s child can be either a bully or a victim highlight the need for this. The recent heartbreaking suicides of two eleven year old boys (in Georgia and Massachusetts) who were the targets of homophobic slurs painfully remind us that the need for education is not happening in every home. Please do the right thing for our community—make our schools safe for everyone. Please do not let people cloak their bigotry and ignorance in the name of religion! Alameda Resident 5/18 Please be FAIR to BOTH SIDES and ALTERNATE PROS and CONS during the open forum. Alameda Resident 5/18 Thank you again for taking the time to hear me out. I would like to state again that I am strongly opposed to the current curriculum. Please consider an opportunity to revise it with a more balanced group of people. Currently it is extremely one sided and does not discuss other groups that are subject to discrimination. Please, consider voting no on this current curriculum so that we may work on a more constitutional version of this curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 oppose the Safe Schools Curriculum on the grounds that it singles out the LGBT community, which causes division within our community as a whole (as is apparent already with the city's response regarding this proposal). I suggest that the curriculum be redone with a focus on bullying in general with the goal of building the students' character rather than targeting one group. Alameda Resident 5/18 We are an Alameda family with a child at Edison Elementary and one on his way. Our family feels strongly about confronting issues with honesty and education. It is important that we do not simply sweep this issue under the rug for fear of a few who do not want have an open conversation about humanity. It is ignorance that breeds fear and fear that breeds distrust. It is time to engage in open, honest, and educated discussions around people and our differences (or lack there of). Dont let history repeat itself, know that there is an overwhelming show of support to engage in the LBGT curriculum. Public schools are a place where all students and their families should feel safe and welcome, and have the opportunity to learn without social fears. We are beyond this type of fear based learning limitations, and we have seen the damaging results when we do not teach acceptance and tolerance for ALL people. I urge you to vote in support of the LGBT Curriculum. Out of Town Resident 5/18 I would like to begin by saying that I am very pleased to see the Board of Education considering the LGBT Curriculum in the Alameda Schools! I am sure the pressure that you are under does not feel so good. Please know, that this decision is one that will impact ALL of the children who come from a family who's structure is anywhere outside of the traditionally perceived family structure This so called LGBT Curriculum is better named Family Diversity Curriculum. It is only being rejected by religious extremists because it was spawned by a push for LGBT inclusiveness in the curriculum. I am a child welfare worker for Alameda County. My three year olds attend a Jewish Pre-School in San Leandro. In their school, there are MORE non-Jewish children than Jewish Children. There are families where the parents don't live together, families by adoption, there are families of mixed race, their are children being raised by a grandparent, etc. There are no openly LGBT teachers. There are only two families with same sex parents. Beginning in the 2 year old class, children are noticing that some children are being raised by someone other than the traditional mom and dad. In the 2 year old class the children begin to look at "who is in my family, who is in your family." They begin to look at the Diversity of family. This is pre-school curriculum. This is not LGBT curriculum. This is not Jewish curriculum. Yet this is the same curriculum described for your Kindergarteners. The same curriculum that some are objecting to as an indoctrination. We live in Oakland. My seven year olds attend an Oakland public school. At their school, family and individual diversity is also celebrated. Diversity by race, culture, religion, some families have one parent, some two, some same race, some mixed race, some are families built through adoption, some kids look like their parents, some don't. Some are adopted by parents of a different race. Some are adopted by their grandparents. Some have families with children of different races. At this school the principle's family is a two dad family. At this school, my son has a teacher who's family has two moms. My daughter has the youngest teacher in the school. Her teacher is not married. My children both have teachers of Japanese dissent. One was born in Japan, one was born and raised in El Cerrito. Some kids at this school are being raised by their adult siblings. Some kids have special equipment to use during class. Everyone in the first grade, knows that Sky and Gabriel are allergic to peanuts! In this school more children have have two moms or two dads then there are children of the Jewish faith or who have twins in their family. My children are NOT in their neighborhood school. The principle at the neighborhood school felt that there was not time or need to address family diversity. Based on the safety assured through AB 537 and No Child Left Behind, my children qualified for an out of neighborhood placement. As an Oakland resident, you make as why I am concerned about what happens in your schools. First, I work with children in your schools every day. None of them come from traditionally structured families. They are in families made by foster placement and adoption. I know that they need to feel safe. Second, our youth are more successful academically and socially when they understand and celebrate diversity. Third, contrary to the argument of those against the proposed family diversity curriculum, children ARE teased about their family make up and their personal characteristics. You already know the emotional devastation that this brings to children of all backgrounds. Fourth, children who are taunted around the issue of sexual orientation and gender are highly more likely to complete a suicide than their peers...and the statistics do support this. Finally, my family is considering places that we may move in order to access a good academic match for our children in the public schools. We are watching closely on this issue, as we have considered relocation to Alameda. Alameda Resident 5/18 I just gave birth to a child on May 10th. While I am very excited to be a parent to this precious little one, the LGBT curriculum gravely concerns me because I really don't need my child to go through a class like this. I ask that you cancel this curriculum and reconsider other strategies for making a harmonious school environment. I hope that you will take my concerns and objections with your utmost consideration. Alameda Resident 5/18 I'd like to reiterate my opposition to the LGBT curriculum. It is misguided and costly to already suffering schools. Alameda Resident 5/18 Again thank you for providing tonight's forum to share my comments on the LGBT Curriculum. I will be there to share my comments in person. However, before tonight and after listening through 6 hours of other people's comments last Tuesday, especially the legal arguments brought up as well as comments on the curriculum itself, I wanted to send you an email and I ask that you reject the curriculum as currently written and instead have the curriculum rewritten with much greater public participation. Again thank you for your consideration of the public's comments and I really hope that you will do the right thing by voting down this curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 Thank you for your responses to my last email, which raised objection to the LGBT curriculum. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the last meeting because my first son was born on May 10th. While I am very excited to be a parent to this precious little one, I become even more concerned about the environment in which he will grow up in. For that reason, I would like to see that we do away the entire LGBT curriculum because I really don't need my child to go through a class like this. I hope that you will take my concerns and objections with your utmost consideration. Out of Town Resident 5/18 Thank you for taking the time to read and consider both sides. Though it is an emotional issue, I believe that a lesson this controversial should not be approved. It should be reviewed to be expanded to include all categories of bullying. In fact what I think is more important is that this curriculum focus on a child's character than just certain, specific information regarding different types of families. I am friends with gay couples and believe in respect and love for others. I do not necessarily agree that this topic needs to be brought up and taught in the schools. I believe moral topics such as these are best left to the parents. Even though I am an out of town resident, I ask that the board OPPOSE this curriculum and consider other options on such a controversial topic. Alameda Resident 5/18 I strongly support teaching understanding and tolerance for all peoples in our schools curriculum, including about LGBT. It should be important for ALL children to hear and learn about, and respect all people in our wonderful, diverse community. Alameda Resident 5/18 I would like to thank you for the time you have invested in coordinating the various meetings to discuss the LGBT curriculum. After attending the meeting last Tuesday, I am further convinced that this curriculum not only ineffectively addresses the issue of bullying, but also because there are legal implications to the passing of this curriculum. I simply cannot accept the passing of a curriculum which clearly impinges on a parents right to teach his/her moral teachings. I respectfully request that the board reject the passing of this curriculum. Please reconsider the implications this curriculum will have. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am a lifelong Alameda Resident. In fact, I am third generation Alameda. My parents attended the public school system as did I. My daughter will be entering 2nd grade in the Fall and my son will enter Kindergarten. I am totally opposed to the suggested LGBT Curriculum. I am proud that we live in a community of diversity. As a parent, it is my responsibility to teach my children respect, tolerance, and diversity. In addition, it is also my prerogative to decide when and how I want to explain things to my children. I do not feel it is the place of our School District to discuss the definition of a family. I understand there is a request by teachers to become educated on the topic so they have the necessary tools to "explain" this to the students where it has become a problem. By all means, provide the teachers with a seminar! Let them handle that on an as need basis. This is not an appropriate curriculum! Parents need to take responsibility for their children. This is a subject that should be addressed with the students that are making it a problem. My guess, the curriculum will not stop the bullying, just fuel it. As elected officials, I hope you make the right decision with this. My vote is NO! Alameda Resident 5/18 Those who are arguing against the LBGT addition to the curriculum for tolerance and diversity (anti-discrimination) do not value protecting others from harm. They themselves and their children are not harmed by learning more about people who are not the same as themselves. But there is some very real harm that comes from those that find some people types untouchables or those to be rejected. As a white woman married now for 25 years to a Chinese man, I have endured much racism in my life from those in my family and from total strangers passing me on the street. But the worst intolerance is the covert kind that moves quietly inside the minds of those that one must study, exercise, and work with...from the people you must be with every day at school, work, other organizations; those that haven't had the idea on their own that every human being counts and deserves equal respect and have not been exposed to education to help them think this through. Without the education about diversity, most people do not on their own engage in critical thinking about the issue and do not learn to be more inclusive, to be better people, and create a better society or organization. My daughter was an aquatics (water polo) athlete in high school; she was not gay, but two, out of dozens, of her friends were lesbian. When she cut her hair short to make swimming 5 hours a day easier, she became labeled as gay, was shunned, teased, name-called, and generally harassed as a girl who would not date a boy. She wanted to date boys but peers believed the derisive gossip. This impacted her social life, her comfort and participation in classes, and the success of her studies..... This kind of unnecessary discrimination has too many harmful impacts on young adults who have no choice but to spend hours each day with each other! I think this is the most important point: these kids do not get to have a choice about not spending time with those that discriminate against them! WE NEED LGBT EDUCATION IN OUR SCHOOLS. With my daughter's experience, I was stunned to discover that in 1998-2002, LGBT discrimination in our schools was still di rigueur among the student body!!! YOU CAN CHANGE THIS BY APPROVING THE LGBT ADDITION TO OUR CURRICULUM. Alameda Resident 5/18 As an Alameda resident, I want to voice my objection to the LGBT curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/18 I have stated publically many times that I am For the Safe Schools Family Diversity Curriculum and am so proud of the LGBT Supplementary Lesson. Please add this to your emails in support of the AUSD Proposed Lessons. I do think that the basic vocabulary of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender should be included at the Kindergarten Level. These words are basic adjectives that describe a Culture of People. A Culture that has a history, traditions, customs, vocabulary, churches and positive moral values. These words and their use, with Pride, will cut out the negative impact of those who do not yet understand the severity of the misconceptions, and the actions associated with them, that immulating from a small percentage of our Alameda Community. I also know that students use negative impact words and deeds against LGBT people without the presence of adults. This underlines the importance of children being educated and participate in the nonbullying lessons that we are trying to implement from Kindergarten level on. Alameda Resident 5/18 Last November, over 68% of Alameda voters acted in support of marriage equality by voting against Prop. 8. No matter how many letters you receive detailing distaste with the safe schools curriculum, please keep in mind that they do not represent the full Alameda community. We support tolerance and equality. We support the safe schools curriculum and ask you to do the same. Alameda Resident 5/18 As an Alameda mother of two school aged boys, I am writing in strong support of the curriculum in question. I don’t see it as sexual at all in content, but rather an important reflection of the world around us and essential information to impart to our children. In the many years that my children have been students in the district, there have been several subjects, ways of presenting controversial historical events, and even curriculum, that if asked, I would have voted against. This curriculum doesn’t even seem controversial to me—it teaches tolerance and hopefully will lead to fewer homophobic slurs and put-downs on the school yard. I trust the Alameda teachers to use it wisely and with integrity and think it important that we provide them some tools to make these types of discussions more comfortable for all. Thank you for your respectful and open process in considering the community’s input and I wish you luck in what has turned into a difficult decision for you. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am writing to express my support of AUSD's proposed anti-bullying curriculum. After watching last Tuesday's hearing, and the long line of fundamentalist Christian opponents, I feel compelled to express my view. While I have empathy for parents wanting to impart their own values on their children--we all, of course, want this--I do not have empathy when that 'value' is that someone else is less than. While the curriculum opponents' approach was to poke holes in the AUSD lessons in whatever way they could--It's not legal! It doesn't go far enough! It privaleges one group over another!-- these attacks were remote and disingenuous. At core, their opposition is based on what a few of the speakers more honestly admitted: they don't think gay families are the moral equivalent of their straight families, they don't think gay families are 'ok,' and they don't want their kids being taught this. As many in this debate have done, all you have to switch this group's arguments over to another social group to see how undemocratic the Cal Chinese Christian group's viewpoints and arguments are. Would the district allow a student to opt out of Black history lesson? Of Chinese New Year Celebrations? Of all lessons or books or discussions that relate to divorce? Religion and God's word have been used to support all sorts of atrocities in the past (as well as all sorts of good things). Just because an argument is based on religion, doesn't make it more valid, more right, or more just (concepts which are central tenents of our democracy). We are all created equal, that is what our schools teach, that is what we teach. If parents want to teach otherwise, that is not ok, it isn't just a 'value,' it is what we call discrimination. And AUSD should have no part in condoning it. I urge you to support this extremely modest curriculum and the continuing opening of our society to respect and include all human beings. Alameda Resident 5/18 My husband and I are residents of Alameda. We have a daughter who will be entering Kindergarten in the Fall and another who will be entering Kindergarten in a few years. We feel incredibly fortunate to have befriended a wonderful and diverse community of families through our daughter's preschool this year. We've had clear, simple conversations with our daughter about what constitutes a family. At 4, she gets it with no confusion and no judgement. I think it's unfortunate that the acronym LGBT elicits such fear from so many parents in our community. Alameda Resident 5/18 As an Alameda resident, I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed "Safe Schools" curriculum. I do not believe the curriculum would achieve its intended goal, which is that of reducing bullying based on differences of sexual orientation. Instead of promoting curriculum that narrowly zeros in on teaching about one single target group (LGBT), we need to implement material that focuses on building character, which would teach children how to treat all individuals with respect. Alameda Resident 5/18 I am a resident of Alameda and I oppose this curriculum. It not only discriminates against classes that are legally protected (in fact, more strongly protected Constitutionally - such as race and religion), it clearly violates California Education Codes. If this curriculum passes, there will be numerous lawsuits brought by residents and parents. These lawsuits have a strong chance of winning against the school board, due to the legal flaws in the procedure and content of this curriculum. More of our tax dollars will be wasted on legal battles, while schools miss out on funding for necessities! Please look at the statistics for the sad state of education in our own district - illiteracy, dropout rates, etc. Please address these first and foremost. That is the best use of your position and of our tax dollars. Alameda Resident 5/18 As an Alameda resident, I am very concerned at the possibility that our Alameda children will be instructed according to the proposed Safe Schools curriculum. This curriculum clearly represents an object of political interest, and is not comprehensive, objective or effective to accomplish its purported goal. Please strongly consider voting against passing this curriculum in favor of an alternative Alameda Resident 5/18 am writing as an Alameda parent who opposes the LGBT curriculum. It is not fair to the tax payers to cater to one interest group. I propose that the curriculum be COMPLETELY redone to include ALL categories of "bullying", i.e. race, gender, age, disability, sexual orientations, etc. I'd like to voice my strong opposition to the Safe Schools Curriculum, as I do not agree with any curriculum that would ultimately go against the first amendment. If a child would voice his or her opinion that a same-sex couple is not normal, then the teacher would have to tell that student that he or she is wrong. Tolerance isn't to make everybody agree. It's to respectfully agree to disagree on an issue. That's tolerance. Please reject the curriculum, as this directly influences my son. Alameda Resident 5/17 I wanted to express my concern and opposition to the Safe schools curriculum. I believe that there are alternate ways to address bullying rather than focusing on protecting one particular group. As a teacher, I would feel uncomfortable teaching this curriculum and I also believe that this would cause divisions and create tension among the teachers as well. Alameda Resident 5/17 I am strongly opposed to this curriculum. In this budget crisis, the fact that my tax dollars are being used to add this biased curriculum is outrageous - especially when all kinds of programs and even schools are being cut. Who is losing out here? It's the minorities and underserved populations who are suffering from neglect while our Board is secretly spending thousands of dollars to further this pet agenda. They might want to be heroes with the LGBT community here in Northern California, but perhaps they should focus on the BASIC EDUCATION needs of our children who cannot even read, write or do standard math. Who are these children? The minorities whom the school board has abandoned. This is indeed discrimination. Alameda Resident 5/17 Thanks again for giving us an opportunity to voice our opinion on the matter. I believe that the LGBT curriculum should not be passed because it would send the wrong message to kids at too early an age. Alameda Resident 5/17 Thank you for your diligence in listening to both sides regarding the proposed "Safe Schools" curriculum. As a registered voter, I'd like to encourage you to vote NO on the proposed curriculum. I do not believe the LGBT topic should be taught by the schools. Rather it should be taught by the parents. I rather see the school partner with parents to create a safer school environment. Here are my comments on some areas which I have not found satisfactory. Alameda Resident 5/17 I want to reiterate my concern over how this LGBT curriculum was developed in the first place. It was not done in a fair or impartial way and I think this is further grounds to not adopt the curriculum. Though you may feel that a lawsuit is imminent whether you adopt or oppose the program, I would also like to express that not all lawsuits are created equal. You are not breaking any laws by opposing this LGBT curriculum. So even if a lawsuit were to arise for this, the plaintiffs would not have a valid case. It would be such a frivolous lawsuit that the case won't be able to advance that far, and if any litigation costs were to surface, it would be far less expensive. In fact, the court will probably order the plaintiffs to pay for your attorneys fees. However, if you were to adopt this curriculum, you are clearly breaking state and federal laws. Plaintiffs would have a compelling case and the litigation costs would be VERY expensive for Alameda. If you really must be in court, you want to prevail rather than be humiliated in defeat because you had no valid defense. And you would have squandered our tax dollars when you were given many fair warnings about this. Due to financial and legal reasons, please do not adopt the LGBT curriculum. I write to voice my opposition. Alameda Resident 5/17 I am a parent of two toddlers and I firmly support the proposed new curriculum to teach about diverse families in our community. I think it is important that our children learn that there are many types of people and many types of families. When my kids are old enough to enter school here, I want them to have that exposure and I would be proud if our schools taught some of it. I'd like to voice my support for this new curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/17 Just wanted to say from the many statistics that were given at the Tues meeting, we should focus on is statistics given about ALAMEDA schools. And the survey from 2007 for Alameda schools say that HIGHEST occurrence for bullying is because of RACE/ETHNICITY, and lowest for LGBT. I don't know how much clearer it can get than that. It would actually make more sense to have a special leaflet on what occurs the MOST in ALAMEDA. But I am for inclusion of all reasons for harrassment/bullying. Also, during the budget meeting that occurred right before the LGBT curriculum, it was said that African American population and Latino population is getting underserved. Chipman Middle school is about to get closed down. It is only right to spend our limited resources on the populations that is getting neglected. Alameda Resident 5/17 I am opposed to the safe schools curriculum! Please either get rid of it completely or have it re-written. Alameda Resident 5/17 I am a long-time resident of Alameda and currently an elementary school teacher. I'd like to express my concern over Lesson # 9. Though ideas of diversity and tolerance should be taught and discussed in the classroom (race, religion, disabilities, etc) the explicit teaching of LGBT should first be introduced within the family of the child. Educators come into the classroom with a wide variety of political, ethical, and moral views and I don't think the classroom should be a place for educators to push their own agenda. I am opposed to the adoption of this curriculum. Out of Town Resident 5/17 I am a former member of the xxx Unified School District Board of Education and parent of a Kindergarten child attending public school in San Leandro. During my term, xxx adopted a Safe School K-12 grade curriculum, working with the assistance of Barry Chersky. I believe the experience of San Leandro is relevant to your decision on adoption of an elementary school Safe School curriculum. After working through the challenges of development and adoption, implementation of the curriculum in San Leandro went smoothly. The curriculum has been widely supported by teachers, parents and students. I recently asked my daughter what she has learned this year about bullying. She responded, “No name calling, no teasing and be an ally.” Students are taught to recognize and reject the techniques of a bully. When bullying occurs, students are encouraged to be an ally of the victim by speaking out and reporting the bully to the teacher. The curriculum also strikes at many of the root causes of bullying including stereotypes, prejudice, and hostility toward students and adults based on sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation. Family structures that include those with two dads or two moms are acknowledged and respected. Children are taught to treat everyone with respect and that school is a safe place to be who they are. If you asked me ten years ago whether teaching such messages to elementary school students was necessary, I would have expressed doubt. Today the nexus between educating elementary school children to respect all persons and families and schools that are free of bullying and violence among students. From my experience as a school board trustee and parent, an elementary school curriculum that acknowledges our lesbian and gay parents as full partners in education and counters teasing, name calling, and bullying for all reasons, including because of a student’s sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation, benefits all students. The curriculum plays an important role in creating a positive school climate and culture of tolerance that values each student and parent. Alameda Resident 5/17 I would like to voice my opinion and my opposition to this curriculum. As an alameda resident who is a strong voter and supporter of our educational system, I do not think that the issues of LGBT should be a part of a curriculum developed for Kindergarten through 5th graders. I don't even think other issues such as marriage or mature content should be included in any curriculum developed for K-5th graders. This is simply because children should not be introduced to these issues at such a young age. I know that discrimination and peer pressure and even bullying start at a very young age; however I think this would not necessarily eliminate the chances for children to exhibit this behavior. If a curriculum needs to be developed to address "Safety" concerns, I would propose a curriculum that addresses matters of attitude, character, or even behavior. Safety is an open-ended issue and should include a wide-range of concerns. However, this curriculum may indeed single out a group, and I for one am strongly opposed to segregation, intolerance, or any kind of discrimination. I appreciate your time and also for bringing this matter to the public, as I believe we need to really strive to bring to the best of our ability a strong and effective education system and environment for our children. Alameda Resident 5/17 I am writing to oppose the Safe School Curriculum Lesson 9. I am an Alameda resident and do not want my tax dollars to go to fund this curriculum. This curriculum favors the LGBT group and I would like to ask for a revision of the curriculum so that a group is not singled out but rather to really teach tolerance for all groups. I really urge you to reconsider this curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/17 I am a United Methodist minister and a community organizer for both UNITE HERE Local 2 (hotel and restaurant workers union) and CLUE (Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice). Our educational system is a cornerstone of democracy in our country. It is in our schools that we nurture and train the future leaders of our communities. It is therefore expected that our schools' curriculum should reflect the values of non-violence and non-discrimination, respect for human dignity, justice for the oppressed and marginalized, and teaching the importance of equality under the law. Our children and youth - most especially those who are vulnerable to discrimination and violence because of their color, social, status, or sexual orientation - deserve no less than an education that fosters the values I mentioned. It is a basic human right to be treated with respect and dignity. It pains me that religious language has sometimes been used to discriminate against certain groups of people in our society. I believe that all religions believe in justice, and the word "justice" in both Jewish and Christian Scriptures refer to "right relationships" or relationships built on mutual respect. As a Filipino immigrant, I also understand that in certain cultures there are various ways of negotiating matters of human sexuality and sexual orientation. These cultural negotiations, however, cannot be used as an alibi to restrict the public school system, which is supported by all tax-payers from various cultures and religious backgrounds, in promoting the common American ideals of equality and non-discrimination in the classroom. I support a curriculum that fosters respect, dignity, and equality. I affirm the rights of marginalized groups, including individuals that identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex. Please do the right thing and uphold this curriculum Alameda Resident 5/17 I have attended last week's Board meeting for the LGBT curriculum, but was unable to stay for the main discussion due to over-flow issues. However, I would still like to oppose this curriculum and it being introduced into the Alameda school district curriculum. If this curriculum must be included I would like to suggest that this curriculum be completely re-done. I have heard that there was only one parent representative during the creation of this curriculum. I'm not sure to what extent this is true, but I really hope that we can have more parents and teachers with various views/opinions about this curriculum to be included. Please re-consider passing this curriculum once more! I do not agree with the curriculum being used for the Alameda school district, and oppose this curriculum!!! Alameda Resident 5/17 I would like to just reiterate before tomorrow's meeting that I would like to see that the curriculum be rejected. As an Alameda resident I feel like hiding this very one-sided curriculum under the guise of "safety" and bullying is completely misrepresentative of the goal of the program (if the intended goal is really to teach students complete tolerance. Looking over the curriculum it looks very one-sided and really pushes the agenda of one group. I propose that the curriculum be revamped with all groups in mind, sending a general message of tolerance rather than a message that pushes only the LGBT agenda. It should focus on the student's character rather than a specific agenda. Alameda Resident 5/17 I will be there to voice my opposition to the "safety school" curriculum, I hope you do the same. Alameda Resident 5/17 By a slim majority, two surveys report Asian-Americans voted in favor of same-sex marriage in California. Asian Week reported Asian-Americans voted 49% in favor of Prop 8, while a majority of Asian-Americans voted against Prop 8, in support of same-sex marriage, by 51%. http://www.asianweek.com/2008/12/02/behind-the-asian-american-split-vote-on-prop-8/ A report commissioned by the National Gay & Lesbian Task to analyze why Prop 8 passed reports that Asian-Americans voted only 48% in favor of Prop 8 while California as a whole passed it by 52%. (page 3) http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf The State of California passed Prop 8 with 52% of the vote. Only 32% of the City of Alameda voted for Prop 8. Given the fact that Asian-Americans in California voted against Prop 8 by a greater percentage than the State as a whole, it is reasonable to extrapolate that the Asian-American vote in Alameda for Prop 8 was under 30%. Alameda Resident 5/17 completely support the anti-bullying curriculum and am horrified to see anyone opposed to this. Alameda Resident 5/17 Please don't pass the safe schools curriculum. I believe that introducing this curriculum would not achieve the intended goal of protecting our students, but actually would create a more polarized and dangerous environment, in which those with differing viewpoints would not be able to express that. Alameda Resident 5/17 I am an alameda resident and I just wanted to say that i oppose the curriculum and what it completely gone. Alameda Resident 5/17 Although your effort to introduce diversity and attention for sexual orientation into the school curriculum has completely gotten out of hand, and is being misused by opponents to promote their agenda, we surely and fully support your effort. It is sad, that this democratic society cannot respect the rights of other people, and cannot distinguish between information and indoctrination. This is such a waste of time and money, and of your energy, as you try to promote education, in a time of such limited resources. I hope you and the board can look beyond this, in order to stay the course, and take care of your health and sanity. Alameda Resident 5/17 After last Tuesday’s meeting, I am still not for the proposed LGBT curriculum. My preference is to have the curriculum completely thrown out. Alameda Resident 5/17 We are the parents of a fourth grader at xxx Elementary School and of two grown children. Our grown daughter is married, with two young children and my son is gay, in a committed relationship. We have raised our children to be loving and accepting members of society and we are proud of all of them. We are excited at the prospect of a curriculum that teaches respect for all family types. I have read the curriculum and applaud the thoroughness of the subject matter. Alameda Resident 5/17 We are writing to let you know that our family is supportive of the proposed curriculum adding an additional lesson to the Safe Schools Curriculum. We believe that tolerance should be taught to all students. We have reviewed the proposed curriculum and feel that the suggested lessons and vocabulary are age appropriate. Alameda Resident 5/17 I'd like to voice my opinion about the proposed LGBT curriculum. I am strongly opposed this curriculum. I don't believe that implementing this curriculum helps makes our schools safe. In fact, it will ENCOURAGE kids to single out those who are different and bully them. Also, it will pressure kids who hold different believes (but are still taught to respect others with different views) to FEEL PRESSURED to stand up for their own beliefs because they are easily swayed by other kids' opinions let alone teachers'. I heard from my friend who attended last Tuesday's meeting that after she voiced her opinion about the curriculum (she was opposed), couple of LGBT people with rainbow ribbons whispered to themselves "she's a hater," which my friend happened to somehow overhear. So I don't know who's hating who. I know for a fact that my friend RESPECTS LGBT community members, though she opposes their practice. But I am deeply disappointed to hear that she expeirenced that kind of name-calling from them. As a tax payer and Alameda resident, I'd like to have this curriculum GONE. Or else, make it again so taht it emcompasses ALL categories of bullying rather than LGBT group. That's such a single-interest, special-interest focused agenda being promoted. I don't even understand why it is part of school safety curriculum. If anything, it should be part of sex ed. Alameda Resident 5/17 I've written before and attended the meeting this past Tuesday but was not able to stay because of the room capacity limitations so I didn't get to voice my opinion that I would like to please have this curriculum re-done to focus on what it is proposing to prevent (aka: bullying of minorities instead of giving special focus to one specific group and teaching "tolerance/acceptance" towards that specific group - it should be to all groups) or not present this curriculum at all. Alameda Resident 5/17 I want to first express my appreciation for all the effort you have put in to develop the safe schools curriculum and your willingness to hear us out. I think that the safe schools curriculum has the good intention of thwarting bullying in the schools but I'm afraid that the focus on the LGBT group will result in more bullying and marginalization. I oppose to the current safe school curriculum and I propose to redo the curriculum to address character issues and the negative consequences of bullying and ostracism. I think it is more important to mold the character of young children than to expose them to controversial topics in schools. Alameda Resident 5/17 I am a concerned Alameda resident. I oppose this curriculum and believe that it must be completely taken out of the curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/17 I am an Alameda resident. I am currently a doctoral student in the Graduate School of Education at UC Berkeley, and my area of study is Language, Literacy, and Culture. Along with my six years of experience teaching in a local public school, I feel my research area that focuses on language and identity provide a strong foundation on which I base my opposition to the addition of the LGBT curriculum as it stands. As a teacher, I know just how important it is to have a safe school as well as a safe space within the classroom. Having looked over the lessons, however, the curriculum does not achieve its intended purpose, which is supposedly to prevent bullying and hate language. There are better ways to address the kind of language students use towards one another. This curriculum oversteps the boundaries of what is morally neutral and is clearly pushing the agenda of one group of people. As I looked over the lessons, I saw instances where, if students' moral upbringing (whether cultural, religious, etc.) differed from the clear political agenda of the curriculum they would ironically feel alienated and uncomfortable themselves, thereby undercutting the overarching goal of a safe and caring school. For example, in the 2nd grade lesson, there is a question, "Where did you get this idea?" If a child were to say from his parent, how would a teacher respond? In particular, the activities where students are looking at stereotypes, I found the activities to be very ambiguous and full of assumptions. We as educators should be clear first and foremost that stereotypes are different from moral beliefs. At that age, I don't know that students can distinguish from the two, and in the particular stereotypes activity, and the ensuing discussion, they most certainly would not be able to. How can we be sure that teachers, who have so much power, would not overstep the parents' rights to raise their children with particular moral beliefs? By all means, teachers should teach explicitly what language is and is not appropriate, and if you ask my friends, I am the first person to decry hate language (particularly the use of "gay" as a pejorative), but this curriculum does not address this at all. It does not teach students to truly think critically about what it means to bully another person, to use language in inappropriate ways, or to truly be an ally. The students of Alameda would be well-served to have a unit that truly focused on tolerance and being an ally. But tolerance is about people, not about ideas, and the proposed curriculum most definitely focuses on a particular ideology, not on how to treat people in the day to day. I urge you to oppose the addition of this curriculum, at least in its current version, which is too narrow in its focus. If you are really for tolerance and safety in all Alameda schools, at the very least, this curriculum should focus on other groups of people as well - language minorities, people from differing religious traditions, people with physical and learning disabilities, and so on. Alameda Resident 5/17 Thank you for your time and careful consideration of the LGBT curriculum and the apparent discrepancies that it presents. I understand that you can see there is a clear disturbance in our community regarding the bias and stereotyping that will only make bullying that much more severe and an issue for our children as it clearly elevates one of the protected classes over the others. Please re-write the curriculum so that we can attack the issue of bullying head on, as it should be, so that all classes can be protected Alameda Resident 5/17 Thank you for your time and dedication in ensuring the children of Alameda receives a fair and equal education. I would like to voice my opinion to completely reject the Safe Schools Curriculum as it is currently constructed. It elevates a particular protected class, creating inequality among the five protected class. Thank you for your earnest attention with regards to this curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/17 As a parent I am extremely concerned about the choice of sexual education material and curriculum for our children. While I have personal adult friends who are gay, I do think it is highly inappropriate to introduce this subject to impressionable young minds. I agree with the value of mutual respect and love. I believe this is what you are trying to have the teachers teach. Love and respect are moral values. On the other hand, there are those who hold that a family consist of a father and a mother as parents, and that marriage consist of male and female union. These are also time-tested moral values held by the majority of the citizens of California. Research has also shown that the above is the best and most healthy environment for children to grow in. It is not fair and not right to marginalize the latter value. Alameda Resident 5/17 I am writing to you as a parent of an Alameda elementary school student. I am very much in favor of teaching all students that bullying of any kind is bad. Be it based on race, class, sexual orientation, or any other form, bullying should not be tolerated in Alameda school. Please vote to adopt the new anti-bullying curriculum. Our schools should be an open place for learning for students of all stripes. Out of Town Resident 5/17 Quit brainwashing 1st graders in your county with LGBT agenda subject matter. Let them decide on their own when they grow up. Out of Town Resident 5/17 I am an administrator for San Leandro Unified School District where several years ago we won the battle to implement Safe Schools curriculum. I'm writing to urge you and your fellow board members to support Alameda Unified's Safe Schools Curriculum Addressing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. As the Grant Coordinator for SLUSD, one of my jobs is to serve as the McKinney-Vento Liaison, overseeing funds we have to work with homeless children and youth. Just this past week, I met with a youth from our high school who's family kicked her out of their house because she told them she is bisexual. Tomorrow, I am going to meet with a transgender teen whose family fails to recognize her female identity. Because of her isolation, she has dropped out of highschool. The risk for LGBT youth or anyone with perceived gender or sexual orientation differences is high. I applaud Alameda Unified for taking the bold step of proposing this curriculum for your students. I hope you and your colleagues on the board will be able to resist the homophobic and transphobic minority who is trying to silence the goals of your district to keep all students safe. Alameda Resident 5/17 I am a newly registered resident of Alameda, having just moved here in January. This is my first civic act in this my new home city. I would like to urge you to vote yes on the Safe School Curriculum. I am grateful that I have lived to see the day when communities are doing the right thing by adopting these kind of changes for the learning environment in which we raise our children. As a 58 year old Black gay man, I have had to not only overcome racism, but also homophobia. All children need and deserve all the support and positive reinforcement they can get in the learning environment to achieve their full potential and not internalize messages that suggest that they are less than deserving of full respect as human beings. Alameda Resident 5/17 I am a resident a parent in Alameda and I am strongly opposed to the Board's proposed Safe Schools Curriculm (or refered to Lesson 9.) The Kindergarten lesson starts off great. It is around 2nd grade that I begin to get uncomfortable as the lessons change from nonbullying to specifically teaching children about family values and what types of family strutures are good. By 5th grade, the lessons attempt to teach children about the virtues of a very specific minority group (LGBTs) but the lessons do not teach about other groups that expereice teasing (there are plenty of virtuous fat people or people with downs syndrom etc!!! why are we glorifying the virtues of only one group??) The districts proposed lessons (the curriculm as well as the proposed discussion) are intrducing specific subject matter and judgements that are WELL BEYOND the understanding of the age groups. Six and 7 year olds can not comprehend the values and adult decisions that the lessons support. While I support a welcoming classroom lessons at the Elementary age I strongly oppose lessons that teach children about acceptable and appropriate family structures at this young age. Alameda Resident 5/17 As a parent of 2 young boys, I once again ask the Board members to reject this curriculum. I have been following this from the time that our PTA notified the teachers in Feb. I had no idea that this was going on before that notification. I went to the very first "public meeting" among my kids' school parents. Very first public meeting was arranged my the PTA president, not by the District. From that meeting on, every meeting I had attended, well, I attended most of them meetings, ther room was divided and both sides were quite emotional. People have strong feelings about this topic. The more meetings I went to and read the curriculum, one update after another, I have found the handling of this issue has been very poor. Those who are supposed to be "neutral" on this issue, namely teachers and administrators, were more pervent about teaching LGBT agenda than anyone in those public meetings. It was very intimidating for those who oppose or had concerns to even raise question in opposition of it. When I asked a teacher who presented a lesson on one of the public meeting some questions about the lesson b/c this particular lesson was not available for public viewing at the district office before the meeting, she treated me like a school child, most likelly due to my accent. As an immigrant, I had experienced racism in many different ways, but had not had one personally as an adult. This was quite offensive and my friend who was next to me called it. Please do consider the hurdle that us, the parents that oppose this curriculum, have to overcome even to send an email or speak up at public hearing or even ask questions to those who developed the curriculum and lesson plans. Also, please consider the animosity in the room as we come together to hear each other out. I still get upset at how the district handled the proposal of the curriculum to the school employees as well as to the teachers. It was done disrespectfully to parents on the both sides. it will be almost impossible to come to a compromise on this issue b/c only one side isbeing pushed down to us. even though it is guised under the safe school, the entire curriculum is about promoting LGBT lifestyle and one can clearly see their attempt to have the elementary school students to accept their lifestyle as normal and right. please.... A school district should NOT side with one interest group over the others and by adpating this curriculum, that's what the district is saying. Please do not bring division and increase discrimination on the elementary school grounds. Let the kids be kids. keep them as pure as possible and teach age appropriat topics. pleaset vote against the curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/16 Please do not pass the safe schools curriculum - my children are too young to have to deal with these kinds of polarizing and politically charged viewpoints. Let them be children a little while longer. Shame on the proponents of this curriculum, for using the public school system and young children for their own political agendas. Keep my children out of it. Alameda Resident 5/16 I am writing in SUPPORT of the highly contested LGBT curriculum, being considered for AUSD. As a retired elementary school teacher, (35 years in Fremont) I have seen the need and hurts that have been experience by students, and swept under the rug far too long. This is AUSD's chance to do what is right, and badly needed, AND be a leading force for change in education and society. Please be leaders and adopt this curriculum!!!! Out of Town Resident 5/16 Here are our reasons: Out of Town Resident 5/16 My name is Susan and I live in Middle America. I used to live in the Bay Area, so I take great pleasure in reading SF Gate online and keeping up with the life I miss. I saw the article about "Lesson 9" and how you are trying to combat bullying in your classrooms. As a former curriculum director, I was so heartened to hear that schools are taking a proactive role in educating our children about different lifestyles. I was appalled but not surprised to hear of the many parents who have spoken and will continue to speak about against progress. I cannot understand how anyone could condemn a curriculum of tolerance. I just wanted to write to let you know how touched and proud I am of you and your teachers for taking a stand to promote positive and equal values. It may seem tempting in the months ahead to choose the path of least resistance (if there is one), but I hope you will forge ahead with the realization you represent many future battles. Philadelphia may hold the title, but San Francisco has always been the city of brotherly love for me. When I returned home I boasted to family and friends how differences are not only tolerated, but embraced in the Bay Area. You can imagine how much less tolerated alternative lifestyles are across the country, which is why I am writing to you today. You are in a unique position to represent the Spirit of San Francisco, which has nothing to do with being gay or straight. If anti-bullying lessons cannot be taught in the Bay Area simply because gays are part of the protected group, what chance do we have here in the Bible Belt? The implications of Lesson 9 will reach far beyond the walls of any Alameda school, and I want you to know your fight is important and national audience is very, very grateful for your efforts. This battle is against prejudice and must be won. We must have the sense and the right to teach world religions in school, not just Christianity. We must have the freedom to present the theories of creationism and evolution. We must model acceptance of all faiths, ethnicities, disabilities, and lifestyles for all our children . . . because what is the alternative? To breed another generation of hate and mistrust and discrimination? We can't allow that to happen. Eliminating Lesson 9 is tantamount to burning books. It's not about the content of the books and it's not about the morality of the lifestyle Lesson 9 protects (_not_ promotes, just protects) . . . it's about equal representation and acceptance of any lifestyle that does not break the law. School curriculum does not impose values; it teaches students to respect that which already exists in our society. Just because their parents would rather not recognize an alternative lifestyle does not mean it doesn't exist. The onus of the school is to create good, well-educated citizens. By not teaching students to respect every faith, ethnicity and lifestyle, schools would be shirking their responsibility. It's funny, isn't it, how parents thought the new bullying curriculum was fantastic until this component was added? There is no moral case here regarding promoting a lifestyle; the only morality involved here is teaching students that it is NEVER okay to bully or harass another student. And any parent who thinks otherwise should have to sign a release: "Yes, I give my child permission to bully any student who is gay." Let them swim in the legal ramifications of that. Thank you, for leading this charge. It may not have been anyone's intention to create ground-breaking curriculum, but you have, and I hope you will stand firmly behind it and expose the motives of any group that will challenge you. The Christian right is a bully! And we must keep bullying out of schools, period. You will win this fight. Alameda Resident 5/16 I'm a parent of 2 young children. One, soon to be in 1st grade, the other to enter Pre-K in a couple of years. I've kept up on what has been going on in Massachusetts both with Education and with the State's recent gay marriage, and massive push by the gay community to normalize gay, lesbian, transgender life styles. Children in Public Schools seem to be a big target for the pro-gay groups and that worries me terribly. Why else does the gay community want to seize the hearts and minds of young children so badly? I, like virtually all people were warned as children not to take candy from strangers, accept a ride, a toy from a stranger. I was taught never to go off with a stranger even for the most innocent sounding story such as "Will you help me find my lost puppy?" Why was I and most children warned about this? Because any such behavior was most likely a trap. It was a lure to entrap a child. Unfortunately, there are people out there that know children are innocent, impressionable, and easily taken advantage off; and they prey on children in this way. Why does the gay community want so badly to have gay men in the Boy Scouts? Why are they so concerned about young boys? Are you aware of HR 1913? How about SB 909? These Bills seek to give preferential treatment and protection to any and every gay/lesbian/transgender person, and even pedophiles! It doesn't even stop there! These Bills go onto give special rights to those with bizarre sexual desires. Being aroused by a person who's an amputee, and the list (I want go into it as it truly is bizarre) goes on and on. From a parental point of view, I see the spinning of a large web set to trap, confuse, and indoctrinate young children in Public Schools. Just like a stranger offering "candy" to a child, it sounds nice and sweet. A nice story read to children about a gay or lesbian family. It sounds sweet and nice on the surface, but what is it realy leading to? The stranger offering a child candy is only the beginning. Odds are if the child accepts the candy, the ride, the offer to help find the adult's "lost puppy", will increasingly go down a very dark path. It may start out as what seems to be a friendship, but as time and trust goes on, the real motives of the predator start to be revealed. No ones likes a predator. Especially one who seeks out children. As an educated, civilized parent, I can't even imagine how uncivilized I might become should one of my children be taken advantage of by any type of predator. How about you? Take a moment to imagine someone preying on one of your children at a young age. A person or a group preying on your child in an especially stealthfull way. Imagine you yourself didn't even notice it at first. The invitations to do "nice things" for your child, the "gifts", the "compliments" and the nice but strange effort to befriend your child. You start to think "What a nice person taking such an interest in my child." Later you start to question "Why is this seemingly nice person taking such a huge interest in my child?" This is exactly the ploy I see the pro-gay community taking with children and the School Boards. It all sounds so nice, what a nice loving, caring presentation they put on before your eyes, and in their "children's stories". They seem so loving, and accepting, so caring. They have great points about how no one likes to be name called, or shunned. They teach "acceptance" and doesn't everyone want to be accepted? Sure they do! But, just like the candy or the free toy, what's coming later down the road for the child (or parent, or School Board, even the society) who accepts this? It would seem to me the best way to love a child (from an Public School Education Point of view) is to: Give children a safe learning environment that gives them the education (which is a tool of sorts) to excel in life. Excellence in Science, History, Math, Language, Literature, Art, Sports, Music, etc. is the key to a happy productive future adult. Not focusing on gender identity issues or whether you identify yourself with a boy or a girl. Whether you perhaps were meant to be a boy or a girl or not. Such things only seek to confuse and cause excessive questioning of children who need not focus their minds on these things. They need too focus their minds on the list of education above, for starters at least! California has a LONG way to go to get it's education to be on par with many other states, much less other countries around the world. Why should time be spent on teaching sexual related material? Especially about alternative life styles and families? Because I have watched and read about all this pro-gay marketing scheme (as I see it) being pushed on children in Massachusetts and the pro-gay community fighting so hard (even violently at times both physically and legally speaking) I am VERY Suspicious of their motives. Prop. 8 was a prime example. Pro-gay groups lashed out at churches and church goers defacing their property, verbally assaulting them, and in some cases physically assaulting them. Why, because people don't agree with their personal sexual desires or practices? What I like to do with my wife in my bedroom is not anyone's business but ours and I wouldn't even want it discussed. If I did and people disagreed with it, I certainly wouldn't become violent about it! Why is the pro-gay community becoming so aggressive and violent lately? Why the push in the media and the schools? Why the attack on the Mormons, the Churches, the Christians? It seems to me they are trying to build a revolution of followers and supporters. Who would those supporters and followers be? Aside from powerful political figures, it sure looks like they are after my kids! How does that sit with you? As a parent, how does that sit with you? It doesn't sit well with me at all! So, because I don't trust the glaring (in my opinion) trap that seems to be being spun for my children, I have decided to not even go near the spider's web! Since the pro-gay community seems to be spinning their web in the public schools, I don't want my children going any where near that web. That means I will not allow my children to attend Public Schools. I don't trust the pro-gay community, nor do I trust any School Board who intends to accept their clever curriculum. I like to avoid traps in life, how about you? Alameda Resident 5/16 Please stop educating next generation that the Gay, Bisexual and Transgender curriculum is right and making them them more confusion about the sexual identity. Alameda Resident 5/16 Knowing our children want the security of a safe school that respects all variations gives us the confidence to stand up for them when they have no say. I recently viewed the documentaries "It's Elementary" and its 10 year followup "It's Still Elementary" showing elementary to high school students so open and positively responsive to gaining knowledge helping them understand that being gay is another variation, like the color of our skin, that deserves respect. These documentaries will demonstrate to concerned parents that their children benefit from knowledge. Thank you for having the courage to help educate those so vocal in their opposition to allowing justice for all. I support you in following your conscience that recognizes the discrimination that we who are identifiable minorities have experienced. We appreciate the continual opening of hearts overcoming discriminatory behavior. My parents, born in California to parents born in Japan, were incarcerated without charge in detention camps during WWII. But I didn't have to suffer the same fear-generated discrimination that they did. That's just one example of how quickly people can, with knowledge, overcome their prejudices. My husband came out as a gay man in 2006 and I have since gained knowledge through books, support groups, films etc. and learned of the terrifying plight that kept him closeted all his life.I am committed to sharing our story to help others. Alameda Resident 5/16 I am writing in support of the proposed Family Diversity Curriculum. As an Alameda taxpayer and parent of two young children, I am distraught that an effort to counteract attitudes and actions that are disparaging and damaging is receiving so much opposition. As a practicing Christian, I am particularly appalled that some of the criticism against this curriculum appears to come from church groups. Jesus both preached and practiced inclusiveness. The few incidents in the New Testament of the Bible which describe Jesus as becoming angry occur when he views people as sitting in judgment of other people. It is our responsibility to teach our children to love others and to treat our neighbors as we would like to be treated, regardless of race, creed, or sexual orientation. In addition, as a professional psychologist, I have reviewed the literature on children raised in homes in which both parents were of the same gender. These children demonstrate no differences in educational or social abilities from children raised by parents of different genders, as long as their homes are places of acceptance and affection. Loving and supportive families and communities are what produce healthy, happy, and altruistic children. Such families come in all shapes and sizes. Communities that discriminate against these families come in only one size however, and that size is "small (minded)". I am proud to be an Alamedan. I am proud of the diversity and inclusiveness that can be found here. I would remind my neighbors not to forget that we are a "big" little island. Out of Town Resident 5/16 Please protect our children from the harmful consequences of embracing the homosexual lifestyle and do not forcing this controversial, multisexual curriculum on our children. This is an ineffective use of classroom time and is offensive to those whose sincerely held religious and moral views are opposed to the lifestyles discussed in the subject curriculum. I ask you to please support the protection of all students in your district and reject this multisexual curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/16 We oppose the gay, bisexual and transgender curriculum for K-5 students. Alameda Resident 5/16 I am disapointed on your proposal to teach our Kindergarteners about Homosexual and transgender issues as is being reported. Such supplemental curriculum to eradicate "homophobia" in kindergarten children is just going way too far and seems to favor only one group (Gays). I understand the need to stop bullying, but really any child can be bullied for ANY reason not just because their homosexual. It is further distressing that only homosexual and transgender children are the only ones protected as I understand in your intrests from what I have heard there is no clause for protection based on faith, religion, their size, their race, ethnicity. This is not a supprising action that would stem from a national educators agenda, none the less we as parents will not have it, the days of private and home schooling if need be will return. You all get paid by our taxes, can't you just leave the teaching of morals out of school and let us parents teach these moral issues. I regret such mandates are comming from who we would expect much better. Please stay away from such moral teaching in our schools and please stick to the Math and english for which we pay and intend our educators to instruct. Alameda Resident 5/15 Please do not pass the safe schools curriculum - my children are too young to have to deal with these kinds of polarizing and politically charged viewpoints. Let them be children a little while longer. Shame on the proponents of this curriculum, for using the public school system and young children for their own political agendas. Keep my children out of it Alameda Resident 5/15 I am an Alameda resident and I am a parent of 2 children under the age of 5 who will be AUSD students someday soon. I would like to register my support for the current LGBTQ curriculum. My sons have the privilege of being exposed to different families as a direct result of living in our very diverse city. Parents who are gay, straight, married, unmarried, one parent, four parents (step), Grandmothers, etc. - you name the situation, my son's friends are likely to have it. This city's diverse population is one of the reasons why my husband and I decided to raise our children here. Different families are here and not going anywhere, anytime soon so we need a way to make sure all kids understand that those differences are OK. For me, the anti-bullying curriculum for older children is much more important and it is somehow being eclipsed by the issues around the curriculum for the younger children. Therefore, as for opting out or not, it would be a shame if this curriculum is not implemented and if having opt out language is the only way it passes, then so be it. In the end, if opting out is allowed, I think you will be surprised to find how few parents end up using the option anyway. Best of luck to you in making your decision. Alameda Resident 5/15 Although we are fortunate to live in a pluralistic society, and it would be unconstitutional to shape public policy based on religious doctrine, we can't leave our values at the door when we participate in a democracy. And everyone would benefit if we who call ourselves Christian held ourselves to fundamental Christian values. So if, as Pastor Rose says, we can't pick and choose from our scriptures, we need a yardstick to make judgments when we consult them. For Christians, I don't see how we can measure against anything other than the core ethic that Jesus taught and embodied: Love your neighbor. Followers of Jesus who understand this are mandated not to "hide your light under a bushel." Visibly and vocally supporting the strongest possible Caring Schools Curriculum LGBT lessons gives us an opportunity to let compassion shine. Alameda Resident 5/15 At your last meeting, I spoke as President of the Alameda High School Site Council, to express that group’s support. Tonight, I speak personally as the proud parent of two teenagers who have grown up in Alameda schools. My kids have two gay uncles, my brothers, and other gay and lesbian family and friends. Regardless of our children’s ages, we have not been hesitant to use the words “gay” and “lesbian,” and out of respect have treated them as descriptive, not shameful terms. (And I’ll note that I never felt any need to relate the words to sex nor had my children asked about any sort of sexual connotation.) When I—and many of us parents here—were young, things were different. My parents were good people who strove for the highest ideals of Christian compassion. But they had a hard time accepting even their own sons. Back then, the “commons” of civil society provided no acknowledgement or guidance for responding humanely. “Gay” was an epithet, or at best a tasteless joke. It was a social given that boys not meeting standards of masculinity, gay or not, or girls not feminine enough were targets for teasing, judgment, and bullying. All of us who came up through American schools in the 60’s and 70’s know this is true, and if we look honestly, most of us can point to times when we were victims of, or even participated in, the mistreatment of kids who were different.. I want to contrast this to the acceptance my children show today. As a simple illustration: my son, on his Facebook page, joined the group “Watch the movie Milk.” The equivalent in the 70’s might have been wearing a button that said “No on Prop. 6” (the failed initiative to remove gay teachers). I don’t have to use much imagination to consider the courage I would have needed to do something like that—or the abuse I could well have been complicit in if another kid had worn such a button. This curriculum is necessary because our teachers have asked for vocabulary and tools to deal with LGBT questions in a fair, non-loaded, non-sexual way. They have the particular challenge of establishing a common ethic in the classroom for children from a variety of family and religious backgrounds. And it’s natural for teachers (and parents) to feel unprepared, because this is relatively new for our society, just as racial integration was unfamiliar and uncomfortable a generation ago Finally, to implement this curriculum effectively, teachers are asking for guidance in responding to the words “gay” and “lesbian.” We’d defeat that purpose by treating these words as shameful through our silence. I urge you to show the leadership and courage to adopt the originally proposed curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/15 I am a grandparent of 3 AUSD children and I am writing to voice my concern regarding the new curriculum that you are considering for K-5. It seems that many ppl have already given very convincing arguments against this curriculum so I won't repeat them now. As an immigrant to this country who is now a citizen and voter in alameda, I just want to appeal to you not to vote for this curriculum. I think there is too much opposition to pass such a measure. Alameda Resident 5/15 As a parent of a young child in Alameda, I am writing to express my opposition to the safe schools curriculum. Both my husband and I were at the public meeting on monday and we appreciate all your work and effort to hear both sides. We recognize that no matter how you vote there will be ppl who are not happy, therefore, I think it would be wisest to make your decision based on what is legal and would best utilize our tax dollars. From all the lawyers that were present, it seemed clear that passing the curriculum is illegal due to discrimination laws and the 1st amendment. Of course I am not a lawyer so I personally do not understand all the fine tuned arguments. Furthermore, even if it isn't illegal, it seems that there are very adament lawyers and parents that will sue the district if this passes. Personally, i don't think defending such a law suit is something our district can handle with all the funding cuts. Personally, I would hope that this issue would stay in the courts and the political arena and not be brought into our schools, but alas, this is too late. But I believe you can prevent this from getting any further by voting against this curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/15 would ask that you not adopt the LGBT Safe School's Curriculum, Lesson #9. I have reviewed the lesson, and I agree with much of the opposition that this politicized and controversial interest group's agenda should not be taught to children this young, under the mask of safety. We all want tolerance and acceptance taught in our schools, and therefore we should adopt a different curriculum that focuses on issues of character and teaching our children to respect people with different backgrounds and different values and moral convictions, but without forcing all the children to accept one moral viewpoint over another. As it stands, the current proposed curriculum will only breed and perpetuate intolerance. Alameda Resident 5/15 I oppose the LGBT curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/15 Unless the curriculum is revised to be more inclusive, legal, and truly meet the objectives of preventing bullying and promoting safer schools, I OPPOSE the currently proposed LGBT curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/15 I'm sure this has not been easy on you the past few months, years dealing with this controversial curriculum. As an Alameda resident and a concerned voter, I urge you to re-direct some of the funds that have been invested into this curriculum to enrich all people. Please reject this curriculum or drastically revise it with an unbiased approach. Alameda Resident 5/15 I attended the public hearing last Tuesday with regard to the "Safe Schools" Curriculum. Just wanted to thank you all for staying so late into the night to hear the public out. From hearing all the different positions that were presented, I'm even more convinced that my opposition to the "Safe Schools" curriculum is the right decision to make, and I plead with you that you would reject the curriculum. The support for the curriculum was emotionally charged, and I empathize. But they had no response to the legal and practical arguments that were presented by those who oppose the curriculum. I didn't have a chance to speak, and my ticket seems to have been removed from the list that will speak this coming Monday. I'm just hoping that you'll consider this email. I don't have the qualifications that many who came to present their arguments have. But I come as just your normal everyday dad, representing my son on whom the results of your decision has direct influence. Alameda Resident 5/15 I am concerned about the demonizing of our families that occurred at the last meeting. I hope you will stand firm for what is right and offer the Safe Schools Curriculum. Children like my daughter deserve safe schools, where whatever derogatory remarks people may think about their families stay in their heads. The children of the Alameda schools do not have to approve of homosexuality. They do have to refrain from harassing other children whose family constellation they find "weird," whether that is due to orientation or anything else. And all children have to be free to talk about their families, draw pictures of them, make presents for them, etc. without fear. I have read the lesson plans. They teach kids that loving, healthy families come in all kinds of arrangements; that two men who are dads together, or two women who are moms together, can love and care for their children like anyone else; that stereotypes of all kinds are deceiving and hurtful; that one thing kids get bullied for is their family members' orientation and that we should be allies to them, not to the bullies; that some famous and respected people are gay, lesbian, bi and/or transgender. Is the school board really going to say that these things are not true or should not be taught to children? Alameda Resident 5/15 As 40 year residents of Alameda, my husband and I would like to voice our support for the LGBT Curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/15 Thank you for your oversight of this whole process of evaluating the Curriculum and welcoming the feedback of everyone in the community. As an Alameda resident, taxpayer, and voter, I must express again my strong opposition to the LGBT curriculum. It is inappropriate sex education, hopelessly biased in favor of LGBT advocates. As a member of an ethnic minority, I was offended that the staff would even dare characterize this curriculum as inclusive of other protected classes. Just because the curriclum makes reference to a book that contains a picture of a black family does not mean it teaches respect and tolerance for racial minorities. While the curriculum is replete with explicit words like "bisexual" and "transgender," I don't see any definitions for "hispanic," "disabled," or "immigrant." To call this curriculum all-inclusive is a sham. Finally, I continue to question the legality of this curriculum. Please provide me with the name and contact information of the District's counsel. I would like to make sure she or he has considered all of the legal arguments raise so far and renders a correct opinion of the law. Alameda Resident 5/15 I am a concerned parent who would like to express my opposition to the currently proposed Safe Schools curriculum. As others have mentioned, it is too early to expose children at such a young age to this kind of material, and unfairly usurps a parent's right to teach values to her children. Alameda Resident 5/15 I am a parent of a transgender child who attends Lum Elem and is in the first grade. My viewpoint does not matter where the LGB is concerned, however, the issue of transgender children such as my child is my complete focus. I NEED for my child to be safe and tollerence is the first step. So I would be happy to speak at Monday night's forum at the allotted time of 11:00 p.m. Alameda Resident 5/15 I'm writing to express my support for the wonderful That's a Family curriculum. Both our children attended Montclair elementary, and my 15-year old (now a sophomore at Skyline High) was at Montclair elementary when I worked with the principal and teachers to incorporate That's a Family into their curriculum. The principal and teachers had very tight schedules, but when I presented the curriculum at one of their staff meetings, the teachers affirmed the need for this as a supplement to the materials they had. It was brought into the library and provided to the teachers for check out. I got feedback from three teachers who used the materials and were very positive. It was important for my son's fourth grade teacher also (several years later), for when my son was teased for having two moms. This was an important resource for her to utilize and share with her class. It is not focused on Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered families only, but very balanced and talks about all kinds of families: handicapped, single parent, grandparent etc. I strongly encourage you to incorporate this into the Alameda school curriculum. There are all these "flavors" of family in Alameda, just as in Oakland. Alameda Resident 5/15 I am writing to express my strong support for the Safe Schools Curriculum addressing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, and my concern that this well-developed and thoughtful curriculum become a regular part of the school curriculum in our schools. As the mother of 2 elementary school children, and a member of an LGBT-headed household, I have been very involved with the school community -- parents, teachers, administrators and students -- regarding LGBT sensitive and informative curriculum. I know from direct experience that all of our children need these issues to be addressed in an inclusive, open way in order for them to be comfortable with themselves, each other, and their families. I have studied the curriculum and I appreciate the thought and intelligence that went into developing it. Prejudice and bigotry are only lessened by exposure, education and normalization of our diversity. Please respect our children and their diverse families by ensuring that this curriculum be instituted in our schools. Executive Director 5/15 Thank you for enduring the long hearing on May 12 and your pledge to hear everybody out on the subject of the controversial Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender curriculum. Obviously the size of the crowd caught you by surprise. But it should not have. Passions run strong on both sides whenever public conversation touches on the morality and promotion of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism. Disregard for the sincerely held religious and moral beliefs on one side of this issue contributed to the size of the crowd and is the reason for this letter. Conspicuously absent in the proposed curriculum is any reference or even acknowledgment of the sincerely held beliefs of those who oppose bullying for any cause but do not want their children made to feel that moral opposition to multisexuality is unacceptable. Superintendent Vital said in her opening remarks that she wanted to create an environment that was accepting of all students. But clearly this proposed curriculum will not do that. If accepted, it will further marginalize and stigmatize those who hold to traditional moral notions on these issues. These victims will be even more a target for the labels “bigot”, “homophobe”, “heterosexist”, “intolerant”, and according to the proposed curriculum “unwelcoming”. Candidly, the proposed policy is thinly veiled advocacy of one point of view in this moral debate. If passed, the weight of the State, exercised by the District, would be choosing one set of victims at the expense of another. Perhaps we should ask if that is in fact the intent. Does the Board believe that the position expressed by so many at the forum is just too intolerable and must be addressed with the full resources of the District? The forum audience was passionate but polite. Still, there were audible gasps on several occasions when a speaker referenced a desire to educate his or her children that certain sexual lifestyles did not align with their family religion or morality. These passions and the divide on whether morality leads to disapproval of certain sexual lifestyles or disapproval of the disapprovers even spilled over into the overflow room. In that room a spontaneous debate came about. To prod this along, one self-appointed facilitator asked if there was anybody present from the religious right. A 17-year-old girl later described her discomfort with publicly being put to the choice of not standing for her religious convictions or being labeled in this intimidating way. If a forum prior to adoption of this curriculum results in intimidation and categorization, why would we believe implementation of the curriculum will not? Of course it will. The question raised is whether the District will side with these victims with the passion that has been shown in bringing this curriculum to a vote. Those students that approach these issues from the standpoint of their sincerely held religious and moral beliefs also deserve the sympathy and protection of the District. The law requires protection of these religious values with the same emphasis it provides for sexual orientation. And there is little doubt that such protection will be sought in court if not granted by the District. Obviously the favored outcome is to reject this new controversial curriculum and enforce the various AUSD policies that now exist, not only prohibiting bullying but specifically bullying related to sexual orientation. A detailed description of current law and a resolution to actively enforce the same would be quite sufficient. But if the District insists on forcing this controversial, multisexual curriculum, then we must politely but firmly request the development of a parallel curriculum that is equal in terms of classroom time, emphasis and sympathy for the sincerely held religious and moral views of those opposed to the lifestyles discussed in the subject curriculum. Failure to provide this will necessarily be interpreted as ignorance, fear or hatred of these views. And few will miss the irony of those being the things that are supposed to be remedied by introduction of this curriculum. I urge you to support the protection of all students in your district and reject this multisexual curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/15 I support the caring schools curriculum. see below. This last Sunday, Mother's Day 2009, my wife (who is currently my LEGAL wife) and I were driving to a family Mothers Day Barb-a-que. This is a longstanding Mothers Day tradition and we join grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles and friends of all ages to celebrate this special occasion. We all always look forward to the event. As we were driving over the Richmond Bridge our younger son blurted out "Mama, why did you fall in love with Mommy" to which I quickly retorted "Why wouldn't she?". At this point, hearing myself, I regained a little maturity and allowed their other Mother to tell the story of how we met, fell in love and became a family. Both kids were eagerly listening to all the tedious details of the romance until our older son said "this is SO boring." Although I was having a great time going down memory lane and listening to Barb, I realized that our 6 and 7 year old were quite easily satisfied with the basics of our love story. They just didn't care that much. They wanted to move on to bigger and better thing like SCREAMING the Alvin and the Chipmunks soundtrack for the next 30 minutes.. At no point in time, during this discussion of their two Moms and the love that they started and the family that they built, did they ask about sex. Not a word. They were left, I believe, with a solid sense of their familial orgins, of how they came to be in this wonderful little family. That was all that was needed. My children, just like yours, have a right to know that their roots are from something real and true and positive and NORMAL. We can teach them this, of course - we do. But unless their other world, their learning and social world, reflect this fact as well, this fact will always be shaky for them. This is true for any child, no matter where they come from. They deserve and NEED to be seen, not just tolerated. The deserve to be nurtured, not bullied. This isn't sex education, it's life education. The Caring Schools Curriculum is a step towards giving our children the environment and tools they need to thrive as compassionate members of our every changing and beautifully diverse community. Let's not keep this from them. Alameda Resident 5/15 I whole heartedly support your proposal to expand the existing safe schools curriculum to include the LGBT community. As a concerned mother of one of your future students, I look forward to a day when all of our Alameda students will receive the benefits of open and inclusive learning environment that nurtures families of all backgrounds, regardless of unconventional family structures or beliefs. It is important to me that my child grow up in a community that embraces difference, and that he learns acceptance and understanding from both his peers and his teachers as he moves through the K-12 system. Thank you for providing your instructors and staff the guidance needed to accomplish this very important educational goal. Alameda Resident 5/15 ALL students must feel safe in Alameda Schools. Please vote in favor of LGBT curriculum.I'm writing to express my strong vote to OPPOSE the curriculum in question. I, too, was very disconcerted to hear that this curriculum would be mandatory with no opt-out options. Why would my child have to be mandated to be taught a value in school for which our family does not agree with? Last I checked, school was not a place to promote certain lifestyle choices above others, and in essence this is what the curriculum is doing. By choosing to teach about LGBT relationships, by default you are promoting that these relationships are normal, as acceptable while you are choosing to leave out traditional marriages. This is NOT an issue of tolerance. This is an issue of sexuality and choosing to teach it at such a young age. Alameda Resident 5/15 I am writing this email to support AUSD's efforts to make our schools safe by adopting the new LGBT curriculum. As a parent and educator I have seen how violently, even young children, can act toward people they see as "different". I feel that education is the key to teaching tolerance and creating a safe environment for all kinds of students and families at school. I have taken the time to look at the curriculum, and I feel strongly that it would benefit the students. Even though we aren't used to using this vocabulary in the classroom, I feel it is important information, and we need to evolve so that young children can realize that there are all kind of families. Alameda Resident 5/14 I was rather shocked by your poor performance on the KGO Gil Gross show. I think you did more to harm the cause of getting this new curriculum passed than almost any other action to date. There has to be a reason that you were either unable or unwilling to openly discuss the curriculum and the needs for having it, but I'm at a loss as to what they are. As the school board president you must have a firm grasp on the issues coming before the board and you demonstrated that you don't really even understand the purpose of this proposal. What kind if answer is "I don't have anything to say about that" when asked about bullying and the need for this issue to be addressed in the school. I hope that you address this issue straight on and post an explanation and apology to the Alameda residents who will be impacted by your performance. I'm very sincere in saying that if you can't represent Alameda better than that, you need to step down and make room for someone who's more qualified. Editor's Note: My apologies to the community for the interview on the show noted above. If I had known it was a talk show I would politely declined. I attempt to return calls to news gathering journalists for purposes of getting information out to the public. It is my belief that is inappropriate for school board member to engage in a public debate format when an issue is awaiting a vote the school board. Alameda Resident 5/14 I was really appalled when I saw the Alameda Sun today. It is obvious that we need to expand the curriculum to Alameda Adult School and make it part of the curriculum for adults in Alameda as well. Seeing a man in a red suit is very scary and makes me wonder if he understands the message of bigotry he sends out, and makes me wonder what other groups of people doesn't he approve of. Very, very scary with men in robes. Isn't a curriculum about preparing our children for the world, giving them tools so that they can succeed in a diverse world? It means explaning things that exist, love is not a value, it is the glue that creates a family. Seeing "the devil" strongly supports the importance of having this curriculums in the school. We need to be open and transparent in our actions, and give consistent information to our children. Alameda Resident 5/14 I have heard that the out-of-town christian-right has turned in enough speaking requests to tie up the microphone until after 11pm. If this is true you need to change the rules. You have already changed the rules by reducing the speaking time to two minutes, therefore, it is in your power to further change the rules. You can say people can speak in the following order: Alameda Resident 5/14 I just wanted to thank you for persevering through the Public Hearing this past Tuesday night, and committing to another this upcoming Monday night. Your willingness to hear out the Alameda community of concerned parents and residents is much appreciated. I'd like to reiterate that unless the curriculum is revised to be more inclusive, legal, and truly meet the objectives of preventing bullying and promoting safer schools, I oppose the currently proposed LGBT curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/14 I am writing this e-mail to support AUSD's efforts to make our schools safe by adopting the new LGBT curriculum. As a parent and educator I have witnessed first hand the horrific homophobic slurs that our young students have voiced in schools. Homophobia does not simply hurt those students who have family members who are gay, the hurt is not limited to those who may be questioning their own sexuality but it impacts all of us. We are all on the same journey toward excellence in education and all of us need to understand our differences as much as out similarities. As you know, the California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act (AB 537) passed in 2000. AB 537 added sexual orientation and gender to the Code's nondiscrimination provisions. To be in compliance with AB 537 all students must be protected. We protect our students by educating them with appropriate curriculum such as the one currently being debated. I beg of you to include this curriculum for the safety of all of our students. I appreciate the seriousness with which you as a board are addressing this complex mater. Alameda Resident 5/14 I just wanted to express my strong DISAPPROVAL against the LGBT curriculum being taught in school and forcing all the kids to be taught this material. Personally, I think same-sex marriage is something God never intended for us and is immoral. This doesn't mean I don't accept them as precious people, of course. To be taught to love one another is one thing, but to make such immoral behavior an acceptable thing and as the norm is inappropriate. I'd strongly implore that parents be given the right to opt their children out of the curriculum if they so choose. Let's teach our kids clear moral boundaries b/w what is right and what is wrong and to love those around us not by making what is wrong OK but b/c of everyone's inherent value as a precious human being and as someone's precious child who is dearly loved. Alameda Resident 5/14 People full of dread once argued that peasants should be denied their full rights in medieval Europe. Same with indentured laborers in the New World. People fearful of change once argued slaves should be denied their rights. They argued long and hard that women should be denied their full rights. They then argued that workingmen, women and children should be denied their rights. They even argued that colonized 'inferior peoples' should be denied their rights.They argued native Americans should be denied their rights. Black people too were denied their rights until so recently by the fearful. For much of the last century, those of Asian origin were also denied their rights by those full of dread. You can add those of Latino origins to those denied their rights. As was the case after all these groups eventually won - or perhaps still work to win - their rights as full, respected, accepted groups in our society, no harm will come when gay men, women and families win their full rights. When this happens, all those wasting our limited resources on this non-issue will as usual fail to look back and see how ridiculous their fears were. They'll likely be fixated on some new issue, driven by fear, misunderstanding and veiled bigotry, as usual. Their kids will know about alternative lifestyles by then, their kids will likely be as straight as my wife and I are, and the sun will still rise. My wife and I, and all our friends, have told our kids all about gay lifestyles already. They know gays have existed since time began. They know gays live all over the world, in even more repressed societies than this. They know gays do as good a job raising kids as we do (better than most, lets face it). They'll be talking to your kids about it, like it or not, so come out of the closet of medieval obscurantism and welcome all people who contribute to our, er, 'community'. Alameda Resident 5/14 I would like to voice my opinion against the safe school curriculum. As a concerned parent, I would really like the right to opt-out of this curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/14 Why was the 5th board member missing from this important and extended discussion? Can you address this on Monday and explain to us Alamedans? Thank you. Editor Note: Niel Tam was out of the country. Niel will have an aopportunity to review all of the tapes from the meeting when he returns later next week. Suggestions: - Please look at the email polls carefully and the numbers who spoke against this curriculum which clearly out-numbers those who support this curriculum by a landslide. - Please note that 99% of the people who spoke against the curriculum were Alameda residents, while many of the proponents did not volunteer this basic fact (not that they need to, but why not?) that they were Alameda residents and parents. This LGBT Curriculum is against the law - which ironically, is discriminatory against the other 4 sub-categories that are clearly higher in the surveys of bullying and harassment, yet ignored for the most part, and not given the same amount of attention as this specialized curriculum. I guess all the white skinned high school students that spoke, and all the white skinned LGBT curriculum proponents (which was almost all of them) wouldn't be able to understand the facts of life that race and religion is still the highest area of bullying, yet ignored for the most part in comparison to the focus on this 1 sub-category. Where is the actual curriculum that clearly focuses on these other sub-categories: separately, specifically and equally (number of pages, references, training, focus) as the LGBT curriculum? Not one proponent (including teacher) was able to show it to me. Not one. It's because there is no specific curriculum for each specific top-bullying sub-categories. The top sub-categories have not received similar attention and focus and curriculum pages than this LGBT curriculum though they are higher in the harassment surveys. Baffling and discriminatory. I have many close friends that are gay and lesbian - and I treat them with great respect as my dear friends. BUT, I do not have to like his music, nor does he mine. He doesn't have to agree with me that Cal football is going to the Rose Bowl this year, nor do I have to accept his faith. We can mutually and respectfully disagree with our differences and beliefs. This is how it is in all friendships and relationships. He can like Italian food and I can hate Italian food - but this has NOTHING to do with our love and respect for each other. So please stop hating me and hissing at me for rejecting this inapproprite curriculum that crosses boundaries. There are better ways for teachers to deal with bullying... by dealing with it... deep thought. I oppose this curriculum, not my dear friends who are gay. Please stop the humanistic talk that we are supposed to love our neighbors... of course, but please stay on topic. It's this specific curriculum that I am opposed to. It's this curriculum that will NOT stop bullying. Again, we should deal with all forms of bullying, but this curriculum does not deal with it appropriately. This curriculum was intended for purposes that goes beyond safety and clearly crosses boundaries into morals and sex-education and I cannot support this curriculum. Can't I respectfully disagree with you about this curriculum? Tolerance, please. Alameda Resident 5/14 Thank you for listening to all of us at last Tuesday's meeting. What a long night! I know you have another long night to come. I just wanted to let you know that many of us are praying for your stamina and wise judgement. Thanks again for allowing so many of us to express our concerns! BTW, where was Niel Tam? It was such an important night for everyone in the board to be present. Editor Note: Niel Tam was out of the country with his wife who serves on international board for Input TV. Niel will have an aopportunity to review all of the tapes from the meeting when he returns later next week. Alameda Resident 5/14 I'm a parent with two children attending Edison Elementary School and I'm opposed to the planned LGBT curriculum. I'm against to the proposed curriculum for the same reason I'd be opposed teaching about the Holocaust at the elementary school level. Certainly, both topics SHOULD be taught to our children, but not at this stage in their life. As a parent, I think it's too soon for my six and nine year-olds to be confronted with such weighty issues. Certainly, our kid's should be taught not to say hateful words--I see no reason to waste class time exploring the etymologies. I've never taken much interest in local/school board elections, but if this lunacy is allowed to continue, my yard will be filled with signs for whoever stands up to the incumbents. Alameda Resident 5/14 I’m asking for clarification about the voting process regarding the Lesson 9 LGBT curriculum and also to express my STRONG OPPOSITION once again to this curriculum. 1ST QUESTION: Can board members choose to abstain from voting? 2ND QUESTION: If there is a draw in votes, does the measure pass or fail? (i.e. if the vote is 2 vs 2 with 1 board member abstaining, will the curriculum pass or be rejected? 3RD QUESTION: If a board member is absent on the day of the vote, can they still vote in absentia or does their vote not count? Again, I strongly appeal to our board members to oppose this curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/14 Thank you very much for the meeting on Tuesday night. It was quite grueling for me to just sit and listen; I can't imagine how it must have been for you all given the responsibility you have with this! To be clear, my parents were immigrants from Hungary (a communist state at the time I was growing up). My father lost his leg by stepping on a tank shell walking to school in Hungary as a child during the war. I was fat as a kid... I had my fair share of bullying as you could imagine. Just take your pick at whatever and I could be made fun of... and now I am married to a korean, have plenty of LGBT friends that are close to me. I am NOT against them at all. I HATE bullying and believe that all people need to be respected, whether they have an accent, are overweight, have a father that uses crutches, or have a different type of family! Having said that, looking at the arguments for and against the curriculum last night, seems like the majority of the pro-curriculum arguments had to do with raw emotions of having been made fun of as a child, seeing friends made fun of or the tragic cases of people committing suicide because of being bullied. My heart goes out to them and I wish with all my heart that we could bring those lives back and undo the hurt. But we cannot make our decisions based on emotions. That is where judgement comes in, and that is what the board is supposed to represent, a group of people that can exercise good judgement and make the right decision. We need to see if this solution fits the problem and addresses it to the appropriate level. I heard incredible logical fallacies last night... people quoting from the bible saying that Jesus was always loving the invisible, the people who were being bullied, and that translates to a good Christian today supporting this. There are some huge mistakes there. Jesus loved them but he didn't encourage their way of life! Jesus loved the adulterous woman, he loved the prostitutes and the tax collectors (who were basically the mafia of the day, extorting everyone) --> do you think Jesus would have told the Jerusalem school board that they should teach about prostitution, adultery and organized crime? Then there was the lady that mentioned how she can't believe we are talking about this because in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of disorders, "thereby saying it is normal and acceptable". That is a huge jump... again, prostitution isn't listed under the list of disorders, neither is adultery, does that mean it is okay to teach to school children? Just because you need to accept people doesn't mean you need to agree with them! Then looking at the anti-LGBT-curriculum people, it seemed to me that they had very solid reasons and evidence for their stance. They weren't against bullying and many expressed how they really to work with the school board to find a solution that is fair and also addresses the problems. We heard about constitutional law from multiple lawyers (at least 5 or 6), as well as educational code excerpts, from lawyers that deal specifically with these kinds of issues! We heard from education professionals, numerous teachers that spoke out how difficult it would be on a teacher to teach this and be trained. And they were saying this at the risk of being blacklisted! There were many logical arguments about why we need an opt-out and also how it couldn't work because Caring schools curriculum can do "on the spot" teaching at any point. We heard about real statistics (not just anecdotal evidence) on both the federal and state level about what the lead causes of bullying is, and how it isn't LGBT yet gets lower preference by the material then LGBT issues. There are MANY reasons why this cannot pass, and they are all logical and reasonable, with much backing (legal, professional and statistical). When looking at the two summaries made above, it seems plain to me that emotions that are raw are impeding judgment, and that the clear thing that needs to be done is to dismiss this lesson 9 and go back to the drawing board and find a way to incorporate LGBT issues into the bullying lesson in an appropriate way. That is what is being asked here, not that LGBT peoples be excluded from the anti-bullying message or that they be allowed to be harassed. There just needs to be a better way to do this. And that is what the board is for, to make that judgement. And to be honest, if this board cannot see the facts and reason behind why this can't go through, and if they vote to pass this, I am not sure what I would be able to entrust to their judgement in the future on other issues. Alameda Resident 5/14 I am disheartened as I read the emails from the LGBT side and see how people like me are being called "haters," and "bigots." That is exactly the kind of name-calling and bullying that we need to stop, but this curriculum debate has aggravated it more. I do not feel safe in this city where I am called names, even though I am a strong believer in not putting anyone down for their personal beliefs and choice of lifestyle. I do not hate anyone. As I have expressed before, as a mother of 2 children in AUSD schools, I strongly teach my children to respect others, and never use hurtful words under any circumstances. But because I express my personal views on this curriculum, I am being called "hater" and "bigot." I urge you to oppose this curriculum and draft one that gives EQUAL treatment to all protected subgroups, instruction on how to be TOLERANT of ALL people, while being able to safely express and protect our 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech. PLEASE, we need a curriculum that can truly make our schools safe. Alameda Resident 5/14 I was a resident of the Alameda area before leaving for college and heard about the Safe Schools curriculum proposal. I just wanted to voice my objection to this curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/14 I'm opposed to the propsed LGBT curriculum that is being proposed. i'm a father of four kids that is strongly opposed to this. Alameda Resident 5/14 It has come to my attention as an Alameda Resident and parent that you are considering the lesson 9 lgbt curriculum addition. I want to write to ask you NOT to pass this as it would force many of us parents to either seek lawyers to sue the district and/or pull our kids out of these schools. I do not want to be forced into any single viewpoint of which this is only one of the many minority groups. I would like to teach my kids these ideas and think it should stay within the bounds of the family. I also think AUSD should emphasis teaching against bullying and disrespect instead of narrowing it's focus to one group. I understand that this is a group that receives unfair treatment in the schools, but that does not justify this age-inappropriate topic to be addressed in K-5. I would feel much more comfortable having my kids learn about this topic after sex education. Again, please REJECT this curriculum! Alameda Resident 5/14 Thank you so much for having stayed up late with us and hearing our voices from this past Tuesday's meeting! Your hard work is definitely to be commended. After that meeting, one of the mothers brought up an excellent point detailing the lack of transparency in the process of developing the LGBT program and receiving feedback. As she stated the events, I was even more concerned that things like this can occur and go without proper consequences. I am very concerned about the secretive process in which the curriculum was developed. From the meeting, I am also surprised why not more people are focusing on the legal issues. No matter how much discussion takes place around this curriculum, if it is not legal, then it simply can't go forward. Therefore, to invest in an education enterprise that will only be defunct, compounded by eventual litigation costs, is financially irresponsible. And from the perspective of your careers, it would also be irresponsible for yourselves. You will face heat from your superiors and from the voting public because if you can't be trusted even with following the law, you won't be trusted with anything else. People above the law cannot be trusted, especially those purported to be public servants. And this curriculum is indeed plainly illegal. If changes are to be made, then we can't change the law at this level. We need to change the law at a higher level where the laws are made. As public servants, I trust that you can follow and apply the law. The law prohibits you from instituting this curriculum. But the law does not prohibit you from putting a stop to the curriculum. I hope you can read the codes and cases that have been provided to you. If there are any legal nuances that actually provide legal justification to promoting this curriculum, please let me know. Alameda Resident 5/14 I am an Alameda resident, and will become a mother for the first time soon. My daughter is due June. This is my second email to you as I thought more and more about this curricumlum and became more concerned. I simply cannot understand the insistence on forcing all children to participate without an opt out option. To me and my family, it is not only inappropriate to discuss and define words such as "lesbian," "gay" and "transgender" to elementary school-aged children, it is also almost impossible to discuss these issues without bringing in some moral bias. I feel that the right for me to teach my child what is morally right and wrong will be taken away from me as a parent if I'm forced to have my child participate in this curricumlum. Why not give parents the opt out option? You want to preach tolerance for children with gay or lesbian parents. What about tolerance towards my child and her mother's beliefs? Why should our rights be taken away to favor another group's rights? And why should my tax dollars go to support such madness? This is very upsetting and I'm simply baffled by how people can be so focused on their own personal and selfish agendas, insisting on tolerance from others for themselves, and yet be so blind as to take other people's rights away. Alameda Resident 5/14 I know you find yourselves in a difficult position, there are only so many hours in a day, but if you can make it possible for more speakers to be heard I would appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts. I arrived at the meeting on Tuesday and was told no more slips were available, that no more home made slips would be accepted, but not to worry because we would still have the opportunity to be heard at a later time. I would be greatly disappointed if I was not able to publicly express my concerns. I would not have taken no for an answer if I was not assured that I would be given time at a later date to speak. Alameda Resident 5/14 I just watched and heard on the news the debate that went on at Tuesday night's board meeting. I'm writing to express my concern over this matter. I would like to share that I am opposed to the Caring School Community Curriculum. I feel that it has extended far beyond what seems it's original intent - in ensuring a safe, caring environment for student growth and learning. As a teacher myself, I strongly believe in creating a learning and social environment that is safe for students to discuss their similarities, differences, marvel at the diversity we all bring to the classroom and school, but this is obviously targeted at enhancing one special interest group's agenda. This curriculum does not appear to be comprehensive in including a variety of differences, but seems to be pushing one group's agenda. Though teachers played an integral role in the social and moral development of a child, it is not in our place to teach and shape them with one particular angle - that this is "right." Much of the moral development and growth of a young child (grades K - 5th) should be fostered by their own parents, families, and guardian, with their traditions, values, culture, and perhaps even religion. Please take decisive action and think about the community at large - all children, all families, and all teachers. Alameda Resident 5/14 I teach fourth grade at xxx Elementary in Hayward. We have a similar policy in place in Hayward for years. It is not a problem. I delved into it this year and did not receive one complaint, and I'm in a conservative area. As with all 'controversial issues', and I hate the use of that word, teachers must be trained to use materials appropriately for their grade level. I am also very careful to differentiate between school policy and their particular belief system, with a clear emphasis that the board policy guides the curriculum, not the parent's belief. I actually get much more push back from the students regarding evolution than I do anything to do with the GLBT community. This year, during our discussions, it became apparent to me that one of my most severe behavior issues pretty much disolved when the child, with strict fundamentalist parents, became so relieved that her behavior did a 179degree turn. She's still stressed out, but knowing that school is a safe place, even for her, was key to her academic success. Alameda Resident 5/14 I am an Alameda resident and I am completely opposed to this proposed curriculum. It is not age appropriate, It sexualizes young children. It provides nothing in the way of stopping bullying. It is sex eduation. It deprives parents of their right to teach their own values and morals to their children and not to have them contradicted at school. Tuesday night 5/12/09 showed that many many parents are opposed, that AUSD will be sued on several grounds if this is implemented, that students will leave AUSD for private schools and home-schooling (how many already have after the despicable incident at Franklin last year?) and that the AUSD staff attempts to sneak this by have failed. You should also have heard loudly and clearly that parents demand a place on any committees that seek to implement such controversial, invasive curriculum. The lack of racial and religious diversity on the committee that prepared this curriculum is appalling. It is a denial of equal protection under the law to allow one group, LGBTs, to be the only ones to have input or influence on this issue. Will AUSD hire a panel of religious experts to come into the schools to train children not to discriminate on the basis of religion, and to protect children who will be bullied for their belief in traditional families if this is implemented? Dump this whole curriculum. You are wasting time and taxpayer money to favor a minority of people in Alameda. AUSD's job is to educate children in academic subjects, not to teach morality, not to advance the LGBT political agenda, and not to treat parents as if they are too stupid to teach their children how to respect others. Adults should protect children, not use them as pawns in adult debates over sexuality. Discipline all bulliers and make sure they and their parents experience consequences for such behavior. Drop ALL efforts to teach sex to children in elementary school under the guise of "caring" and/or "tolerance." Alameda Student 5/13 I am a sophomore at xxx High opposed to the proposed LGBT curriculum. Although I do agree that it would be good for schools to implement curriculum to decrease bullying and increase tolerance, I do not think this measure is the way to do it. First of all, I think this bill would increase discrimination and the divide between families that are morally opposed to homosexuality and families that are supportive of homosexuality. As this IS an issue ofvalues for many families, I do not think that it is in the place of the public school system to mandate a curriculum that would support one lifestyle/moral belief or another. That goes against the very principle of tolerance- imagine if schools tried to introduce a measure to include curriculum teaching that homosexuality was wrong- something that would obviously discriminate against LGBT students or families that support the homosexuality. In the same way, I do not think a school should mandate curriculum teaching, even implicitly, that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. A public school- a governmental institution, should not promote one value/morale over another. I think the second reason this measure should not pass is because of the nature of the curriculum- that it is mandated for all students. Parents, not the schools, should be able to teache their children values and morals. The proponents of this bill try to write that aspect of this measure off by claiming that it is simply an anti-bullying measure, but why do we not then implement mandatory curriculum to teach children that all races are equal, why don't we mandate curriculum to teach our students, to teach us, that you shouldn't make judments on people based on what kind of clothes they where, how they spend their time, what kind of people they hang out with, what their personality is like? the school board doesn't mandate "safety" curriculum to protect students from abuse stemming from these kinds of differences, why should they with this issue? On another level, the nature of this measure is such that students whose families don't believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable will be discriminated against. The school should not pressure students to think in one way or another- I shouldn't be afraid to raise my hand in class and say what I believe for fear that the teacher or my fellow students will crack down on me. Here's an example- my friends and I were discussing prop 8 a couple months back. Most of peers were against prop 8, (though they couldn't give any rational reasons why) and when I shared that I was for prop 8, on of my friends called me an a__hole. I believe that people have the right to believe what they want to and live the way they want to (so long as they don't hurt other people.) Our schools should not mandate a certain "moral"curriculum. I want to learn English, math, and history in school- things that are objectively true, things based on reason, things designed to stimulate me intellectually. I don't want to go to school and have the teacher preach one set of beliefs to me over another. And yes, this curriculum does support one set of beliefs over another. Should a Christian student who believes that homosexuality is morally wrong be forced to sit through curriculum which implicitly asserts the validity and moral acceptability of the homosexual lifestyle? because according to this measure, parents will not be able to opt their children out of learning this curriculum. On another level, I doubt the efficacy such curriculum really will have on reducing bullying and increasing tolerance. Even if it is implemented, I doubt it will have any serious affect on the minds and opinions of our students. Instead, taxpayer dollars that should have gone to textbooks and supplies and new desks (I can tell you, we need some more of those) and cleaner facilities and bathrooms will have gone instead to the indoctrination of our young minds. Fore these reasons I respectfully beg you not to pass this measure. Alameda Resident 5/13 I understand that decision time is soon and I would like to express again how I oppose the LBGT curriculum because its one sided and allows children to assume that it completely normal when it is not. I hope you all take into heavy consideration all the presentations opposing the LBGT curriculum Alameda Resident 5/13 I was born in South Africa. I came to America 12 years ago. It turns out that just after I left my country, I left behind a country which now has one of the most liberal constitutions in the world. It is very sad that this 'home of the free' is not that at all. My children have been brought up to accept everyone no matter their sexual or cultural orientation. I think it is very important that tolerance be taught, not only at home, but at school as well. Our children learn many lessons in school. If racial tolerance is taught so should sexual tolerance. I am not gay. I am human. We all should have the right to live freely and with dignity. Alameda Resident 5/13 I ask that you hold the vision of acceptance and equality of all people, young and mature, who are a part of our larger, diverse city. It is education that will shine the light on ignorance and misunderstanding, not secrecy, denial or hatred. You are in a difficult position. It seems that everything today is difficult and takes even a greater strength, than ever before, to be true leaders and do the right thing. Alameda Resident 5/13 As an Alameda resident and parent of children who attend Alameda schools I strongly support the LGBT curriculum. The family diversity which exists in Alameda has been ignored in our curriculum and children of gay or lesbian families need to see their families represented. Children use the words 'gay' and 'lesbian' at an early age as put-downs, not knowing their meanings. This curriculum explains the terms in a way appropriate to the age group without introducing sex. I would have preferred the curriculum as it was originally and the "opt out" plan makes absolutely no sense as the ones who would do so are the same families who most likely need to have the lesson taught to their children. Oakland Resident 5/13 I have friends who live in Alameda and who will be affected in a positive way if your district's safe schools curriculum, addressing sexual orientation and gender identity, is adopted. If it is not adopted, these members and friends will be adversely affected. In our monthly support meetings we hear stories of mean-spirited teasing and violent acts in school districts that have not taken proactive steps to ensure safe schools. Every student in every school should feel safe and respected. I have read the lesson plans that are posted on your web site, and I think they would help to provide an inclusive atmosphere for children from LGBT families as well as for children from other types of blended families. I have also read many of the comments from community members who are opposed to implementing this curriculum, and I find myself wondering if they would oppose this curriculum if the words concerning sexual orientation and gender were changed to race or religion or disability or sex. I think the opposition is due more to fear bred from ignorance, and that this curriculum is precisely what is needed to help people understand that LGBT folks are deserving of the same respect that everyone else is. I support and applaud these proposed curricular additions, and your intention to comply with the California Safe Schools Act. The entire community will benefit, not just those who are now being targeted. Alameda Resident 5/13 I am a concerned citizen who would like to voice my opposition to Safe School Curriculum. Although I believe tolerance, acceptance and kindness is important, teaching children about LGBT at such a young age is inappropriate. Also I do not believe this will really make an effect on reducing bullying in school. Meanwhile, I am concerned that this creates a situation where children are forced to listen to lifestyle choices that their own parents.may disagree with, thereby violating the parents rights to instruct their own children morally. If this curriculum passes, parents should at least be given a choice to opt out of the lesson. Alameda Resident 5/13 I have seen the LGBT curriculum and am opposed to it. It is not a curriculum that I would feel comfortable to have children learn from. I don't think the children are of the age to fully understand the curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/13 Up until this past summer (Aug 2008) I have been an Alameda resident for almost 6 years. In my opinion, I would be gravely disappointed if this curriculum passed and our children were to be exposed to this material. Please listen to the voices of many worried parents and residents who are against it. The turnout last night is evidence that the people of Alameda have taken their stand. Alameda Resident 5/13 I have lived in Alameda for more than 20 years and have owned my home here for almost 15 of those years. I also have a small business in Alameda and gladly pay all of my city, state and federal taxes. I remember about 18 years ago when the Alameda Fourth of July parade would not allow a gay/lesbian float. It was an equally controversial time and the mayor chose not to support this right. Times do change... As a lesbian, I have many memories of struggle, hardship and positive change in my 58 years and am enormously grateful for the hard won civil rights we all have in this country and on our little island. This is by way of saying that the meeting last night was reminiscent of the early civil rights, gay rights, women rights times. It is clear that this educational issue is pushing buttons for some sensitive people who are just not quite ready and have experienced discrimination of their own. Please have the strength of character and city to do the right thing. Alameda Resident 5/13 On Tuesday, the Alameda Unified School District will hold a public hearing on the proposed Safe Schools curriculum, giving parents and the community one more opportunity to voice their opinions before the school board votes on the plan May 26. The topic has generated an overwhelming response from both sides and emotions are running high. While the district describes the lessons as part of a broader violence prevention curriculum already taught at the schools, the flashpoint has been over how — or if — schools should address lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues. Bullying will not be tolerated, everyone agrees. The problems arise when the subject turns to discussions of families with two dads or two moms. Public opinion has been closely split between those who want the program in the elementary schools and those who either object to having LGBT issues included in the curriculum or want to be able to opt their children out of such lessons. As of May 5, AUSD school board member Mike McMahon's Web site listed 149 e-mails supporting the curriculum and 118 opposing it. There were 21 e-mails concerned about the process used to develop the curriculum. There are those who want to opt out of any gender/family discussions for their children on the basis that the teachings violate their own family values and Bible-based beliefs. Some see a hidden agenda for "promoting" gay rights and lifestyles to young children through the curriculum. What the district is striving to do, as it has stated in its plans, is to teach tolerance and make schools safe for all students. That includes children from LGBT families. As for an "agenda" supporting a different lifestyle, the sessions allow discussion of all families and helps students feel free to describe their families. Talking about their families, and hearing about other families, can be a way of children learning to accept people for who they are and understand them a little better. The lessons are for a limited period of time in the school year, and would be part of an ongoing effort to teach about how people are different, whether it be race, body shape or family identification. The idea for the curriculum came from a survey at a staff development day last fall that found staff members wanted training and guidance on handling bullying that included derogatory words about gender identification. There has been other training to help teachers handle other issues that arise, and this curriculum would not be generating so much emotion if, say, it was focused on racial slurs. But young people, often without knowing the meaning, toss around terms like "gay." It's not a civil rights issue, it's not a gay platform concern. It's teaching young people to be tolerant and respectful of others whose ways may be different from them. Similar programs already are in use in other Bay Area districts, including San Leandro, Albany and San Francisco. The district held meetings earlier this year to gather public input, and reworked the original plan after hearing the comments. We see no reason to go back and start over again, as some have suggested. And the idea of letting parents opt to keep their children out of the program raises more concerns than solutions. This plan follows a broad discussion of what constitutes a family and how families can be different. But the proposed lessons do not go into specifics that would make them sex education, one program that can allow the option of not participating. And to let some children stay out of the activities not only sets them apart from the rest of the class, possibly creating the very issue that the program seeks to eliminate, it also opens a door to the possibility of parents demanding the right to opt their children out of any other program being offered. Where do we go from here? Give the program a chance, train the teachers and work with the schools on the program. If parents have concerns about how the sessions will be done in their school, talk to the teachers and learn more about how it will work. We've had enough examples of name calling online, in letters to the editor and in comments just about this program. Can we work together to make a curriculum that will help our children learn better ways to handle differences? Give the curriculum a chance. Alameda Resident 5/13 am an Alameda parent of a young child about to enter the AUSD and would like to write to you regarding the Lesson 9 curriculum addition. First, I would like to say THANK YOU for allowing all of us to speak at the public meeting last night and for your time and patience throughout this process. I want to write to voice my strong opposition for this curriculum. I was most swayed by the clear arguments that such a curriculum would be DISCRIMINATROY toward the other 4 protect subgroups and how we would be UNFAIRLY elevating one of these groups above all the others. Furthermore, if teachers have been requesting help on how to deal with lgbt name calling, slurs, and bullying, than why doesn’t the district come up with training for teachers without them having to be forced to teach the subject to our K-5 kids? It seems that the solution is way overblown in comparison to the problem. It’s like you have a small problem (which is what this is compared to the bullying that the other subgroups receive), but you invest tons of money, people, resources, and now the time of hundreds of concerned parents and community members to deal with it. An analogy might be something like, “I’m thirsty, so I blow the top off a fire hydrant and try to drink from it.” Please do not waste our tax dollars on such curriculum that will not fulfill its own stated goal, that is clearly the agenda of a single interest group, and will cause our community to be divided. Alameda Resident 5/13 Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to you last night, as you endured the 6-hour meeting attentively and respectfully. I appreciate your open minds and listening ears. After hearing the various testimonies last night, I continue to stand strongly opposed to the LGBT material in the Safe Schools curriculum, material which I as a 6th grade elementary teacher believe belongs in comprehensive sexuality education. Alameda Resident 5/13 First, thank you for the many hours of listening you did last night. We appreciate your devotion and commitment to hearing folks out. I had a logistical question about the blue speaker forms. Three of us were sitting outside the chambers by 5 pm when Mike was interviewd on TV. There was no one else there and we stayed there up until about 6 pm and hten found seats in the Council Chambers. Only a few people came and picked up forms and I saw when the forms were gone at about 6 pm. . 200 people did not come and sign blue forms in that interim period which leads me to wonder if they were out much earlier than that and recieved before 5 pm. My questions are: Alameda Resident 5/13 I want to thank you for being accommodating and willing to hear the opinions of the community over this controversial issue. I particularly want to thank President McMahon for trying to accommodate and include everyone in this discussion. I don't envy your position, and I appreciate your patience. I've read the curriculum and have been keeping up with the discussion. I fully agree that we must protect all our children and respect all members of our community, regardless of their race, religion, or sexual orientation. However, I think that this curriculum has been miscategorized as safety curriculum, when clearly it's really talking about sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is inherently sexual, and any curriculum explaining different kinds of sexual orientation should be called for what it is, namely Sex Education. Every parent has the legal right to opt their child in or out of the school district's sexual education curriculum, and taking this right away would be illegal and unethical. Furthermore, the school board is overstepping its bounds by implementing a curriculum that educates our children on moral values associated with sexual orientation. Certainly, sexual behavior is an issue of morality; what kinds of sexual behavior are appropriate is a highly moral matter. This curriculum endorses one view of sexual morality over another. Is this really up to the school board to decide? Shouldn't the issue of sexual morals be left in the home, rather than in the classroom? Other morally controversial issues are intentionally not endorsed by any curriculum, e.g. abortion and religion, and rightly so. Why should this moral issue be treated differently? It is true that members of the LGBT community and their children are marginalized by certain fringes of society. The same can be said about members of certain ethnic communities, believers of certain religions, and even people with certain moral beliefs. Let the school board teach against bullying because bullying anyone is bad, rather than implicitly endorsing one view of sexual morality over another. Please vote against implementing the Safe Schools Curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/13 I oppose to the curriculum because directing all program funds toward LGBT curriculum is inconsistent with federal statistics on bullying for that group. There is another reason that I oppose to the curriculum. None of the proposed curriculum changes were discussed with voters when Measure H was attempting to pass a parcel tax providing funds directly to the school district. Alameda Resident 5/13 Thank you for your service to the City of Alameda as the Superintendent of AUSD. I have graduated from U.C. Berkeley with a degree in political science. I am proud to state that I have lived in the City of Alameda for the past 3 years, and I am a registered voter of this city. I am strongly opposed to the LGBT Curriculum. Please do not vote in favor of it. I have spoken with other Alameda residents, and I believe that the majority of taxpaying registered voters of the City of Alameda are opposed to implementing this curriculum. A large portion of our city’s residents agree that children should be taught to respect the decisions and values of others. However, these same residents prefer to teach their children about the proper way to understand gender and sexual orientation. Your decision to vote against this agenda will benefit your constituents and all residents of Alameda. The children are the future of Alameda. Please do not raise a future generation to forcefully accept moral values that contradict the moral values of today’s taxpaying, voting residents of Alameda. Thank you. Alameda Resident 5/13 I am an Alameda resident and recent graduate of UC Berkeley. I'm opposed to the LGBT curriculum and highly concerned about the fact that there will be no opt-out for parents who find the curriculum morally objectionable. Education Section Code 51240 states, 'if any part of instruction in heath conflicts with the personal, moral convictions of a parent of a pupil, the pupil shall be excused from that part of the instruction." Further, the material clearly does not qualify as "safety," as there is a heavy emphasis on LGBT without addressing other forms of discrimination such as religious and racial which is much more predominant than discrimination based on sexual orientation. The curriculum is not appropriate for elementary school students as it involves concepts of sexuality. This should be classified under sex education and not safety. Alameda Resident 5/13 I am writing to OPPOSE the proposed LGBT curriculum from being adopted into the current curriculum. This is sex education, it does not belong in schools in the first place, and it is not appropriate for school-age children. I do not want my tax dollars going to support this kind of curriculum, especially when students are falling behind in basic subjects such as mathematics, English reading and writing, and science. At the very least, because the LGBT curriculum controversially teaches morality (a one-sided view on what constitutes a family), parents ought to be able to opt-out of having their children indoctrinated by this teaching. When I was in sixth grade, my parents even had to sign permission for me to learn about physiological changes that happen in puberty. How much more sensitive are topics regarding sexuality! Alameda Resident 5/13 I would like to reiterate my opinion about OPPOSING the curriculum, even after the first hearing yesterday at City Hall. I work in the social services field and I serve the LGBT Community faithfully, as I would serve any person in need that comes to my agency for services. I want to reiterate that the discussion going on about this curriculum is NOT about whether or not LGBT community members are recognized or properly treated or served in our schools. As someone who works with this community and has respect for them as I do all other people, I want to emphasize that my oppostion to this curriculum is due to the fact that it will NOT successfully eliminate or mitigate the issue of bullying and bring our children any closer to a higher degree of safety than they have now. The issue as I see it is a systemic issue at a wider and more macro level, and it will NOT be solved at this curriculum level in the small city of Alameda. The lessons we teach to prevent bullying in schools need to be reinforced in the homes, and the children need to have basic needs met in terms of safety on all levels - at home, in their neighborhood, and in their learning environment. If all of these are not in place, and the parenting they receive does not reinforce the greater values of character when relating to other children, encorporating a LGBT component in the curriculum DOES NOT make our schools safer or are children less likely to be ostracized or victimized by other students. This curriculum in essence favors a small minority group, and does not address the actual problem. It seems like alterior motives are being served with the passing of this curriculum, labeled under the guise of "safety" and "caring" for the children in our schools. I also express this opinion out of concern, especially in light of the condition of the economy, knowing that attempting such a curriculum will cost immensely in tax dollars, school resources, and personnel staff time -- only to possibly result in no marked advancement in the safety of our children. Ultimately, the goal will not be reached and precious financial resources that could be spent on Alameda students in a different way will be lost. Alameda Resident 5/13 Thank you for providing us the forum to speak and for staying up late into the night to hear all of the public's comments. After last night's meeting, I am more convinced that this curriculum needs to be opposed. In a time when "every dollar" needs to be measured out and where many "protected classes" are receiving the short end of the stick in your district, why give inordinate amount of funding, emphasis, and attention to a curriculum that is legally shaky, highly controversial, and most importantly, unable to meet its learning goals? I think it would be fiscally and educationally irresponsible for you to pass this curriculum. A more reasonable path forward would be to create a TRANSPARENT and open process where all sides are invited to participate in developing a curriculum for anti-bullying that is based on sound pedagogy, grounded in research, and welcome to community input from parents, teachers and students from all sides of the argument. Alameda Resident 5/13 As a parent, I am concerned about the Safe Schools Curriculum content that is being proposed for K-5. I oppose the material being covered in Lesson 9 and do not believe that this is material has a place in public schools. I respectfully OPPOSE this curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/13 I oppose the safe schools curriculum in alameda. I really do not believe that that safety for children can be achieved through this kind of teaching. Rather, it creates intolerance for those who are against it. Alameda Resident 5/13 Thank you for patiently hearing the public regarding the very important matter of adopting the Caring Schools Supplementary materials. I wanted to express my sincere appreciation for your taking the time to hear all those people from the community who came out yesterday. I am writing to re-iterate my oppositiong to this curriculum as it stands, and to again state that an opt-out provision is absolutely necessary to this curriculum. First of all, its the parent's right to be able to direct their children's upbringing. California law clearly recognizes this right under Education Code 51240, where parents are given the right to opt out their children of health education when that education conflicts with their moral beliefs. The current revised curriculum allows teachers to push forth their moral viewpoint that all families are equally valid and that there is nothing morally wrong about the LGBT lifestyle on our children. This is very troubling to me. Further, the proponents of this curriculum stated that an opt out provision should NOT be allowed because this would allow the very people who need to hear the curriculum most to get out of its teaching. These very statements show me that the LGBT community wants to force their moral viewpoint that LGBT relationships are completely normal, legitimate and morally right on our children. This is intolerant, and they are not respecting the parents and their children's right to hold their moral beliefs. I know many parents who because of their own convictions do not believe in living a homosexual lifestyle, and they impart these values on their children. However, these very parents are also the ones who vigilantly teach their children NOT to bully, NOT to engage in name calling, and to be kind, compassionate and loving towards everyone, regardless of their differing beliefs. Their children and they are model citizens, and their opting out of this curriculum would not mean their children will be the ones to bully others. Thank you again for hearing the community's concerns, and I hope that the board will make a wise decision after hearing our concerns. Alameda Resident 5/13 support 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. According to scientific research by the California Safe Schools Coalition, when LGBT people and issues are included in the curriculum, all students feel safer and school climates objectively are safer. Alameda Resident 5/13 I have a three year old daughter who will be starting kindergarten in two years. She currently attends a daycare in Alameda where at least three of her friends have same sex parents. It is very important to me that my daughter know that these families are just as nice, moral and normal as ours. Of course I will be teaching her that. But it makes a difference to everyone to have a teacher say it. Please don't give in to prejudice. Please adopt the Safe Schools Curriculum. I am sorry I will not be able to attend the next meeting on this issue but I wanted you to know my feelings. Alameda Resident 5/13 You’ are sure long-suffering with this public hearing process! Let’s make a few more revisions in the LGBT module (see attachment) and then launch it. The fact that gay slurs are routinely ignored on our playgrounds shows how much our teachers need both the training and authorization to address this common form of bullying. I have specific suggestions in the attached letter. Alameda Resident 5/13 I am writing to express my strong vote to OPPOSE the curriculum in question. I am very disconcerted to hear that this curriculum would be mandatory with no opt-out options. Why would my child have to be mandated to be taught a value in school for which our family does not agree with? Last I checked, school was not a place to promote certain lifestyle choices above others, and in essence this is what the curriculum is doing. By choosing to teach about LGBT relationships, by default you are promoting that these relationships are normal, as acceptable while you are choosing to leave out traditional marriages. This is NOT an issue of tolerance. This is an issue of sexuality and choosing to teach it at such a young age. I will be at Monday’s meeting and hope to share my thoughts with the board and my community Alameda Resident 5/13 I am a concerned parent in Alameda. I OPPOSE the Safe School Curriculum. Please vote "No" on this curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/13 First of all, it is not appropriate for the school to teach this politically and morally charged topic. Let the parents decide and educate their own children. Secondly, I want to state that the LGBT curriculum is not really addressing the issue of bullying in school but rather a political agenda under this guise. If a student cannot opt out of this curriculum, then this curriculum itself is "bullying". It's also not justifiable for an entire curriculum being developed for one sub-group. This is elevating one subgroup above others and is discriminating in nature. I am aware what the school district's legal counsel's recommendation is regarding the Safe Schools curriculum. Yet I am also aware that there is a section in the education law that states that a student could opt out a class if its teaching conflicts with the student's parents' personal and moral beliefs. It would be really baffling If the counsel continues to be ignorant about it. Alameda Resident 5/13 Thank you for your willingness to hear the members of the community speak until the late hours of the night. I just wanted to express some concern about an interaction I had with one of the administrators. I had asked where the 5th board member was, as he was not introduced. Her reply was that he was out of town and would also not be present on Monday's meeting. When I expressed concerned about how he would make his decision without hearing this input from the community members who showed up, her reply was that he's aware of the concerns and this curriculum has been on the agenda since 2007. If this indeed true, and Mr. Tam will be making his decision independent of the many members of the community who came and stayed late into the night, along with all of you, to share their opinions, why did we even bother? Does it really not matter to a board member to come and listen to the speeches of so many parents and citizens, to which he is an elected official? This is just another example of how some members of the district have made the parents (on both sides of the debate) feel that trust has been broken and why after all these months and meetings, we're still at an impasse. Alameda Resident 5/13 Alameda’s gay and lesbian students and those from gay and lesbian families deserve a “safe” public school environment just like every other student and family in our public schools. So do kids and families who are Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, or Muslims, kids with learning disabilities, kids with single parents (or none), and those belonging to different ethnic and racial groups. In other words, every child and every family deserves mutual respect. In most cases, Alameda’s public schools are addressing the needs of students and families in “protected classes” relatively well, which I appreciate. All students in grades K-5 have some kind of a “family,” including the people who love, nurture, feed, clothe, and support them. Sometimes this family fits our definition of a “nuclear” family, with the father married to the mother of their biological and/or adopted children. For many others in Alameda, “family” means something different: single parents with adopted children, a married couple without children, blended families with step-siblings and a prior history of more than one marriage, grandparents raising their grandchildren when the child’s parent is absent, two moms raising their biological children, or two dads raising their adopted kids. But right now, not all students in our schools can hear or talk about their own families and still be safe from bullying or abuse due to being “different” through no fault of their own. Sadly, the existing Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) curriculum does not include elements that specifically address parents and children who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT). As a result, LGBT families and students are now largely “invisible” to their peers, especially in elementary school. The AUSD needs a stronger, more comprehensive, program for our schools to be as inclusive and safe as possible for all students. And that is precisely what the proposed LGBT-specific curriculum offers. The purposes of the proposed LGBT-specific addition to the AUSD’s “safe schools” curriculum were described to the Board of Education in June 2008: -To build staff awareness in order to support our students and families. -To understand the adverse affects of negative language and attitudes about gay and lesbian people employees and students, even the very young. -To build a safe, respectful climate for all students and staff. In particular, this LGBT-specific curriculum responds to and implements: -AUSD Board Policy 5145.3: Nondiscrimination/Harassment Seventeen professional AUSD educators (13 teachers and four administrators/staff) combined their skills, experience, wisdom, and decades of higher education to develop the initial (September 2008) curriculum. I am pleased with their original plan to address the bullying and harassment of students due to their perceived and real sexual orientation, family composition, and related issues. I am not pleased, however, with the weakened “revised” curriculum introduced in April 2009. “Gay” and “lesbian” are not sexual terms. (Neither is “faggot.”) But kids in kindergarten and first grade already know that those words (and many others, like n*****) can be hurled as epithets to harm someone on the schoolyard. (I volunteered as a noon supervisor at Franklin Elementary 4-5 days/week for three years, and heard these and other verbal assaults far too often. And dealing with them always meant taking time and resources away from many more students.) Discussing terms like gay and lesbian and defining them accurately—especially once they have been misused to injure other kids—is crucial to eliminating the bullying that now occurs with distressing regularity. Furthermore, it is not “sex education” to do so, any more than defining “father,” “parent,” or “mother” is, since no sexual behavior is being discussed. (In any case, most K-3 students already know what these terms mean long before many parents think the time has come to teach their kids about them.) Most adults use the terms referring to sexual orientation (gay, straight, lesbian, etc.) and family (parent, family, husband, wife, spouse, married, etc.) in a general descriptive sense, without thinking of intimate bedroom behavior or blushing every time we use them. Our individual gender and sexual orientation are significant gifts and a real part of who we are from birth, but this does not mean that all we amount to is our gender or our sexual orientation. Having a sexual orientation—whatever it is—does not equal thinking only about s-e-x for 24 hours each day. And talking about different kinds of families (two-mom, two-dad, straight, gay, lesbian, single-parent. etc.) in a K-3 classroom is not s-e-x education. I am a 57-year-old Caucasian straight (heterosexual) male, and I am in a “different-sex” marriage. (That means my wife and I never had to ask for or advocate for the legal right to marry as husband and wife, and our marriage was automatically legal in all 50 states when we got married on September 10, 1988.) But I do not think about s-e-x every time I think about being male, married, straight, or heterosexual. Being a straight male is a large part of who I am, but that does not mean I am just a set of male genitalia. (Neither am I just a homeowner, just a taxpayer, just a Democrat, just a bicyclist, just a writer, or just an Episcopalian, although I am all of these, too.) It is perfectly rational, normal, and healthy to discuss gender and orientation appropriately with kids in grades K-3 (before they take s-e-x education). Elementary students need to learn about Alameda’s diverse demographics, which include families of all types, whether they include two moms, two dads, single parents, step-siblings, adopted children, cousins, aunts and uncles, grandparents, or “different-sex” couples. Kids are curious about each other, including each other’s families. This leads to conversations about people and relationships, not discussions of bedroom behavior. Using an age-appropriate curriculum in the hands of highly professional, dedicated, and compassionate teachers, children should learn the facts about the varieties of families represented in their own classrooms and community. Talking about different families and learning basic vocabulary terms before grades 4-5 will help kids to grow up healthier and stronger, not weaker or immoral. Knowledge is power: in this context, it is power for a great good: the education of tolerant, mutually respectful, and compassionate children who feel safe in their schools and in their homes. Since many Christians oppose the proposed LGBT curriculum on religious grounds, I would like to address religion here because I am also a Christian. Some conservative Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible oppose the LGBT program because they believe that a) homosexuality is prohibited in the Bible, and b) marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman. They have every right to these views, but not to discriminate against or harass others in the public schools because of them. I believe that one can make at least as good a theological case in favor of fully welcoming every student and every family into our public schools as has been made against such a policy. For almost 50 years I have been an active Episcopalian: at one point I spent ten years leading Bible studies and religious services for inmates at the San Mateo County Jail, among other things. I would like to apply a different approach to biblical truth and values to this diversity issue. First, I hold that the Word of God as contained in the Christian Bible is true, but not always intended to be understood literally. Literalism can be very tricky: inevitably, the original meaning is imperfectly captured in a very different modern language like English. (We are many centuries and many cultures removed from the original Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek texts and their times. If we took the Bible literally today, we would still prohibit divorce (ROM 7:1-3), sell our daughters into slavery (EX 7:2-9), let men have multiple wives (GEN 4:19, 29:9), and permit both incest and domestic violence (GEN 19:33-36; 34:1-17). Before the Civil War, many Episcopalians were slave owners and believed that the Bible supported owning other human beings. It is a very good thing, in my opinion, that divine inspiration and grace, “making all things new” (REV 21:5), is always increasing our understanding of biblical truth and justice. Here are some biblical passages and references that represent themes and values that most Christians usually agree are central to our faith tradition: “…and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” (MICAH 6:8) “You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in Egypt.” (DEUT 10:19) “Blessed are the peacemakers…” (MATT 5:9) “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” (MATT 25:40) “Whoever welcomes this child…welcomes me… for the least among you is the greatest.” (LUKE 9:48) “You shall love the Lord your God with all heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” (LUKE 10:27) “…love one another as I have loved you.” (JOHN 15:12) (Bible verses from New Revised Standard Version. Oxford University Press.1989.) The key phrases and passages represented above illustrate the long traditions of social justice, welcoming the stranger, and mutual respect and compassion at the root of both Judaism and Christianity. The overwhelming number and centrality of the biblical references to love, justice, equity, and hospitality to all are at least as important as the oft-quoted injunctions against such things as divorce, wearing mixed fabrics, or coveting a neighbor’s wife. (But not your neighbor’s husband?) Clearly, one can justify the proposed LGBT-specific anti-bullying curriculum (or any inclusive anti-harassment program undertaken to promote peace) based on “Christian values” like love, respect, justice, and welcoming children and strangers into our midst. The public schools must not support any particular religion over another, however. Under the separation of church and state, it is incumbent on the public schools to include all students and families on an equal basis, without placing one religious group or private morality code above another. (Many legal and religious scholars hold that the tolerance and mutual respect that are central to our society and our laws today—as secular as they may be—derive in part directly from our Judeo-Christian heritage. In this historic and cultural sense it is also entirely within “Christian values” to support an inclusive curriculum.) In schools where students are verbally or physically abused—no matter what the reason—learning suffers. Safer schools benefit everyone, no matter what their personal moral or religious values may be. According to statewide research, in schools where LGBT students and families feel safer, every student feels safer and experiences less bullying and harassment. Alameda’s children and families (even childless families like ours) need safer, more inclusive public schools. There is no justification for discrimination in public schools against “different” families or “different” students. Nor should there be any parental right to remove one’s children (“opt out”) from valuable lessons on civil rights and how to respect other human beings as equals. No compromise in anyone’s “family values” is necessary to participate in discussions about mutual acceptance, freedom from fear, tolerance, and equal treatment. Those who say they are truly accepting of LGBT people should not oppose making the public schools safe for their LGBT neighbors and their neighbors’ kids. Hate is not a family value. Thank you for supporting the strongest possible LGBT-specific AUSD “safe schools” curriculum and programs—preferably the September 2008 version. Thank you for making our public schools and our community safer for all of us. San Francisco Resident 5/13 Please promote tolerance by supporting this curriculum. Ignorance promotes fear and fear can result in hate crimes. Alameda Resident 5/13 I strongly oppose the LGBT curriculum. After yesterday's hearing, I was unaware that there was the following education code: California Education Code 51240 (a) If any part of a school's instruction in health conflicts with the religious training and beliefs of a parent or guardian of a pupil, the pupil, upon written request of the parent or guardian, shall be excused from the part of the instruction that conflicts with the religious training and beliefs. (b) For purposes of this section, "religious training and beliefs" includes personal moral convictions. Given the fact that your lawyers have advised against allowing parents to opt-out, THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT THE PROCESS IS POLITICALLY CHARGED!!! One of the board members wanted evidence that the process is compromised. By agreeing to this legal advise and by deliberately choosing to ignore California Education Code 51240, it is very clear to anyone that this is a pro-LGBT driven process. If this is what the education code states and your lawyers advised against opting out, this is explicit and empirical evidence that you have chosen lawyers that are sympathetic to the cause and therefore biased. It is also the case that the board is choosing to disrespect and disregard the individual's religious and moral beliefs but is, ironically, being the bully here by attempting to enforce unquestioned and complete compliance. This should remind the board that this approach is no different from people who have abused their position of powers at the expense of freedom of speech, thought, opinions, and, tragically, an untold number of lives. I'm really dismayed and feel let down by the board when, all along, I was given the impression by the board that the process was being fair and unbiased. The evidence strongly and, embarrassingly for the board, indicates otherwise. It's painful and shameful to me see the board's true colors being revealed. Alameda Resident 5/13 I was disappointed that there was not room at the meeting last night. I am looking forward to the next meeting where I can voice my OPPOSITION to this LGBT curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/13 I am writing to oppose the LGBT/Safe School Curriculum Lesson 9. This curriculum is not appropriate for k-5 children and is a disguise for sex education. This topic is a moral issue and instead of teaching tolerance for all groups, it is highly focused on LGBT groups and teaches acceptance for this particular group only. Parents should be given the right to allow their children to opt out of this curriculum. As an Alameda resident, I do not want my tax dollars to go to support this curriculum. I strongly oppose this new curriculum plan. I urge you to reconsider. Alameda Resident 5/13 I support your proposal to expand the existing safe schools curriculum to include the LGBT community. Having taught in a public high school for several years and now working in youth development in San Francisco's Mission District, I believe it is of the utmost importance that all students can feel safe and valued in their schools and their communities. I believe your effort to make public schools safe and reflective of LGBT youth and families is critical to the well-being of every member of Alameda’s community. Alameda Resident 5/13 I remain of the opinion the process should be restarted after the restructuring process is complete and be inclusive all five protected groups. All sides will remain unhappy with that solution, but I think it would self identify the extreme components on both sides by their unwillingness to meet half way and rally the center majority around a reasonable curriculum, especially if it is perceived as having been forged by a comprehensive group rather than a special interest group. Perception is really important. I am terrified that this “minor” matter is going to derail the restructuring process. Alameda Resident 5/13 Thank you for listening to those who spoke last night at the Board Meeting. It was an interesting and informative evening. For me, it was also upsetting to hear some of the oppostions remarks. I spoke in support of the cirriculum, but I would like to add some thoughts regarding the issue of "opting out". The concern I have with a parents ability to opt out of having their child participate in the lessons has to do with both children of LGBT parents and those children who may one day identify themselves as LGBT. If children are kept home when the cirriculum is taught because their parents have moral or religious objections, it will "get around" with other students the reason why they were kept home. These children might be percieved (or misperceived) as homophobic or "gay bashers". That would be unfair to any child. More importantly, it would draw unnecessary attention and tension to the lessons themselves which would further separate and stigmatize those children whose families the cirriculum is addressing. I understand that some families are uncomfortable with the lessons, but this discomfort pales in comparison to the discomfort and distress that children of LGBT parents sometimes experience. Also, the lessons are brief and infrequent. For the youth in our schools who will one day indentify themselves as LGBT, it is vitally important that they are there for the lessons. And, of course, we rarely know who these children are at such a young age. For them, it plants the seeds of acceptance, both by the community and by themselves. It plants the seeds of possibility - of a successful, normal life, one that might include having a family. It could be the very parents who want to "protect" their children from the cirriculum that could benefit the most. Alameda Resident 5/13 I am writing to you to express my opposition to the LGBT curriculm. This curriculum seems to be pushing the LGBT agenda, instead of directly and effectively teaching students not to bully others. The LGBT issue is a very sensitive one in which adults don't agree on. There is so much controversy and it crosses the line into moral teachings on this subject. Because of this, the curriculum takes away from the MAIN OBJECTIVE of ANTI-BULLYING. We will be creating divisions in our community and schools if this curriculum is implemented, as we have seen in our school meetings and public hearings. Please vote to REJECT this curriculum. Marin Resident 5/13 I wanted to take a moment to ask for your support in continuing this important program in Alameda County . It is important for all kids to feel welcome and supported in school, whether their family consists of same sex parents, opposite sex parents, single parents, grandparents. It is love that makes a family, not gender, race or biology, and it is critical to the well being of our kids that they are given a safe and supportive environment in which to learn. Alameda Resident 5/13 I was not going to send any email until I saw this email on the public site that said: Yesterday's letter from eight "attorneys residing in the City of Alameda" was a transparent attempt to intimidate School Board members. They did not write as citizens of Alameda or parents but as attorneys in a provocative and threatening manner. However, their grossly inaccurate interpretation of the law and the Constitution only accomplished to prove what very poor attorneys they are . . . . A friend once told me that the vast majority of lawyering is bad lawyering. If that is true then these eight attorneys have found a majority to join." I am actually one of the signatories on the letter. Unfortunately, I disagree with this position that we have grossly misinterpreted the law. We have not. We have cited legal statutes and codes as they are written. We have cited to the State Board standards that were adopted, and we did it verbatim. I know no other way to grossly misinterpret the law. I do not need to defend myself as an attorney. I believe my resume, expertise, and experience speak for themselves. The same applies to the credentials of my colleagues who co-signed the letter. My colleagues encompass a spread of people from top law schools and well-regarded Bay Area law firms. I will, however, defend the accusation that I only wrote this as an attorney. This is inaccurate. I also wrote as a citizen of Alameda, and as I mentioned when I spoke last night, I am expecting my first child in a month. I am troubled by this Curriculum. The email I quote is exactly the reason why I am concerned about this Curriculum: people do not learn true tolerance. They cannot tolerate that reasonable, rational people actually disagree with them on this issue. And so they resort to name-calling... as adults. This Curriculum was supposed to promote tolerance. I think it fails to do so, and it fails to equip children with tools they really need to teach respect: the intrinsic value of a person, mercy, and other such values. I cannot support a Curriculum that has logical flaws (and unlike what people said last night, I have analyzed this Curriculum page by page) and teaches something against my philosophical, scientific, and moral views. I once again urge you to REJECT this Curriculum. Alameda Resident 5/13 I am a parent of two children at Paden school. I saw the meeting last night and attended the public curriculum session held at Washington school and have checked the curriculum and looked at the books. I am adding my support for the new safe schools curriculum. Hopefully you have seen that the voices in opposition to the new curriculum are mostly from one church, one demographic, and many if not most, did not have kids yet in our school district. Some were very careful to say "I have children in Alameda schools" which does not necessarily mean AUSD schools. They were all reading off the same script have the same concern. Those in favor of the new curriculum were from a wider cross section of Alameda, both the LGBT community and not, current school parents and some not, from various different churches and not. There were different voices and reasons to support the curriculum. The only concession to the opposition that I could think of would be for teachers to add while teaching the safe schools curriculum, that some families for religious or cultural beliefs are taught at home to believe differently -fine- but when on AUSD school property- the children must be tolerant and not use derogatory language or bullying. Alameda Resident 5/13 I write about the procedures for Monday night. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that members of the public who spoke last night will be allowed to speak again on Monday. This strikes me as improper. If Monday's meeting is merely a continuance of last night's meeting it would be improper to give speaker's a second opportunity to speak. The result is some speakers will be alloted a total of 5 minutes to address the matter, while others only 2 minutes. The unfairness of that speaks for itself. If, however, Monday's meeting is conceived of as an entirely new meeting, then it would be proper to allow all members of the public to speak, even if they spoke last night. But if Monday's meeting is conceived of as a entirely new meeting, then it was improper to close last night's meeting early without allowing all speakers to speak. (This could have Brown Act consequences.) Because it is too late to remedy the closing of last night's meeting before hearing from all speakers, I urge you to limit speakers on Monday to those who did not speak last night. There is already an inquity in that Monday's speakers will be allowed only two mintues compared to the three minutes alloted speakers last night. (An imbalance in itself that may not be proper.) Don't exacerbate the problem by giving last night's speakers a total of five minutes. Finally, on a related note, at such meetings in the past I have seen boards ask the public not to applaud after each speaker. It only adds time to the meeting and is a bit unseemly. Alameda Resident 5/13 I am writing to support the addition of the curriculum about diversity in family structures. I see many students in our district with parents other than the biological parents. Some of these parents have adopted their children from foreign countries, some are lesbian or gay couples, and others are caring relatives who have taken on children of children or nieces and nephews. These are real parents who love and care for their children and make sure their needs are met. They are committed and devoted and their children are very lucky to have them in their lives. Last week a student I was assessing told me that a boy in his class teased him for being adopted. This boy is from Russia and has a loving adoptive father and mother who go above and beyond what many natural parents do. The other boy in his class said to him, “Well at least I have a mom”. This hurt him greatly and we had a little counseling session about this in the middle of my testing because clearly it needed to be talked about. It seems to me that had there been a class lesson about family diversity this negative comment may not have been expressed. There might have been a more open understanding about what a real parent is… someone who cares for you and takes care of you. The concept of the nuclear family should not be held as the ideal because this is not a reality for many of our children and they should not feel deprived or somehow beneath others because of it. Alameda Resident 5/13 I am writing this email to support AUSD's efforts to make our schools safe by supporting the inclusion of the LGBT curriculum. As a parent and educator I have witnessed first hand the horrific homophobic slurs that our young students have voiced in schools. Homophobia does not simply hurt those students who have family members who are gay, it does not limit the hurt to those who may be questioning their own sexuality but it hurts all of us. As you know, I'm sure, Assembly Bill 537 passed in 2000 is the California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act which added sexual orientation and gender to the Code's nondiscrimination provisions. To be in compliance with AB 537 all students must be protected. We protect our students by educating them with appropriate curriculum such as the one currently being discussed. I beg of you to include this curriculum for the safety of all of our students. Alameda Resident 5/13 I am a new mother, living in Alameda and a friend with a children attending Edison School informed me of your mission to make our public schools safe and appropriate for ALL families including our LGBTQ families, their children, and LGBTQ by adding the new curriculum,"Addressing Issues of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity". I want you to know that I support this curriculum 100%. That AUSD would take measures to secure this kind of cultural education for my daughter and her peers, gives me great hope for the future of education on a national level, but also, I feel increasingly more confident that my husband and I were correct to chose Alameda as an excellent, progressive place to raise our daughter. I would also like to share my concern that providing notification to families and/or giving them the opportunity to "opt-out" supports bias. I cannot imagine how offended the community at large would be if given notification on a unit about racism or 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". To allow these issues to become entangled muddies your mission Alameda Resident 5/13 Thank you for striving to build a safe learning environment for our children. I would like to express my concern over the proposed “safe school curriculum.” I welcome the curriculum encouraging children to think of ways make people welcomed. However, the curriculum seems pushing further beyond making school safe. It intends to favor specific group. For example, the curriculum only teaches how LGBT people were treated violently without emphasizing the wrong on the violent behaviors in the “famous LGBT persons” session. I do not think the curriculum actually help make schools safer but can create hatred among different groups. I request that the board of education will oppose the curriculum, and continue to work out a curriculum that can make the school a safe and welcoming place for all children. Alameda Resident 5/13 I support your proposal to expand the existing safe schools curriculum to include the LGBT community. I believe your effort to make public schools safe and reflective of LGBT youth and families is critical to the well-being of every member of Alameda’s community. Thank you for providing teachers and staff the training and tools they need to combat all forms of bias. Alameda Resident 5/13 Thank you for you time and patience last night. I do not know if you received the statement I offered in writing, if you did, and you have read it, please just skip and read the 5 last paragraphs here, - the outcome of discussion taking place on the City Hall steps last night. If you did not receive the printed statement last night, here it is in somewhat abbreviated form: Below I have added some comments and questions (all italicized) in the text of AB 394, on which the need of this curriculum was said to haveoriginated. The questions I hope you will address are how the proposalfor only K-5 meets the goals of AB537 (aka The California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000), as additionally supported by AB 394. Please ask the question of how this proposal meets the requirements of Article 5.5. “SafePlace to Learn Act”. BILL NUMBER: AB 394 CHAPTERED An act to add Article 5.5 (commencing with Section 234) to Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the Education Code, relatingto discrimination. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 394, Levine. Safe schools: discrimination and harassment. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) All pupils in public primary, elementary, middle, junior high, and senior high schools have the inalienable right to attend school at school campuses that are safe, secure, and peaceful. (b) Pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 201 of the Education Code, public schools in California have an affirmative obligation to combat racism, sexism, and other forms of bias, and a responsibility to provide equal educational opportunity. (c) The California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 reaffirmed the right of all pupils to a safe school environment by prohibiting a person from being subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, color, mental or physical disability, or an actual or perceived characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in a program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid. (d) Hate-motivated incidents jeopardize the safety and well-being of all pupils because they target not only the individual victim, but everyone who shares the identity that motivated the particular incident. Unfortunately, there have been increasing reports of hate-motivated incidents and crimes in California schools. (AUSD – Yes or No?) (e) (1) Numerous studies point to an ongoing problem of discrimination, harassment, and violence in schools that has severe consequences for pupils. For example, the 2004-06 California Healthy Kids Survey results found that between 27 to 30 percent of California middle and high school pupils reported experiencing bias-related harassment at school related to their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. (This same report shows that for every 7 students reporting being harassed on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation 9 students report harassment because of their religion and 14 students report harassment because of their race or ethnicity.) (2) Many school districts are not effectively addressing discrimination and harassment on campus. Less than half of grade 9 pupils express feeling safe at school, while 46 percent of pupils said their schools were not safe for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) pupils. (Where are AUSD statistics?) (3) Many teachers have not received training to prevent or respond to illegal discrimination and harassment. A majority of school districts do not require training on how to address discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation for their elementary, middle, or high school teachers. (AUSD teachers have asked for training, the request for training has not been limited to K-5 or for dealing only with LGBT issues). (4) Many pupils and parents are unaware of nondiscrimination policies, with 23 percent of pupils and 29 percent of parents not being informed of the policies. (AUSD – Yes or No?) (f) In a public hearing conducted on October 3, 2002, by the California Senate Select Committee on School Safety, pupils, teachers, parents, researchers, and advocates from all over the state testified about incidents of ongoing discrimination and harassment and an inadequate response from school authorities. (AUSD – Yes or No?) (g) Bias-related discrimination and harassment have negative consequences for pupil health, well-being, and academic success. For example, the Safe Place to Learn report issued by the California Safe Schools Coalition and the 4-H Center for Youth Development at the Davis campus of the University of California found that pupils who are harassed based on actual or perceived sexual orientation are at least three times more likely to carry a weapon to school, to seriously consider suicide, to make a plan for attempting suicide, or to miss at least one day of school per 30 schooldays because they do not feel safe. In addition, a survey of San Francisco Asian American youth found that 36 percent cited racial tension as the primary cause for fights on campus. (Where are AUSD statistics?) Article 5.5. Safe Place to Learn Act 234. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the Safe Place to Learn Act….. The department shall assess whether local educational agencies have done all of the following: (a) Adopted a policy that prohibits discrimination and harassment based on the characteristics set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code and Section 220.(AUSD – Yes or No?) (b) Adopted a process for receiving and investigating complaints of discrimination and harassment based on the characteristics set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code and Section 220. (AUSD – Yes or No?) (c) Publicized antidiscrimination and antiharassment policies, including information about the manner in which to file a complaint, to pupils, parents, employees, agents of the governing board, and the general public. The information shall be translated pursuant to Section 48985. (AUSD – Yes or No?) (d) Posted antidiscrimination and antiharassment policies in all schools and offices, including staff lounges and pupil government meeting rooms. (AUSD – Yes or No?) (e) Maintained documentation of complaints and their resolution for a minimum of one review cycle. (AUSD – Yes or No?) (f) Ensured that complainants are protected from retaliation and that the identity of a complainant alleging discrimination or harassment remains confidential, as appropriate. (AUSD – Yes or No?) (g) Identified a responsible local educational agency officer for ensuring district or office compliance with the requirements of Chapter 5.3 (commencing with Section 4900) of Division 1 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200). (AUSD – Following these rules - Yes or No?) Some of the untruths the District seems to have spread to encourage this proposal: The Public and the Board need to know that all the statements by AUSD staff to the public and to the BOE are fully truthful. This playing loose with the truth is a horrible example for our community to which you, the BOE will have to ask for more financial support. Voters will need to know that the BOE can provide the public with the truth, and that it will act in the best interest of all of us. In discussion outside of city hall with members of our community taking both sides of the present proposal we determined that despite being well intentioned this curriculum was destined to receive more harsh opposition than it really deserves. It was poorly titled, probably fatally so. It would, and in the future, could be possible to achieve the core goals of this curriculum with out raising so much as an eyebrow. It is unfortunate there was not a motion simply brought to the BOE to try to get classroom readers in K-3 to better reflect the school community. This would require the LGBT activists to not make a big issue of the motion and the new reader purchases should make a goal to truly balance the number of readers to our community based on levels of ethnicity, religion, and different family types, and various types of handicaps, etc. and not advocate for any group, just include positive roll-models for children of all sorts of families as they exist in our varied school communities. Such a motion should enable schools to seek books that show parenting couples of the same gender portrayed in the book without drawing any unneeded attention to the LGBT advocacy issues other than saying parenting couples of the same gender are called ‘gay’ couples. That would ‘demystify the word, without a good/bad value, merely report the types of families in our schools that kids come from. The really important element of any anti-bullying policy is providing staff the tools and the obligation to use them; to provide written guide lines and mandatory training for dealing with harassment and the training could/should be broken down or separated by school levels; elementary, middle and high school levels which have different needs for intervening in on-going harassment. The hard part for dealing with harassment would still be at middle and high school levels, and in my opinion, staff will need specific training and a specific written procedure adopted by the BOE to protect the staff from personal liabilities, but that's another issue that needs to be addressed in conjunction with the requirements of AB 394. 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 |