Lesson9Comments

Mike McMahon AUSD

Comments Received From May 19 through May 25

May 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 25 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 comments made from May 10 to May 12 are here and comments from May 13 to May 18 are here.

Alameda Resident 5/25

My daughter is a second grader in Alameda Public Schools. I am a teacher of the living sciences, biology, human physiology and environmental science for Oakland Unified School District. I have held this position for 20 years. In addition to my California Teachers Credential, I hold an M. S. degree in Education with emphasis in curriculum.

I have read the curriculum which encourages tolerance and acceptance of all, for grades K-5. I regard these brief lessons as a bare mammon, or stuttering place for teaching against hate. The Curriculum should be adopted. Hate and bullying are very serious problems which lead to even more tragic forms of violence.

Like you, I listened to the arguments against the curriculum at last weeks meeting. I am confident that many of the speakers had not read the lesson plans. Claims that the curriculum does not address other hate such as ethnic slurs, are obviously wrong. The lessons for Kindergarten, grades 4 and 5 are very applicable to all kinds of hate and encourage students to step into the shoes of those they might have belittled.

I am very concerned about intolerance and hate in our local and greater communities. Private schools can ignore the diversity of humanity public schools can not.

I will attend again Tuesday Night to see you vote for tolerance and against hate.

Alameda Resident 5/25

On Tuesday, May 26th the Alameda Board of Education will decide whether or not the public schools of Alameda should include lessons that educate the students about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people. I firmly support an affirmative decision in this regard as I believe that programs such as those being considered can serve to better prepare our children for the ever increasing diversity in their lives.

As a 5th grade teacher at xxx Elementary I recognize that the subject of LGBT is a very sensitive subject for many of the parents and community members. However, I do not think that this fact should guide your decision to include or exclude this subject matter in our students’ education. Instead we need to make this decision as educators responsible for preparing our students for the world they live in as well provide a forum for all students to feel supported and safe within our school communities.

The proposed curriculum is not intended to teach students about sex, morality, or about what it truly means to be a gay individual within our society or world. Instead, the curriculum simply makes an attempt to create a basic understanding of the diversity in family structures that may exist amongst their peers. I believe that this would serve to create a much more productive and safe learning environment for all students.

This evening, I strongly encourage you to approve the proposed curriculum

Alameda Resident 5/25

Thank you for having received my emails so far. Again, I would like to voice my opposition against the LGBT curriculum. I am still disappointed that the process in which the LGBT curriculum was developed has not been addressed. The process gives me concern and I still have not heard a satisfactory explanation for why it occurred in a seemingly underhanded and secret way.

Though other attorneys apparently drafted a letter to support the LGBT curriculum, they still have not adequately defeated the legal grounds. It only takes one legal reason to make the curriculum illegal and I'm afraid the letter has not defeated all grounds for why the curriculum is legally justified.

Please save yourself from the litigation costs for a case that will be ruled against you. You have received many fair warnings and it would be irresponsible to go forward with this curriculum. Please do not allow this curriculum to go forward.

Alameda Resident 5/25

I am writing to urge your support and leadership in further making Alameda schools a safe and respectful environment for ALL of Alameda's students and families by supporting the proposal regarding the curriculum to teach elementary school students respect for gay and lesbian families.

Superintendant Vital's public comments urging that all of us keep in mind our responsibility as a district for providing a safe and welcoming environment for all students and our obligation to develop policy and a curriculum that we believe best enables us to protect the rights of all our students, their families, and staff," is right on the mark, and should be commended and supported. I must also convey to you my recent experience receiving a disturbingly biased and unethical telephone survey by the opponents of this proposal. The Capitol Resource Institute funded this survey which asked HIGHLY biased questions... NOT in an attempt to legitimately guage the true attitudes of Alameda residents, but to gain support for its pre-established beliefs that oppose fair treatment for gay and lesbian persons and families. The survey was also conducted by computer, thereby not allowing people to ask questions of the surveyors, including such things as how long the survey would take, nor to clarify some of the questions that were so convuluted as to be nearly incomprehensible. I must urge you to completely disregard any "data" presented as a result of this poorly-conceived and mis-representative survey, and to remember that the majority of Alamedans are fair-minded and open-hearted people whose views are not represented by the Capitol Resource Institute or any other outside agitators, attempting to sway the Board to accept their bigoted and viewpoints which reflect, at best, a vast minority of Alameda residents.

We entrust our children to the educators, administrators, and Board Members who lead the Alameda schools. Please consider these issues carefully, and strongly support the rights of all Alameda students and families to live in safety, understanding and equality in our schools and community.

Alameda Resident 5/25

I support the proposed Caring Schools Curriculum for the following reasons;

Fact: We are all human beings, with differing gifts and talents
Fact: We are not identical with one another – we are diverse, come from different places, speak in different ways and look different from one another
Fact: It is important that we are respectful of all persons, including those whose ideas may differ from our own
Fact: These concepts should be taught at home
Fact: There are many different kinds of families – they happen to come in different sizes and configurations and combinations
Fact: Celebrating the many differences in our life are best taught at home - if that should not happen to occur – then learning at school is a logical solution
Fact: Words can be very hurtful – often children hear words at school – realize that word/s are useful for teasing/taunting without always understanding the meaning of the word itself
Fact: Unless these ‘school’ words are shared with parents, who can help them to understand them, and that the use of the words can be hurtful – this then leaves school as a backup and logical place to help the student learn

It is important to demonstrate to our children that we can be accepting, respectful and tolerant of individuals and families who are not ‘just like us.’

Alameda Resident 5/25

As an Alameda resident living on the West End of town, I wanted to voice my support for the Safe Schools Curriculum, and to share my perspective as a Family Physician working in the community. And, I am speaking as a Taiwanese American, Christian, Straight Man.

Many of my elementary school, middle school, and high school patients suffer bullying for a variety of reasons, including racial, language, gender, class, and sexual orientation reasons. I have seen the damaging effects of this bullying on the psychological, physical, and emotional development of my patients. Many of my them live in fear when they are at school, doubt their self worth, have poor performance in school, and bring a variety of behavioral challenges home.

Given the enormity of the bullying problem and its effects on my patients, I support any curriculum that will begin to alleviate bullying in the schools. I see this curriculum as just the beginning of our efforts to address bullying. We need to start somewhere. Later, we can build and expand onto the curriculum, if needed. And, if our teachers are asking for support with particular attention to LGBTQ communities, we need to support them on this.

Opponents argue that this curriculum should not go forward just because the curriculum does not address each and every group that suffers oppression, as if it is a zero sum game. What they fail to remember is that all our idenities as people are not fragmented into separate racial, gender, religious, or sexual orientation categories. A child is not just Black, or disabled, or a boy, or Muslim, etc. A child may be Black, and disabled, and a boy, and Muslim, and gay. When a curriculum addresses one aspect of identity, this is not a loss for all other aspects of identity. Rather, addressing one aspect begins to touch into the web and fluidity of identity that will end up serving the whole person.

Thank you for sheperding this process along and being open to various viewpoints as we make Alameda a stronger and more inclusive community.

Alameda Resident 5/25

I have attended the last two public meetings regarding the Safe Schools Curriculum but was not offered the chance to speak. Those who opposed the curriculum repeated the same few criticisms. One oft repeated comment was "this is not science." I beg to differ. As an anthropologist I have seen the body of scientific data grow that demonstrates that biological differencecs between males and females exist on a continuum. This data covers areas of hormones, primary and secondary characterisitcs, and the various configurations of the X and Y chromosomes. This is not referring to any disease processes or even sexual orientation but simply to variation with human beings. In short, people can't be put into discrete boxes of either this or that. This scientific ambiguity can make some people uncomfortable but that does not diminish its relevance. As an Alameda parent of several public school children I want my children to receive an excellent education. Whether or not people like learning about the continuous biological variation between males and females, it exists. This information will be coming to the curriculum eventually in academically and developmentally appropriate ways.

I am very proud of the proposed curriculum and only wish that there were more LGBTQ lessons

Alameda Student Third Grade 5/25

I don't want this curriculum happening. It's not part of math, language arts, or reading. A lot of people disagree about this. I don't want you to force me to do this!!!

Alameda Resident 5/25

As I am sure you are all aware, Propositions 1A, 1B, and 1C were voted down by Alameda voters. Alameda was to lose 50 million dollars, but it now it looks like this is just the beginning of massive deficits.

What you may not realize is that voters are angry. They are tired of annual education tax increases. They are even more tired of misguided priorities. Why should voters approve of more money when they know that any money approved will only be misspent?

Voters need only to point to the LGBT curriculum. There seems to be no money for art, no teacher time for music, no athletics, and a focus away from core academics. Schools are being closed, and teachers regularly receive layoff notices. But somehow there seems to plenty of money for LGBT curriculum, valuable teacher time, teacher training, consultant fees (from a biased consultant - why did we pay him???), and the cost of defending impending lawsuits! Voters are sending the message - when money is tight, spend money on academics and universally accepted programs! Please do not allow this new curriculum - and get education priorities straight instead.

Alameda Resident 5/25

It is time to end bigotry in the name of religion. Please vote for the proposed LGBT Curriculum.

Alameda Resident 5/25

I am taking time from a very busy life to voice my support for teaching tolerance in the school curriculum. I am an Alameda resident with 3 school age children and have lived here about 20 years. This is a no brainer in my opinion. I am sorry that it is eating up so much time in an era where our focus is desperately needed elsewhere.

BOTTOM LINE: If we are going to teach tolerance for race, religion, ethnicity, marital status...there is NO legal or rational basis to exclude teaching tolerance and respectful behavior towards gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transsexuals.

Haven't we already learned these lessonsin American History? Despite the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott, we now KNOW that African Americans are NOT "3/5 of a person." Similarly, despite the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, we now KNOW that "separate is not equal". Did we really have to wait until 1967's Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia to KNOW that inter-racial marriage cannot be outlawed?

In your hearts I believe you already KNOW the right answer to this curriculum question. It is a long overdue curriculum change. We must live in tolerance if we are to be a viable community. The alternative is unthinkable. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.

Alameda Resident 5/25

I am an Alameda resident and parent of children attending Alameda public schools. I am speaking on behalf of my Muslim family, to let you know that the passing of the proposed tolerance curriculum would conflict with the teachings of our Islamic faith. I am deeply disturbed to think that my responsibility as a parent to teach my children important moral values is being usurped by the public school system, taking away my right to be the first teacher of my children. The teaching of moral values have always been in the realm of family, we send our children to school to learn the tools of education (i.e., reading, writing, math, sciences etc.). The teaching of respect, tolerance and dignity should be extended to ALL peoples regardless of gender, religion, race and physical abilities I am therefore OPPOSED to this new curriculum as it clearly serves the interest of only a select group of the population. In serving the needs of a richly diverse community, we the parents, teachers, educators, school administrators, school board members and students in Alameda should all work together in dealing with issues that are culturally sensitive and relevant to city. I sincerely thank you for your time and consideration.

Out of Town Resident 5/25

I have a five year old daughter, who will be in first grade this fall. I am asking that you not adopt the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender (GLBT) cirriculum.

We live in the Untied Stated of America, where we are supposed to be free!

I believe that if you do pass GLBT cirriculum, it will be taking away that freedom! Being Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender has nothing to do with education! We are supposed to have religious freedom, I am a born again Christian. How is it fair that you give them the freedom to do whatever they want, but force those who do not want to teach their children at such a early age about GLBT's, that they have to teach them, and do not have a choice!

Again I am against the GLBT curriculum! I believe that a parent should have the choice. If you do decide to pass this, at least give the parents their freedom of choice! The choice to opt out if they so choose. These are OUR children NOT yours!

Out of Town Resident 5/25

We are against sex education. We want the concentration to be on reading, writing and arithmatic.

Out of Town Resident 5/25

At what point do we stop listening to people and take away their rights "for their own good"? The parents of your school district have asked you to not adopt a GLBT curriculum, but you have decided to go forward with it anyway--to stop bullying. As if there aren't other ways to stop bullying. Are you secure enough in your job that you truly believe that the majority of the people who have asked you not to adopt this material will now turn around and support you in the election when you have not supported them? Or are you bowing to pressure from the vocal minority? Or maybe your own interests? Whatever, I am asking you not to adopt the GLBT curriculum.

Out of Town Resident 5/25

t is utterly unthinkable that this curriculum has come this far as to even be voted on.

Please PRESERVE MORALITY in our schools, our children, our state and nation.

We anticipate a close vote by the Board of Education, when it decides whether to mandate the homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual curriculum in Alameda Unified School District.

This quote on your website is an abomination that there would be a close vote to mandate the teaching of gross immorality!!!!

STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING! the future of our children and schools are in your hands . There is no value in this kind of teaching.

May the Lord God Almighty's Truths in the Holy Scriptures be your guide and conscience.

Thank you for stopping the teaching of this curriculum.

Out of Town Resident 5/25

Please do not allow the board to teach the GLBT in the schools. It is the sole responsibility of parents to teach their own children these moral issues, the way they want to and they way they believe in. It is NOT appropriate for schools to teach this curriculum. I am the grandmother of sixteen and I don’t want any of this subject matter taught to my grandchildren.

Out of Town Resident 5/25

Californians were told in recent Prop 8 commercials just this year that a GLBT agenda and/or same sex marriage training would not be brought into the classroom. And surely not without parental consent! Were we being misled??

Please do not adopt a GLBT curriculum in your school system. What happened to the fundamentals called the 3 - R's???

Alameda Resident 5/24

As a teacher and parent of a student of AUSD, I wholeheartedly support the new "diversity" or anti-bullying curriculum.

For almost four years I have subbed for all ages (from toddlers at Woodstock Child Development Center on up) through AUSD and for the last 2 1/2 years I have taught my own classes through the Alameda Adult School. In one capacity or another, I've hung out with and talked to a lot of teachers.

There is a lot of name-calling in our K-12 schools. (I have not seen this behavior in Adult Education classes). I was very sad to hear derogatory talk from my sixth grade daughter, who attends Lincoln Middle School. While she stopped immediately when she recognized the response of my wife and me, I learned how persuasive this kind of talk must be. She did not learn insulting language at home.

While teachers may try to address each issue or name calling as it comes up, having this basic curriculum would "institutionalize" basic human values such as respect, tolerance, and understanding of people who are different.

Every teacher that I have talked to is in favor of the curriculum. While the sampling size is not large, I know that the vast majority of teachers support this curriculum.

While the opposition to the curriculum is well-organized and very outspoken, I believe that they speak for only a small portion of Alamedan parents. I am surprized at all this commotion. I thought that Alameda as a community had basically resolved the issue of homosexuality 10 years ago and learned to appreciate the contributions and gifts of our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered neighbors. One way or another, respect, tolerance, and understanding of people who are different are non-negotiable values.

Thank you for taking a stand to make Alameda safe for all students.

Alameda Resident 5/24

As an Alameda resident, I am writing to express my SUPPORT of the Caring School Curriculum.

Alameda Resident 5/24

I have owned my house on Versailles Ave for 5 years now. I also have a 3 year old girl that I plan to send to Otis school in a few years. However, because of the way I am seeing this LGBT curriculum play out, I am having serious issues about whether or not I can trust our AUSD school system. The fact that it has gotten to this level is astonishing to me... a couple of thoughts:

- Mike: you mentioned at the most recent meeting that AUSD has "equal exposure on either side". How can that be? This makes no sense to me. If you adopt this curriculum, you will be imposing this teaching on children, and that will clearly bring about some suits that, even if they do not win in court, they will cost a lot of money. So at the least, you stand to lose a lot of money, and then there is also the risk that the curriculum will be thrown out, in which case it was all for naught... HOWEVER, if you decide to take some time in order to revise the material, get more feedback from the people that are against the curriculum, not only will you be uniting the two sides on this matter, but you will also be avoiding a lawsuit. How can someone possibly file suit because you decided to revise a curriculum that clearly has caused division... Remember, the opposition doesn't want to exclude LGBT, we just want to make revisions to have it be acceptable by all. We don't want to just throw it away altogether. Isn't it the safest way, to bring together the groups as well as avoid lawsuits?

- We have heard clear statements (at both of the recent meetings) from members of our African-American constituency about the need for similar topics on racism, which is a much more prevalent problem them the bullying of LGBT. If we are going to start having particular protected classes be represented in the material outright (not just a picture of a family where they are different colors), then we FOR SURE need to incorporate ALOT more material. We heard clear testimony of how even the African-American students in Alameda High don't recall any lessons teaching tolerance and shunning racism! How can we leave this class that has had such a prominent spot in the history of America out? It is also clearly stated that the protected class of religion is altogether left out? How can we be talking about a very particular case of a protected class and yet totally leave out another whole category! This material is not complete and clearly needs to be worked on!

- One of the questions brought up is how the accountability structure and assessment will be done for teachers and making sure they are teaching strictly what the material is saying and not adding their own thoughts or deviating. It seems like this is such a big and complicated pieces, how can we go forward without it, especially with such a sensitive topic? This accountability/assessment structure is something that I think also needs to be brought into public discussion, because it has a huge role to play in how the message will be communicated. This is something that the people need to see if it is sufficient and up to their standards... We need to hear the plan for that too, can't just sweep it under the rug and "hope for the best".

So, I would like to voice my opposition to the incorporation of this curriculum. I would like to see something that the entire community stands behind and is accepted, which I think is possible here. However, if the BoE pushes this through in the premature state that it is in, then how can I trust them with much larger issues? It would cause me to think about whether I want to enroll my child in AUSD, and also along with that whether I want to support the parcel tax for the AUSD... why would I send my child to a school or support a school which can't make decisions that seem like they should be so straight forward?

Alameda Resident 5/24

This is circulating from Almeda C.A.R.E from sample letters of support...the Unified School District in Alameda, instead of listening to the overwhelming majority of parents from this school who are extremely upset and angry; the school, if you could call it that, is taking the side of the groups pushing this proposal, against the parents wishes.

Media, school board, California Senators and Congressman, Governor, Schwarzenegger, whom I have included in this email...take note, this is unbelievable that is is happening in America:

Given the serious consequences of school harassment, I urge you to reject any proposal that would permit individuals to opt out of aspects of the curriculum that are designed to reduce anti-LGBT harassment. Permitting families to opt out will undermine the program’s effectiveness and is inconsistent with its very purpose. Even if only a few people ever choose to opt out, creating a special rule that allows it will send a message that respect for LGBT parents and youth is optional.

This has absolutely nothing to do with school harassment or disrespecting gays. This is the gay and lesbian communities wanting control of the schools and our kids. This is truly an atrocity. This is not about kids or parents...this is about a group that wants to infiltrate the schools and overturn what the parents want for their children (see parents reactions speaking out against this proposal in blue, below).

I suggest they propose a curriculum on Christianity and Traditional Marriage and force the kids and the parents to participate. Can you imagine?

It's okay to opt out of the Pledge of Allegiance today--which I still find hard to believe-- but this person is suggesting that the school force lesbian and gay curriculum down the throats of parents regardless of the parents beliefs or wishes. I say that by it's very tone is vehemently disrespectful, yet they speak of respect. This is very bad. There should not even be such a curriculum in a school, much less a proposal telling parents they cannot opt out.

This is not what parents want. This is not what parents want!!

Alameda Resident 5/24

I tried to attend the May 12th meeting about our students sexual orientation curriculum. The flyer I had received was unclear as to where the meeting was so I was late only to find the meeting closed. Since I was out of town for this last meeting my 8th grade daughter attended but was not allowed to speak. I have three children in the Alameda Unified School District and I have six adult children who went to public schools. Most of my adult children have Master or Law degrees and are very successful in their personal and professional lives. I have been involved in public schools for the last 30 years and will be for some time to come. I am concerned about what is happening in our school district when I see ABC, NBC and other television trucks outside our local district meetings.

You made two comments in the newspaper that concerns me. One was that 60% of the attendees were in favor of the curriculum and that 10% were from outside the area. Per the article about 350 people attended the meeting which means you estimated 35 people were from outside the area. Just at the May 12th meeting I had discussions with over a dozen people from outside the area, all in favor of the curriculum. My daughter who was seated in the last meeting estimated the number of outsiders to be much higher then 35. To say that 60% of the people were in favor tells me that you are not in touch with the parents of this district. I have been in this district for 9 years and have three children attending and every discussion I have had with the parents I know tells me that an overwhelming majority of the parents in this district do not support this curriculum.

You have everyone's e-mail why don't you take a poll and see for yourself. This would be a great way to get accurate and reliable feedback from the parents and students you are supposed to represent. This would leave out the outside individuals that are involved in this for political reasons. You are here to represent this district and the parents and students that reside here. You are not in your position to support political issues or the interests of those outside the City of Alameda.

The schools are responsible to educate our children in the areas they will need for their future careers. There will be 68.1% of California's seniors graduating this year. California rates 47th in education in this nation. We are failing at teaching the basics to our children and we should not be distracting our administration, teachers and students with political issues. These meetings need to be about how we can help all of our students graduate when they are seniors.

Sexual orientation, family structures, religion and personal morality should be taught in our homes. These areas are off limits to our school districts.

Tolerance is something that should be taught in schools when it comes to other students. Disabled individuals, different races and cultures, different shapes and sizes, religious moral preferences are all areas that the students need to respect and tolerate. Someones sexual preference or behavior is not something that should even be addressed by the schools, it is a personal and a family matter. The schools already have policies dealing with tolerance, this is all that is needed. To single out one group in a curriculum and not address all of the others is discrimination.

The district has enough distractions and financial problems without inviting lawsuits that will be inevitable if this curriculum is adopted.

I think this topic should be dropped and the important business of preparing our children for college should be our priority.

Alameda Resident 5/24

If you accept the current LGBT proposal, you chose to ignore the rights of one group so a school district can be ‘pushed’ to impose on one group’s Federally protected rights to further the political aims of another group. (LGBT groups have no legal ‘right’ to this proposed curriculum; therefore it is a ‘political aim’.)

By rejecting this proposal no one is negating the rights of gays. No one is making them “invisible”. The proposal is simply a bad set of lessons which also violates the protected rights of one group while doing nothing for any of the federally protected classes of citizens which are also not included in any other lessons taught in the other 8 lessons of the curriculum. It is not within a school’s role to teach values contrary to the religious beliefs of its students. No one opposing the curriculum is asking AUSD to censure factual content from the school curriculum. It has clearly been the non-factual opinions and values that are suggested as both age inappropriate and in violation to 1st Amendment protection, and the lessons parents believe will work against the stated objective of the proposed curriculum, which form the basis of the community's rejection of this proposal. As for the “factual” element of the proposed lessons, it would be equally factual, (and equally wrong) to teach K-3 about auto-immune deficiency syndrome, its introduction to the USA, and how it has spread. That is why we need a balanced committee, representative of our community, to work with the public so we can actually put together a curriculum that does respect and welcome and celebrate all the diversity in our community.

The proposal was also put together in a deceitful and undemocratic manner. Much of the anger of the community has been caused by the exclusion by the district, on this topic which obviously is a core concern for large portions of our community. We simply have to be careful how we teach “value lessons”. The proposed curriculum also fails to meet the requirements of AB 397, which the district erroneously cited as the legal impetus for this proposal. It also doesn’t train all staff, not even all teachers, how to deal with student to student harassment.

There have been far too many seemingly deliberate untruths told by the committee and AUSD staff to the press, the BOE, and the public. This has created a horrendous obstacle for community trust, and is a problem which must be addressed by the BOE. The motivation to achieve a desired result does not allow public employees to lie to their superiors or their financiers, their fellow citizens, and press. There is no excuse for the deceitful behavior that has created so much distrust between our community and AUSD.

If the BOE makes the mistake of approving this curriculum rather than using good judgment and creative thinking to initiate a better solution, they will destroy this school district and leave the community divided and without the means for our community to come together to achieve a better program as a unified team. In fact it may just leave the school district’s community forever divided.

The BOE must be willing to trust this community to work together rather than dictatorially forcing a bad curriculum. I urge all of you to spend time reviewing what others have done to achieve positive outcomes, such as SF school district which started with a committee which represented all of the community, and has far better programs and very explicit "do’s and don’ts'" for students, parents and staff. http://www.healthiersf.org/LGBTQ/index.html . They also have a No-Slurs Policy (that's comprehensive) http://www.healthiersf.org/LGBTQ/GetTheFacts/pol-antislur.html . (&Safe-School Line- anonymoustips.) They explain how staff and teachers are to intervene. And SF is just one better example. There are wealth of superior programs that address all forms of harassment.

The BOE could always revisit this proposal if, after being given an opportunity to succeed, the community cannot put together a better plan, but I recommend the board reject this plan because of all its failings, and commence to assemble a fully representative committee to challenge and allow the community to demonstrate that Alameda is a tolerant and accepting community that wants all students to feel safe, non threatened, and welcomed; that our diversity is celebrated equally - not just LGBT issues, but for our entire community; that we can put together a program which meets the expressed requirements of AB #397 in a meaningful manner. You, the BOE, will likely find that our community is not only capable of working together for such goals, but are willing to take extra steps to commit to real enforcement of BOE Policy 5145.3

Alameda is now in a position where the BOE will either save, or ruin, our school district. This is a huge 1st hurdle for this new BOE.

Alameda Resident 5/24

As a married, heterosexual female mother of 3 young children (entering 2nd grade and entering k) in Alameda Public schools, I want to again share my full support of the board adopting this cirriculum. Gay families are present all around us and are a reality of our society and our school systems.

Please vote to pass this important cirriculum.

Alameda Resident 5/24

As parents of three young boys, one of whom will be entering kindergarten this coming fall, we are strongly opposed to the incorporation of "Lesson9" into the school curriculum. My wife and do not feel it is the school districts' mission to indoctrinate our children in the acceptance of "alternate lifestyles". Parents should have the ability to address this issue with their children in a manner and at an age each family deems appropriate.

Rest assured that if the school district adopts "Lesson9" that none of my children will be attending Alameda public schools.

Additionally, we reluctantly voted "yes" for the for the most recent property tax assessment supporting the school district. Adopt "Lesson9" and not only will we never again support any tax programs to benefit the schools, but we will actively lend our support to the opposition.

Out of Town Resident 5/24

Are you ALL out your mind? STOP Polluting our INNOCENT Children!!!

Out of Town Resident 5/24

I am writing to let you know that we strongly feel that the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender (GLBT) curriculum should NOT BE ADOPTED. Children should not be exposed to this material at school. It is the parents job to teach their children about sexual orientation at home not the schools.

Please make the proper decision that the GLBT curriculum should NOT BE ADOPTED.

Out of Town Resident 5/24

I have spoken twice at the last two meetings opposing the LGBT curriculum. I wanted to inform you that Berkeley Unified actually officially does NOT currently have a LGBT curriculum in implementation. Though there was a press release that said that it did in 2007, I heard a rumor that it in fact does not. Last week, I went to Washington Elementary and talked with a 5th grade teacher who verified that they do not have any type of LGBT curriculum being taught, nor have they in the past 4 years she's taught there. I thought this might be very important information for you to have as I believe it has been reported to you that Berkeley has adopted a similar type curriculum that is being proposed to Alameda Unified.

Out of Town Resident 5/24

I am writing to express my opinion that the GLBT curriculum should NOT BE ADOPTED. Please consider our family's right to teach our own children about sexuality when we see fit. The schools should be a support to families, not authorities over families to usurp parental rights. I urge you to do whatever you can to not allow this curriculum to be taught in our schools.

Out of Town Resident 5/24

Have you all been possessed by the DEVIL or what? WHAT is wrong with you? What a DISGRACE you are to the nation. We AMERICANS say NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Out of Town Resident 5/24

What's wrong with you people in Alameda? You want to poison our children? You people should get BOOTED out of your job. And you'll deserve it

Out of Town Resident 5/24

I will be emceeing the San Francisco Marriage Equality Rally at the MLK Memorial and will be unable to attend. I pray that the event will be peaceful and I hope that education will win out.

Someday our yet unborn children will look back at this strife and wonder why equal treatment was not given to gay people and their families in the ways that I, born two years after the murder of MLK wonder how Bull and Gov. Wallace could have allowed the violence and the injustices perpetrated against blacks and the people that came to support them. We seem to fail to learn the lessons of our past that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and we somehow fail to be able to translate the oppression of the past to see where it is showing up, which group is being marginalized today that is needing equality and respect.

Out of Town Resident 5/24

It is my plea to you and the other school board members that I DO NOT WANT the GLBT curriculum to be adopted into the school curriculum. This act will not only violate MY parental rights but expose children to concepts relating to sexual orientation beginning at age five without the consent of the parent.

PLEASE? PLEASE! PLEASE! DON'T DO IT!

Out of Town Resident 5/24

I am writing to voice my opinion regarding GLBT curriculum which will come before you for your vote on Tuesday, May 26, 2009. I feel strongly that this curriculum should NOT BE ADOPTED. Sexual orientation and religious values greatly differ among members of the State of California. I believe issues such as these should be taught in the home and NOT in the public school systems. Please do not introduce our children to this curriculum. Do not expose our children to books such as; And Tango Makes Three. This curriculum would violate my rights as a parent to protect my children from ideas and information that I do not support in a public education venue. Please, please do not adopt this program.

Alameda Resident 5/23

I understand that you, along with the Alameda school board, will be deciding whether to adopt the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender (GLBT) curriculum, which will be taught to young children (K-5). Those that are encouraging this curriculum are arguing that this must be done in order for young children to be taught tolerance and diversity. However, what is actually being advocated is the social acceptance of alternative sexual lifestyles without any regard to the rights of the parents who are legally and socially responsible for these young children. I urge you to support my right to: 1) decide when (i.e,. at what age) my child should be taught about alternative lifestyles and 2) how my child should view alternative sexual orientations in context to our religion.

While tolerance is being touted as the leading criteria for this decision it is very ironic that there is no tolerance for parents who desire to teach their own children about the merits of a heterosexual marriage. My own young son will soon be a kindergartner. I find it repulsive that the school board would consider adopting any sort of lesson plan that would teach my son about "two male dads", "two female moms", and etc. when he is at such a young and tender age. He does not need to know about sexual orientations in order to "accept those with diverse backgrounds". The true agenda of those that are urging you to accept curriculum that includes GLBT lessons is to get young children to feel that all of society has accepted their alternative lifestyle.

So why am I writing you? Because I know that my son will be taught what is in the curriculum. I plead and urge you again to dismiss any attempts to adopt any sort of GLBT curriculum. Please consider the rights of the parents, the tender ages of these young children, and what the true agenda is at this moment.

Alameda Resident 5/23

I am an Alameda resident, physician, and parent of 2 young boys. I am writing to encourage you to support introduction of the CARE curriculum to help make our community as open and tolerant as it possibly can be.

Out of Town Resident 5/23

Do not allow the new gay rights curriculum to pass.

Out of Town Resident 5/23

Please consider the long term negative affects of adding the GLBT curriculum to public schools. This is a subject that is deeply personal and private that crosses the boundary into religious freedoms. Removing the legal right of parents to choose the time and place to teach their children about sexual matters and gender orientation will cause manifold repercussions. These are not "civil rights" issues, they are lifestyle choices and have no business being mandated by official bodies. Please, consider the future.

Alameda Resident 5/23

Has AUSD ever considered implementing an already existing program/curriculum that deals with safety and caring schools? It seems nearly impossible to include every group that needs to be represented - so many different races, religion, holidays, etc. Plus this makes diversity and tolerance really superficial.

What about a program that focuses on overall safety and bullying? I've found these two to be remarkable: http://www.responsiveclassroom.org/about/aboutrc.html http://www.devstu.org/csc/videos/index.shtml

you can even apply to receive services: http://www.devstu.org/csc/initiative/index.html#

No need to reinvent the wheel when there is already superb curriculum and programs out there. We teachers are always looking for what works well already.

I urge you to doing some research on this topic before making your decision. There are many districts and schools have had great turn-around in decreasing bullying after implementing such programs at their sites.

Out of Town Resident 5/23

I am writing to ask you to please support a fabulous curriculum that creates a safe place for all children. What a gift to be able to give the childrenthe opportunity to learn about differences, be taught vocabulary, and then be given words to be able to talk about their feelings! Wow, that is powerful. I believe it is your responsibility to help create a safe school environment for all children, with all their multitude of differences. This curriculum is not just about GLBTQ issues as some would like to frame it. Many kids get teased and bullied for a multitude of reasons. It saddens me to think of all the children that do get bullied are afraid to speak up. The shame, humility, self hatred...all affects of being bullied. You have an opportunity to help students...that is what this is about. You have an opportunity to help those students who don't have anyone on their side. How could you not want to do that?

Please don't give into the bullying by those who are using this as yet another pulpit to instill fear and continue discrimination.

Out of Town Resident 5/23

I oppose to add any gay education to the Alameda elementary school curriculum. Children is so young and easily influence by any kinds of messages we educate them. The gay education is a controversial topics. Even now it's a very heated and debatable topics for various organization.

Alameda Parent

We shouldn't educate young children with gay education. We should let them choose what what they want after they grow up as a adult. But not influence them any concepts or directions at this young age. nt 5/23

As the parent of two kids in the AUSD, I wanted to voice my strong support for the Safe Schools Curriculum. I think it could do a lot of good towards reducing bullying, teasing and worse against gay and lesbian students and against students from gay or lesbian families. I'm hopeful that here in Alameda our School Board will not let individuals who misunderstand the curriculum or who don't "approve" of those different from themselves, keep you from doing what is best for our kids, namely approving the modifications to the Safe Schools Curriculum. Thank you for your time and patience through this process.

Alameda Resident 5/23

am a mom of two daughters who are being raised by heterosexual parents and I applaud the School Board for pursuing a curriculum of tolerance and communication despite the potentially overwhelming fear that might accompany such a plan.

Alameda Resident 5/23

am writing to express my full support for the addendum to the Safe Schools Anti-Bullying Curriculum.

I wonder how different my life would have been had my school had a wonderful anti-bullying curriculum like yours.

Kids must learn early on that _nobody_ deserves cruelty from others, no matter how different they look, act, or seem. LGBTQI people are no exception.

While there are obviously many people who are uncomfortable with, do not approve of, or do not want to acknowledge LGBTQI people, families, and lifestyles, it is AUSD's duty to ensure that all children are safe at their schools, including those who may be LGBTQI. Teaching children they must not pick on or discriminate against _anyone_ is of utmost importance.

Please do not allow those people who would exclude this vulnerable population (some of the kids who need the most protection) from lessons on anti-bullying to sway you from your duty to protect ALL children.

Alameda Resident 5/23

I am an Alameda resident and parent of children attending Alameda public schools. I am speaking on behalf of my Muslim family, to let you know that the passing of the proposed tolerance curriculum would conflict with the teachings of our Islamic faith. I am deeply disturbed to think that my responsibility as a parent to teach my children important moral values is being usurped by the public school system, taking away my right to be the first teacher of my children. The teaching of moral values have always been in the realm of family, we send our children to school to learn the tools of education (i.e., reading, writing, math, sciences etc.). The teaching of respect, tolerance and dignity should be extended to ALL peoples regardless of gender, religion, race and physical abilities I am therefore OPPOSED to this new curriculum as it clearly serves the interest of only a select group of the population. In serving the needs of a richly diverse community, we -- parents, teachers, educators, school administrators, school board members and students in Alameda should all work together in dealing with issues that are culturally sensitive and relevant to city. I sincerely thank you for your time and consideration.

Out of Town Resident 5/23

As a concerned California resident and a parent of four school-aged children, I would like to respectfully petition that the GLBT curriculum NOT BE ADOPTED in your school district. Though I understand and support the need to educate our children to prevent bullying, I do not support the information and methods the GLBT curriculum would use to accomplish this task. I believe that children should not be exposed to this material at such a young age and that the education of the subject matters the GLBT curriculum includes should be a choice made by parents to teach their children in their own homes, as they see fit. This act will also clearly violate parental rights, as the parents will not have the option to have their children excused from the classroom while the GLBT curriculum is taught. Parents should at least have the option to make the decision whether or not they want their child to participate in the GLBT curriculum, just as parents have the option to have their child excused from Family Life educational programs, which are taught throughout our state. This curriculum is a clear violation of parental rights and is exposing our children to subject matters which are not necessary to the education and prevention of bullying.

Again, please do not vote to adopt the GLBT curriculum in your school district. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this important subject matter.

Out of Town Resident 5/23

I am an American citizen resident and parent of children attending SC county public schools. I am speaking on behalf of my Muslim family, to let you know that the passing of the proposed tolerance curriculum would conflict with the teachings of our Islamic faith. I am deeply disturbed to think that my responsibility as a parent to teach my children important moral values is being usurped by the public school system, taking away my right to be the first teacher of my children. The teaching of moral values have always been in the realm of family, we send our children to school to learn the tools of education (i.e., reading, writing, math, sciences etc.). The teaching of respect, tolerance and dignity should be extended to ALL peoples regardless of gender, religion, race and physical abilities I am therefore OPPOSED to this new curriculum as it clearly serves the interest of only a select group of the population. In serving the needs of a richly diverse community, we -- parents, teachers, educators, school administrators, school board members and students in Alameda should all work together in dealing with issues that are culturally sensitive and relevant to city. I sincerely thank you for your time and consideration.

Out of Town Resident 5/23

THIS IS A PETITION TO YOU. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THE GLBT CURRICULUM TO BE ADOPTED.

Out of Town Resident 5/23

GLBT curriculum should NOT BE ADOPTED.

STOP the spread of this Virus!! NOW!!

Alameda Resident 5/23

As a parent, grandparent (the oldest will be starting kindergarten in the fall), marriage and family therapist, and Christian, I support this curriculum, which I have reviewed. My only concern is that the group that is left out of the depiction of families are those whose families don't feel loving and home is a place of fear, more than love. I hope that teachers will have training to watch for signs of that as they teach about families and reach out to those children. If some parents are concerned that they get abusive at times, this curriculum could be seen as a way for them to not act on their frustrations, so that they don't get reported.

As a Christian I see the LGBT community as similar to the Samaritans of Biblical times, and as Jesus pointed out, they are our neighbors.

While everyone seems to be against bullying, it was in an encounter with a member of the opposition on Tuesday evening May 12th, in the ante-room, waiting to get in to chambers, that I realized some people may not realize how their attitudes support bullying. A woman came into the room from the chambers, saying she just couldn't believe the curriculum they were proposing. Having reviewed it and the books myself, I asked curiously what specifically she had objections to. She pulled out the Robert Skutch book and said vehemently that with the different descriptions of families, there was a page where the parents were of the same sex! Well, that is what is! (A few years back some would have been upset by a mixed race couple being depicted.) Children are going to run into that! Pretending something doesn't exist is not what education is, or should, be about!

On a more dramatic scale, if this woman has children it seems to me it would be impossible for them not to pick up her attitude (which seemed pretty hateful to me), and when they come across children with LGBT parents, or who have "gay" actions or looks, they will disparage them. They will be following what she does, even if she says don't bully. She is actually encouraging it. With this curriculum children will have a chance to view LGBT connected children with a sense of their humaness.

This curriculum is a necessity!

Out of Town Resident 5/23

I understand that you will be voting soon on whether or not to allow a book that teaches about gay lifestyle. I beg of you to listen to the people. Please keep these teachings in our homes and out of the school. I don't believe there have been studies that show what the percentage of children in gay homes are being molested by gay parents. Or how many gay couples stay together and how long on average. But I won't just single out gays, look at the percentage of step-parents who would do the same as opposed to biological ones. Look at this whole thing statistically, not the rule, not the exception. We need to be realistic not idealistic for a moment.

I love my gay family members, I do not wish harm on anyone. This is not antigay in any respect. I just believe in protecting children first and foremost. They are the ones who have no voice. Let's bring in books that speak about honesty, compassion, humanitarian, charity, bullying, life's struggles and overcoming obstacles. Those are things that will help in our society. Please, leave sexuality out of our schools, little kids don't need to be thinking about such adult matters, no matter what level you bring it down to.

Out of Town Resident 5/23

I am aghast that the school board is considering adopting the proposed GLBT curriculum into our schools. In our family’s experience with children in elementary, middle, and high schools, we have found that it is the conservative children who are routinely bullied for having a traditional opinion about marriage, NOT the children with pro-gay opinions. Ours is such a liberal area of the U.S. that a traditional viewpoint about marriage and homosexuality is the minority opinion. Adopting a GLBT curriculum would only further empower administrators, teachers, and staff to bring GLBT issues to the forefront which would further cause our traditionally-minded children even more discomfort than they already feel. As it currently stands, our schools are not the neutral forums of discussion they should be. Under the guise of anti-discrimination or anti-bullying, school staffs all across California are discussing gay issues and allowing/promoting a pro-gay viewpoint while effectively dismissing traditional views. Our children are made out to be people who hate from families that hate for merely being Pro-Proposition 8. They are ridiculed and bullied while teachers stand by and do nothing merely for having a counter opinion about GLBT issues. But regardless of where we as a family stand on this political issue, we should not further empower those voices are already stronger on these issues.

As to the particulars of speaking to my children about gender/sexual matters without my permission -- whether it concerns heterosexual behavior or homosexual behavior -- I am morally opposed to schools having that power. I do not wish my children to be exposed to material beyond their understanding without my permission or supervision. This has always been the right of parents in the U.S. Why adopt something that does not allow parents the legal right to have their child excused from this classroom discussion if they are morally opposed to it? Don’t we as parents know our children best? Are the schools now presuming to know our children better?

Alameda Resident 5/23

First I want to say I appreciate all the time and effort you are putting forth on this issue very little pay! I am saddened that some of the opponents have chosen to have outside lawyers come into our city to speak to you all. I suppose it's an act of intimidation. Maybe ACLU will go to bat for the District if the opponents file a lawsuit.

Out of Town Resident 5/23

If you are a parent I hope that you understand the importance of your right to choose for your children. We may or may not agree on the topics but we each have the right to make choices on behalf of our children. If you feel that teaching about GLBT lifestyles is important to do in the grade schools then that is your opinion and you have that right to that but I also have a right to what I want my children to learn and know and at what age I want that information given to them. I do not believe that teaching some things will change the outcome of whether we will have bullies in the schools. Children learn from their parents how they treat other people. I am all for treating each person as an individual and allowing them their choice. I expect to be given this same respect. Don't decide on something that takes away my choice. It takes away your choice also.

Alameda Resident 5/23

I am an Alameda resident and parent of children attending Alameda public schools. I am deeply disturbed to think that my responsibility as a parent to teach my children important moral values is being usurped by the public school system, taking away my right to be the first teacher of my children. The teaching of moral values have always been in the realm of family, we send our children to school to learn the tools of education (i.e., reading, writing, math, sciences etc.). The teaching of respect, tolerance and dignity should be extended to ALL peoples regardless of gender, religion, race and physical abilities I am therefore OPPOSED to this new curriculum as it clearly serves the interest of only a select group of the population. In serving the needs of a richly diverse community, we -- parents, teachers, educators, school administrators, school board members and students in Alameda should all work together in dealing with issues that are culturally sensitive and relevant to city. I sincerely thank you for your time and consideration.

Alameda Resident 5/23

Thank you for listening to what Alameda residents have to say. I am a resident of Alameda for over 15 years, and I went to public middle and high schools in Alameda . I have been following the BOE meetings over the LGBT curriculum, and I want to write to express my opposition to it. I think, at least, students should be able to opt out of the curriculum.

Out of Town Resident 5/23

I was recently made aware of the above agenda item and visited your website. Although I do not live in your school district (I live in the Sacramento area) I want to strongly voice my opposition to the passage of anything that condones the gay lifestyle as 'OK', especially to young children.

Please consider the implications of what you are doing---what we teach our young people has ramifications throughout their life. Our schools are to teach skill sets to prepare young people to be successful; our schools are not a place to promote a particular group's political agenda and efforts to 'normalize' a particular lifestyle.

If I could vote at your meeting it would be a resounding NO to the inclusion of the GLBT lifestyle in your school sytem.

Out of Town Resident 5/23

As a parent, I wish to teach my children about the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender life styles myself. I DO NOT want the schools to be teaching this to my children beginning at age 5.

My children are not bullies. They do not harass or make fun of others who have different life styles.

I believe that the teachings that the school could and would give to these young children would be biased against those who do not agree with the GLBT lifestyle. I believe that these teaching would actually do more harm than good. I believe that bullying would continue and that it would spread to those who do not support the GLBT lifestyle.

Please, do not force this upon those who are most innocent in our society.

The GLBT supporters are not able to convince legal adults that this lifestyle is acceptable so they have to force it up on the innocent so that future generations will agree with their incorrect lifestyle.

Please vote against this new curriculum

Alameda Resident 5/23

I am a private school principal in Alameda, and a public policy analyst for education issues in California. I have served on the former police chief’s advisory committee and on the board of Alameda Family Services Agency, assisting as a mediator. I have served as president of one of California’s major child care associations, and as vice-president of the National Child Care Association. I am an advocate of children, an Alameda resident for 32 years, a parent, a person of color and a person of faith. And in all of my roles, I have come to know that fear - especially parental fear is one of the strongest emotions one can possess. It is present on both sides – one group, fearful of what they did not know, and how they fear it might change their family value system – on the heels of a strong state legislative battle which because of words, appears to – but has nothing to do with this issue -- and other parents and friends, fearful of what other words, used in a seemingly innocent, but extremely harmful manner, and what the subsequent actions from those words can do to their child. And fear, perhaps, on the part of the school board for young people who have the right to spend their time on the positive journey of education, and a perhaps a greater fear, of students losing their lives or even just their spirit, when they feel they cannot thrive in their own classroom among their peers.

History shows that within many other periods, family was not always so traditionally defined nor challenged as it is in our day. We have discovered over the years, however, that changes within the world have generated the need for a return to a more open consideration and redefinition of what is called family. Culture, emergency and societal shifts have created situations that have required a reshaping of family in order for the child to survive. While traditional families have existed over the years, so have foster, parentless, and homeless children. The number of children within the foster and adoptive care system, homeless and with serious special needs, have created a breakage within the solid foundation needed for the child.

The restructuring of family, by many who have had a strong desire to assist that solid foundation, has resulted in the widening of love by grandparents, differently-abled parents, foster parents, single parents, and gay parents. Thank God – as it has allowed many more children to be brought up with love and caring – and by many more who through their personal experience may be able to teach them about tolerance, understanding and appreciation for those who may be different from the rest.

The greatest disservice that could be done to these individuals is to fail to recognize what has been created as family – in whatever structure it presents itself. The greatest disservice that could be done to the children is to fail to recognize the foundation for their creation, growth and love. To deny their family structure is to deny the child. To deny their family structure, and therefore themselves, is to take part in the destruction of their self confidence and pride. To do so, destroys the foundation – the very building block of this nation’s future.

Apart from my work, my vacation time is spent volunteering by working with youth, who are gay, lesbian, transgender or questioning, and straight youth of LGBT parents. I began this work, because I believe that far too often adults champion their own issues, without recognizing the emotional and social needs of their children. My time is spent providing these young adults with a safe place where they are not verbally or physically abused and where they can discuss the challenges they face. Their time also includes education and requires their hands-on volunteering on behalf of those of other marginalized populations or victims (as they’ve been) of the violent expressions of others. I have been in education and public policy for more than 26 years, and after hearing and seeing the results of bullying in various forms, I applaud the district work to proactively safeguard our city from making the mistake of repeating our nation’s history of alienating a disenfranchised people, denying their right to open existence without facing possible recrimination.

I’ve spent the last few days in Sacramento, a part of a committee dealing with the effect of the economic crisis on education, and the hardest bit of information that educators and advocates heard was that I in 10 California dollars are spent on corrections. “If you want to save education,” we heard,” keep them out of prison.” As an African-American, those words hit my heart, because as the admonition goes, “Watch your thoughts, they become your words. Watch your words, they become your actions.” It is impossible for young people to learn unless their minds are free to learn. And it is impossible for young people to learn, when they spend their time, thoughts, words, and actions creating negative situations that involve themselves or others. This often comes in the form of bullying, and I believe that bullying exists when one cannot find an appropriate way to express what one does not understand, or feels uncomfortable about – regarding oneseIf or others. I see youth of color who need to ready themselves to be productive members of society by first developing character and social responsibility, and it is my greatest wish that schools work as partners to build the student from within, so that education can emerge. I truly believe this curriculum addresses that intent.

While the curriculum does not highlight all marginalized people who are targets of bullying, it is a beginning. The curriculum must be massaged to be more inclusive, as when it is, gay and lesbian families, Asian families, African- American families and others will have a more organic place within education as they do in society. But it has to begin to get there. The vote of equality began with women; the march for civil rights began with African-Americans. But neither ended there, nor should this curriculum end here. Throughout this process, we have seen the easy way that humans fall prey to being bullies, and we therefore all have a need for education regarding bullying. We bully when we boo and hiss others who are allowed their opinions which are not our own. We bully the school board when we hold our voter rights, residency and homeownership as pawns against the very officials we elected to do their best job amidst the worst and sometimes unpopular circumstances.

But as adults, we must want something better than that for our children. We still need to learn, but theirs is a future in which they will need to have control with greater respect and care than we have shown, and with due diligence to make this planet safe when we are no longer around to protect them. For that reason, as a village, we must work together to prepare them to be peaceful people among others who are not like them.

As an educator, I have appreciated being a part of an educational philosophy called ‘education for peace,’ which involves teaching children about people of the world – their similarities and differences, with a view toward breaking down difference-based barriers. Our school went a step further. From its inception, and before the phrase was coined, we maintained an anti-bias curriculum and we have been a welcoming school for families of all compositions and cultural belief systems. It has been a struggle over the years, as we were faced with the challenge that even our city of Alameda held more diversity than we imagined, and we needed to maintain the integrity of our statements of inclusivity – educating staff, changing administrative tools, updating our curriculum and having the courage and conviction to demand strict adherence to policies befitting our curriculum, and a curriculum which upheld the policies.

My school’s no tolerance policy is three-fold: it involves educating our parents, educating our students and enforcement of discipline – viewing verbal and physical abuse as equal. Families have homework, which involves sharing some aspect of their culture at the beginning of the school year, so that we can embark on a clear understanding of who they are. Family photos of all students are in the classroom, to begin providing students with pride in themselves and their foundation, and to enhance our first cultural lesson of the school year – the family – all families. At the preschool and kindergarten level, we do not mandate the use of the word gay or lesbian, nor do we avoid it – we provide what I call an age organic approach. Along with being taught about differing families, the children also learn about differences between people all over the world, as simply that – differences. We educate without providing a bias, within the framework of maintaining integrity for each family. Students learn about differences and similarities between people, and we have the challenging task of seeking to provide information without having any bias.

In the public school system, that task is greater - it involves a greater number of students, many more complications and far less flexibility. I applaud the desire of the school board to attempt to address this difficult task – to meet the needs of a city reflective of a changing world – involving many people who in order to live peacefully, must begin at the foundation of human development, by providing not mere tolerance – but honor for those different than oneself. To do so, I believe that those in leadership must sometimes simply lead.

I know the district framework and curriculum. Laden across lesson plans everywhere is information about the nuclear family with standard religious views and practices – it cuts across all curriculums from math problems and social science to language arts and school events. I do not believe non-traditional families have the right to opt out or be informed before such family mirroring takes place; neither should nuclear families should not opt out, but enhance the curriculum with a value system, which by the time the child reaches public school, should already be embedded in the fabric of their own family curriculum. Including family within the structure of education is imperative - it provides children with a context for their experiences, and reinforces their identity and emotional development. However, we must now provide those self-esteem building experiences for every child, including those who fall within the protected classes.

The challenge of a more democratic process appears to be at the core of what is now a debate over content. I have painfully listened to people pick at every word, situation and page of a book to find flaws. I have written so many curriculums over the years, and as imperfect as we all are, and as fast as society is changing, I have never found one that could not be improved upon. In retrospective correction, one can only look slightly back and then place one’s energies to take a step forward. I believe that the board has done that, in providing continual late night respectful listening ears to the many people who have gathered to be heard – oftentimes repetitively, reading the numerous emails which have poured in, and making physical space to accommodate the numbers of people who have been showing up. There is no more that can be done to correct the process that preceded it. Moving forward, it is time now to address fear with clarity and harmful bias with education. Parents need to be educated – not with a view toward changing their values, but understanding that of others. Parents who may feel that they are raising their children with a solid value system also need education regarding the information their child receives, and how they process it, and articulate it with peers. Students need to learn about others in an organic manner, interwoven into curriculum so that it is so culturally natural (even the differences), that understanding differences is a part of life.

It does a disservice to all children to teach them about a world which no longer exists. The world in which our children live and will lead, is one in which they must first learn integrity and respect of others’ differences, as the norm is that there is no norm. What there is – is a partnership wherein the work of schools includes teaching students about their society and their lifesaving responsibility to respect those within it. The work of parents is to couple that information with their own value system and cultural lessons, and their excellent personal role modeling of integrity in society regarding how one honors the differences of others, and their right to be different. As evolution is a part of science curriculum, and politics a part of history and civic education, parents partner by teaching their children their own personal values. This curriculum simply includes family structure in the context of teaching respect, and zero tolerant bullying.

Children, the foundation of the future of our world, deserve a solid, fair footing for their beginning as individuals. Children need a solid sense of self, upon which to build their character and shape their personalities and values. The family structure is the basic environment for such building and molding. It is my sincere wish that children in this nation experience the education of witnessing honest, sincere understanding of families in differing formats. Not media love among personality tv shows depicting individuals who are offered the exchange of money for marriage, or drama shows of individuals caught in abusive relationships, but that they learn about families who have loving commitment between same and differing nation, same and differing states, people of same and differing abilities and yes, people of same and differing beliefs and genders.

Truth be told, the one thing upon which we can all agree is that the curriculum is not on the best seller list. But accept with it with the responsibility to modify it, and educate all sides about the imperative need for children to have their family, however it is shaped - respected as a solid foundation. Do not make the mistake of dismissing it or delaying it, sending the message that the greater core of this issue is less than important. Amendments and additions do not require dismissal. There are times when legislative leadership calls for education through unpopular decisions which ultimately provide society with the tools for a more just future. Such was certainly the case with Brown vs. the Board of Education.

Teaching our children respect, tolerance and honor is easy when everything and everyone mirrors your values. However, we teach integrity when respect and honor must be upheld when life shows itself in different or more complex situations. Those are models to be held up to our future generations. We must – for the sake of our future- set aside fear and personal views. We must – for the sake of our children – lift up what is just, fair – and perhaps different from what we have known, for this is where we begin to model and correct intolerance, misunderstanding and prejudice. This – we owe to our city. This – we owe to our children.

Alameda Resident 5/23

I have heard so many people on the opposition being called "bigots" and "haters". Does anyone find it ridiculous that the very people that are pushing so hard for this "anti-bullying" curriculum are the very people who are bullying, name-calling and resorting to intimidation? So much emphasis has been placed on how LGBT are treated, what about how everyone else is treated? Are these people who are bullying and name-calling going raise children that are tolerant of my child's beliefs, whatever they may be? Or are they only going to be tolerant when we agree with them?

This is why I feel this curriculum is so flawed. It only focuses on bullying of one group of people and not anyone else. This curriculum is not "anti-bullying", it's just "LGBT-promoting". If I felt that the curriculum really addressed the issue of bullying, for all groups of people, I would not be so opposed to it. But it clearly doesn't.

I am an Alameda resident and voter with children in an AUSD elementary school. I urge you, the Board not to just accept the curriculum presented to them and to really question whether it will do what it is intended to do, to stop bullying in the schools. I have a strong feeling it won't.

Out of Town Resident 5/23

As a citizen of California who has children in public schools, I am writing to ask you to vote not to institute the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transsexual curriculum on Tuesday. I do not have children in the Alameda school district. However, I know that if this curriculum is instituted, it is only a matter of time before it spreads into other school districts around the state. The people of California have voted twice in the past decade to uphold the principle that a marriage should take place between one man and one woman. The people have voted in this manner because they know that children need a mother and a father who are committed to each other through marriage. Teaching acceptance of persons is fine, but to teach children to value and accept homosexuality is a moral issue, which is the basis for the majority of Californians voting to uphold heterosexual marriages as the law of the land. It is an issue that parents do not want the public schools taking into their own hands without their consent.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

I understand that you are voting on an issue that every child be taught sexual orientation without parental freedom to choose not to participate.

If this is accurate, I urge you to protect the rights and freedom of parents and children to choose. I imagine you would like to choose and I hope you value freedoms. Please act with courage to protect our freedoms. I am counting on you to stand up for choice.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

The parents of your districts have continuously opposed the curriculum that you are attempting to induct at the kindergarten level through the fifth grade.

We have an epidemic of STD's in our society and pregnant girls as young as 11.WHY would you want to start teaching this subject that these young minds aren't able to comprehend,unless your agent is to indoctrinate them, and ignore the wishes of their parents.

Alameda Resident 5/22

I am an Alameda resident and parent of children attending Alameda public schools. I am speaking on behalf of my Muslim family, to let you know that the passing of the proposed tolerance curriculum would conflict with the teachings of our Islamic faith. I am deeply disturbed to think that my responsibility as a parent to teach my children important moral values is being usurped by the public school system, taking away my right to be the first teacher of my children. The teaching of moral values have always been in the realm of family, we send our children to school to learn the tools of education (i.e., reading, writing, math, sciences etc.). The teaching of respect, tolerance and dignity should be extended to ALL peoples regardless of gender, religion, race and physical abilities I am therefore OPPOSED to this new curriculum as it clearly serves the interest of only a select group of the population.

In serving the needs of a richly diverse community, we -- parents, teachers, educators, school administrators, school board members and students in Alameda should all work together in dealing with issues that are culturally sensitive and relevant to city. I sincerely thank you for your time and consideration.

Alameda Resident 5/22

On Tuesday night, the opposition may present the results of a survey. This was an automated phone survey, and one came to my home.

This survey was conducted by the Capitol Resource Institute, the anti-gay marriage advocacy group from Sacramento whose Executive Director Karen England has testified in this matter. This alone makes its reliability questionable at best.

Two of the questions were of particular concern:

"Do you think Gay and Lesbian should be part of a vocabulary list taught to children?"
I know you are aware that these are not on the list as words to be taught to children, but as guidance to teachers for appropriate responses should those words come up. If the opposition frames this to say that the majority of people are opposed to the use of these words, please be aware that their question does not reflect the reality of the curriculum. Of course, I hope this doesn't dissuade you from including these words and providing teachers the support they need and are asking for.
"Do you think marriage between one man and one woman should be legal?"
I kid you not; it is phrased in exactly this way. Who is going to say it should be illegal? If they say that respondents support marriage as defined as one man and one woman, they'd be lying. Which isn't very Christian.

Alameda Resident 5/22

There are times when we must stop thinking of being politically correct and begin to think about what is best. There is a blatant disregard for the rights of parents and children in regard to teaching about homosexuality in elementary school. If children are taught that the gay/lesbian lifestyle is normal and natural, there will be no boundaries. When there are no boundaries, people start to think that it is all right to try such behavior, even when they are not predisposed to it.

Force is not what America is all about; Freedom is. Americans should not be forced to have their children taught about homosexuality. Any other sex education curriculum requires parental consent, but not this.

Why is that? Why should my freedom be taken away? Very often, when a law is made, a freedom is taken. Sometimes it is a necessity. This is not. Why do activists insist on taking my freedom to teach my children and supplanting my ideas for theirs? Who decided that they were right? This is one of the erosions of freedom taking place in America at this time. It needs to stop. Please do your part to stop it here.

Alameda Resident 5/22

We do not need to spend money, time and resources to teach the Golden Rule. Families and teachers already know what is right.

Alameda Resident 5/22

I am an Alameda resident and parent of children attending Alameda public schools. I am speaking on behalf of my Muslim family, to let you know that the passing of the proposed tolerance curriculum would conflict with the teachings of our Islamic faith. I am deeply disturbed to think that my responsibility as a parent to teach my children important moral values is being usurped by the public school system, taking away my right to be the first teacher of my children. The teaching of moral values have always been in the realm of family, we send our children to school to learn the tools of education (i.e., reading, writing, math, sciences etc.). The teaching of respect, tolerance and dignity should be extended to ALL peoples regardless of gender, religion, race and physical abilities I am therefore OPPOSED to this new curriculum as it clearly serves the interest of only a select group of the population. In serving the needs of a richly diverse community, we -- parents, teachers, educators, school administrators, school board members and students in Alameda should all work together in dealing with issues that are culturally sensitive and relevant to city. I sincerely thank you for your time and consideration.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

I am concerned with the curriculum that you are considering that exposes children to materials that is not appropriate for their age. Also, the discussion of the morality of gay or lesbian relationships needs to remain in the individual families. The rights of parents to teach their children morals is paramount. It should also be left to parents to teach their children about tolerance. If you need to talk about bullying and how it is wrong, fine, but you need to address other groups (including religious groups) that are at risk for bullying and not just focus on one group, the gay and lesbian groups. I have not heard nor seen any part of this curriculum that teaches about tolerating other groups. This is a biased, one-sided discussion. Parents need to have the right to remove their children from such training or teaching to insure that their children are not indoctrinated with beliefs and ideas that could go against their morals and values. Please do not further erode the rights of parents to teach their children and to decide what is or is not appropriate for their children.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

I urge you to support the rights of parents to teach lifestyle values to their children in their own homes and support parental rights to have their children excused from classes that teach subject matter of which they do not approve.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

I understand that this Tuesday the Alameda school board will be taking a vote on whether or not to begin teaching a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender (GLBT) curriculum to children starting in kindergarten and continuing through fifth grade.

First of all, that is not the job of teachers. If parents want to inform their children, that is their business and their option. A teacher's job is to teach math, English, reading, etc.,

I STRONGLY oppose my tax dollars going toward teachers using valuable time to teach children of "lifestyles". Do you realize how many parents will start home schooling their children? Your school will loose students and that means a loss of revenue.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

I am emailing you with regards to the school curriculum proposed for children of your city. I urge you to vote no, to have same sex education taught to kindergarten children through 5th grade. The parental rights would be abrogated by teaching such subject to small children. This type of education should be taught in the home.

The people of California have already voted against legalizing same sex marriage. Why are your schools trying to subject young children to sex education that teaches the opposite view.

Again, please vote no.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

I learned that your school board will vote on whether to teach GLBT lifestyle and associated matters in your curriculum to young children (K through 5). As a mother of 3 sons (and now grandchildren) in California, I oppose this type of teaching. We have enough problems in human relations without exposing young children to this aberrant lifestyle (and thereby encouraging it too). It is better to keep our morals high and pure, to protect and guide them on the "straight" path.

To me, this kind of instruction would be like telling them "anything goes" and do what you feel like, don't curb any of your personal urges (whether it be drugs, overeating, endless pleasure pasttimes on games, shows, gambling and the like, giving vent to feelings of violence, or whatever your urge is). What we need now is the opposite (restraint AND respect), and, of course, pity, love, and willingness to help those who tend to the aberrant behaviors. Down deep, I really feel they would like to be "normal," but are having a hard time when there's been rejection. When traditional marriages and lifestyles were prevalent, this country and its individuals were in MUCH BETTER shape than the way we are slanting toward today.

I urge you people NOT to add thes GLBT lessons to your curriculum.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

This email is sent to you to once more plead that you will NOT begin teaching the GLBT Curriculum. This curriculum is abhorrent to most of the parents in your school district, as you should know that after seeing Proposition 8 passed last year. I believe the reason for Proposition 8’s passage is precisely because parents DO NOT WANT their children exposed to the gay lifestyle while they are still in their early years. You should be sensitive to this feeling of the parents in your area and you should support it.

Please do the right thing, and DO NOT introduce the GLBT Curriculum.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

I have recently heard of the proposed plan to adopt a GBLT curriculum in your area. I am a resident of California who is concerned with that possibility. I have heard that people in your area have overwhelmingly voiced their opposition to this curriculum. Please listen to them. The right for values to be taught in the homes and families should not be taken awayby school boards. I do not believe "Bullying" in general will be stopped just by adopting GBLT curriculum. There are others out there that teach respect and unity and kindness in public schools without the need to discuss alternative lifestyles. Please vote NO on any form of GLBT curriculum in your schools.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

I have read about your potential curriculum starting in kindergarten where you will teach about gay and lesbian lifestyle. This is so inappropriate I cannot believe that I even have to say it. We already do not have time to property teach our children the academics that they are entitled to learn. Now you have the nerve to attempt to talk to little children about concepts that they should not be dealing with at that age. You are pandering to the radical special interests and not giving a darn about the children. Bullying any child for any reason is not acceptable, and of course children should be taught this. And there should be appropriate punishment for those who bully others in any way. But what you are proposing goes too far and doesn't solve the problem. And parents should always have a right to remove their child from any sexual teaching of any kind. It is all right for me to keep my 12 year old out of school for sex education regarding heterosexuality but not OK for me to pull out a 5 year old when you are discussing homosexuality? Are you out of your minds? I hope you will do the right thing and stop being cowards in the face of the minority who are trying to push their twisted morality on the rest of us, especially our children.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

I am a concerned mother of five children and I am against having a curriculum that teaches anything about a gay or lesbien lifestyle. I think everyone has a right to live how they want to, but I don't think anyone has a right to teach my children about things that I don't want them exposed to at such a young age.

We talk to our own children about sex and sexual preferences that are in our society, but we are the only ones that need to be teaching them about these things. I do not think it is the schools job to worry about teaching such topics.

Stick to the basics... reading, writing, math, science. I will take care of the social and sexual issues.

Out of Town Teacher 5/22

I'm a 5th grade teacher in xxx and my students and I have had several discussions and activities related to understanding sexual orientation and accepting different types of families. When they heard about the conflict in Alameda in the Chronicle, they were moved to write a letter to you and the other school board members voicing their opinion on the subject. I would like to include their letter as an attachment and in the body of this email for your consideration.

We are 5th graders in the Sunset District of San Francisco. We read an article in the newspaper saying that parents in your district don’t want their children to learn lessons about gay families. In our class, we discussed and wrote about our feelings and what we think of gay and lesbian issues. We watched a video about different types of families, including families with gay parents, and read a book titled And Tango Makes Three. This book is about two male penguins who loved each other and wanted to have a baby penguin. We learned a lot from these lessons, and we are trying to encourage you to vote to let Alameda elementary schools teach the lessons about the outside world and different types of people.

One viewpoint is that the kids can’t handle the word “gay.” Parents think it is inappropriate for the teachers to teach them about gay people. Many argue that parents should teach their children about gay families themselves when the children get older. From some of the parents’ perspective, they think it is wrong to teach 4th and 5th graders about gay families.

However, we feel the 4th and 5th graders of Alameda should be taught about gays and lesbians, because they are at the age when they make fun of people who are different. They may use, or misuse, words and hurt others’ feelings. Also, if kids don’t learn the correct words and meanings, they might use the words the wrong way like, “You’re so gay.” We also argue that kids are more mature than the parents think and they can handle learning about gays and lesbians. Lastly, students may meet gay schoolmates or have friends with gay parents. If they don’t learn about this community, kids can ruin their friendships by saying something rude or inappropriate.

Another reason to allow schools to teach about gay and lesbian people is that gay and lesbians are often put down and teased and they don’t feel accepted. If you teach special lessons, students will learn to respect people who are different from them. This will make students who may be gay or people with gay relatives feel accepted in and out of school.

Finally, we agree parents should discuss the topic at home, but the parents may have incorrect or incomplete information. We feel it should be discussed in school, too, because not all parents will have discussions about gay topics with their children. And, maybe someone in the class will have questions they don’t feel comfortable asking a parent.

Our suggestions for compromising may be able to help your community to solve problems about teaching children to respect gay parents and students. Some ways to fix this problem are: teachers could tell parents what specific topics will be covered, or parents could get invited to evening workshops to get the lessons themselves to see what they are like. Bringing parents to evening workshops is a helpful way to solve this because if the parents like the lessons, they will let their children have the lessons in school or talk more about it with their children.

Even though we do not live in Alameda, we have discussed these topics in class and have experienced these events. We feel it has made us more mature, comfortable, knowledgeable, and accepting. We feel you should take our recommendations because we feel this is very important in our lives and we need to learn about this. We hope you will take our advice in solving your issue. We look forward to seeing the outcome of your decision. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter!

5th Grade Students

Out of Town Resident 5/22

Please reject the GLBT curriculum. I ask that it NOT BE ADOPTED and you do all in your power to reject it.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

I won't take much of your time nor belabor a point you've already heard, but I wanted to let you know I oppose the proposed homosexual curriculum. If the point of the curriculum is to stop school bullying, then the laws that already protect students from bullying should be more strongly enforced. If the point of the curriculum is to educate children on homosexuality, then parents should be able to opt-out of it if they desire, since they are the primary educators of their children. But if the point of the curriculum is to promote the homosexual lifestyle, then we need to seriously stop and consider whether or not we want to use the classroom and our students to play politics.

Let's keep the classroom for learning reading, writing, and arithmetic, and leave politics to our elected officials.

Alameda Resident 5/22

I was present at last week's meeting and realized through people's responses as well as hearing from the board members that there are just way too many concerns regardless of which side "wins".

I hope you take into consideration all those concerns and just wanted to let you know that I still oppose of the curriculum.

A short and brief email just like how you guys probably like it. =)

Alameda Resident 5/22

I am an Alameda resident and parent of children attending Alameda public schools. I am speaking on behalf of my Muslim family, to let you know that the passing of the proposed tolerance curriculum would conflict with the teachings of our Islamic faith. I am deeply disturbed to think that my responsibility as a parent to teach my children important moral values is being usurped by the public school system, taking away my right to be the first teacher of my children. The teaching of moral values have always been in the realm of family, we send our children to school to learn the tools of education (i.e., reading, writing, math, sciences etc.). The teaching of respect, tolerance and dignity should be extended to ALL peoples regardless of gender, religion, race and physical abilities I am therefore OPPOSED to this new curriculum as it clearly serves the interest of only a select group of the population. In serving the needs of a richly diverse community, we -- parents, teachers, educators, school administrators, school board members and students in Alameda should all work together in dealing with issues that are culturally sensitive and relevant to city. I sincerely thank you for your time and consideration.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

In regards to your recent LGBT curriculum proposal, whether you’ve already voted on it or not, I a concerned parent wish to ask you all to consider the following:

There is another curriculum which most states consider essential to be taught. It is called Sex Education. Taught, in order to educate children of the nature of their bodies and the risks of unprotected sex, disease ect.. Yet, the courts have repeatedly upheld out of deference to parental rights, particularly those of religious expression, including the rights of parents to teach their own morality to children that all parents have a constitutional right to opt out of such classes. Consequently permission slips are sent home by law.
A question then: Is Homosexuality, (in particular Homosexual marriage), any less controversial, risky, or morally questionable than Sex Education in the eyes of the people? Does the forced teaching of it interfere with a parent’s right to instill their own moral values in their children? Answer: Given the fact California just went through an extremely heated debate on prop 8 in the which it was upheld by a majority vote, I would say most definitely yes. Therefore, if the district wishes to teach it (the district choosing to side with those in the minority of this debate), the same standard of the Sex Ed curriculum should be adopted. The permission slip to opt out. Anything less than this would be completely disingenuous. It would utterly destroy any credibility the school board possesses with parents because it would undermine the foundation of trust between them by not respecting their wishes within the limits of the law.
Any school board who ignores the wishes of parents in their district, their city, their county, and their state, is imposing its own will as law and therefore is not assured of operating in children’s best interests. Indeed such a board would be highly tyrannical and unworthy of parent’s support due to lack of respect for their greatest clients. Such a board would be completely arbitrary, slanted, and biased by their own shortcomings. Their deaf ears would render them unable to make objective decisions or set balanced goals. Such a board, I would hope, would not be long lived in their positions, and I myself would be certain to work long hours to make sure they were not reappointed.
Failing this, I would exercise the last great right of any parent when faced with unreasonable leaders who arrogantly presume they know what’s best for my child. I’d remove my child from said school district as quickly as possible and home school them. Or if the opportunity presented itself, I’d vote with my feet and pick up and move to another school district, city, county, or even state where common sense and democracy still prevail and educators listen to parents. Many parents in your area may indeed do this if you persist in this radical idea of forced indoctrination. This may already be the case as I believe California is currently losing people en masse as they migrate out of the state into other ones where freedom isn’t on the decline.

In closing I would just like to say that I wish you all well. I sincerely hope and I will fervently pray that you exercise better judgment and maybe even listen to those who say the parent is the supreme teacher of right and wrong in a child’s life. Not the school, not the school board, and not the state.

Alameda Resident 5/22

I looked over the proposed lessons for the LGBT curriculum, and I oppose to its adoption.

On the surface, its message is tolerance, accepting others who are different, but in the core, the theme is not truly about tolerance. Tolerance is good and necessary, however, tolerance without directions is very dangerous. The concept of tolerance needs to be balanced with the concept of morals (what is right and what is wrong), and vice versa. The proposed lessons are teaching that we need to accept others who are different (LGBT specifically in this case) because they are okay people too, but that is the wrong message about tolerance. Tolerance is about loving people who are different, even though they might be wrong and might even be our enemies. The proposed lessons are promoting the LGBT lifestyles without accomplishing the goal of teaching the real meaning of tolerance and acceptance.

I am certain that the current AUSD curriculum is already teaching the students to be acceptant and tolerant of others who are different. This new proposed curriculum adds no value over and above what AUSD is already offering to the students.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

Please reject the proposed homosexual curriculum. Parents should be consulted before this goes any further and this should be completely revised.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

I am an Alameda county resident. I am speaking on behalf of my Muslim family, to let you know that the passing of the proposed tolerance curriculum would conflict with the teachings of our Islamic faith. I am deeply disturbed to think that my responsibility as a parent to teach my children important moral values is being usurped by the public school system, taking away my right to be the first teacher of my children. The teaching of moral values have always been in the realm of family, we send our children to school to learn the tools of education (i.e., reading, writing, math, sciences etc.). The teaching of respect, tolerance and dignity should be extended to ALL peoples regardless of gender, religion, race and physical abilities I am therefore OPPOSED to this new curriculum as it clearly serves the interest of only a select group of the population. In serving the needs of a richly diverse community, we -- parents, teachers, educators, school administrators, school board members and students in Alameda should all work together in dealing with issues that are culturally sensitive and relevant to city. I sincerely thank you for your time and consideration.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

Please vote NO to "gay, bisexual and transgender curriculum" to children from K to 5 grade.

If you vote yes, it is a reverse discrimination act to those who are against homosexual and forcing the next generation to buy into accepting homosexual is a norm. IT IS NOT.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

This is truly sick and obscene that you would teach this type of behavior to children ages 5-10. If a person makes the choice in their life to be gay that is fine, it is their choice. But to mandate this type of lifestyle on highly impressionable innocent children is disgusting. You also overlook the fact that by promoting this lifestyle you offend millions of people all under the guise of "acceptance and tolerance" yet you are not accepting or tolerant of my feelings and views and the feelings and views of the majority of mankind. You are also violating the First Amendment of this Nation which reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Your curriculum violates my religious beliefs and although I don't live in your school district I must tell you to put a halt to this horrendous behavior.

Alameda Resident 5/22

Thank you for taking the time to listen to all the concerns of the community. I was at the meeting this past Monday and I was shocked to feel unsafe at such a meeting. My stance remains the same, I respectfully request that you do not pass this curriculum. As clearly evidenced this past Monday, you were able to witness a very emotionally heated meeting. After listening to the board members it was clear that there are still a lot of questions that need to be addressed about this curriculum. Given the current circumstances, I strongly urge that the board reconsider the implications of this curriculum and really zero in the issue of bullying.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

Your “school” district is a joke. What about teaching kids skills that will help them be successful and leave matters of race, religion and sexual orientation to the parents?

Out of Town Resident 5/22

Please do NOT allow the new curriculum to begin in the Alameda School District that teaches the children about various Gay and Lesbian issues. Children in the Elementary School years are just too impressionable for such a thing. They have enough to deal with already with their hormones beginning to activate, usually by the 5th or 6th grade. Its also a time for much experimentation on their parts, and I shudder to think of such young kids trying out what it means to be Gay!

It may have escaped somebody's notice, but nowadays its common for kids to already practice oral sex as part of their dating. Young boys have come to expect oral sex as "payment" for their dates from the girls!

Please don't encourage further risky behavior in our young people. They need to mature more before they can be exposed to such "issues".

It won't stop the "bullying", as some have implied. That goes on in school regardless of a child's sexual identity. Children shouldn't even be thinking about sexual matters until their hormones become active and their bodies begin to change! Leave it to the parents at THAT time to decide what is right for their kids to know.

Alameda Resident 5/22

The essence of the objections to the LGBT anti-bulling curriculum lies in religious beliefs based on certain biblical interpretations. The opposition does not want things taught in the schools that conflict with their religious beliefs. Opposition to the curriculum is organized by the Sacramento-based Pacific Justice Institute through two churches in Alameda. Opposition to the LGBT curriculum is reminiscent of objections to the teaching of evolution, but has even more profound consequences for our students. The opposition has every right to limit by religious beliefs what is taught in their home or in religious schools but not in our public schools. We can not deform our public schools to conform to these beliefs.

These are public schools and we are responsible to deal effectively with discrimination based on sexual orientation in them. And we desperately need to deal with effectively with bullying. This curriculum is appropriate, objective and specific. The teachers association is unanimously in support of it.

The vast majority of bullying of male students has some aspect of homophobia whether the student is gay or not. A rising tide affects all boats. Combating homophobia is the place to start and set down an anchor when combating bullying. This is not a complete curriculum dealing with all discrimination and bullying, but any effective curriculum should directly address bullying against LGBT students. Good work has been done, more work has to be done. We need to move forward with the work that has been done and institute this curriculum.

I am sure you as School board members will make an objective decision based on what protects a minority class against discrimination and all children against bullying.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

In response to the news article concerning the LGBT instruction course that the Board of Education will be voting on. As a parent of six of my own children and two step-children if any of my children were attending your school and being taught this coarse I would with draw them from the district. These children do not need to be taught that it is ok to be gay or lesbian by the school. Many families in America do not accept gay and lesbians. I myself do not want any of my children exposed to that type of life style. And I definitly don't want the elementry teachers teaching this life style to them. I understand your reasoning for wanting to teach it, but its not going to work. Bullying has been around forever. There is nothing you nor I will ever do to change it. Even as adults we are bullied in some sort of way. All we can do as parents and teachers is pay attention to our children and don't let it get out of hand. I hope that you make the right decision on this subject.

Alameda Resident 5/22

How did you make a note of who was there and whether they were in favor or opposed? I didn’t sign any attendance sheet. Many people just walked right in and found a seat. I’m wondering how you got those figures, because it doesn’t seem accurate.

Outof Town Resident 5/22

The following is for the Alameda Board and those who are trying to force parents and children to accept curriculum that violates their First Amendment Rights:

By forcing this curriculum upon young children, you are in the same class as terrorists and the brain-washers of past militant governments (i.e. Nazism, Socialist, and Communism). This is a violation of a parent's Constitutional right to decide what their children can be taught, and why our school system is failing. Maybe if you spent more time teaching our children the facts of this great country and how it was formed (based on Biblical values), instead of left-wing liberalism, they could make the choice themselves. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT, AND YOU WILL NOT CORRUPT OUR CHILDREN!

Alameda Resident 5/22

Don't give in to bigotry; give our students the information they need to stop anti-gay harassment and bullying.

Vote for the New Curriculum guidelines.

Out of State Resident 5/22

I read a news story this morning about the upcoming vote on the Gay Curriculum Proposal at your school.

As a parent of two small school age children (ages 5 & 7) this story, of course, caught my eye. After reading the information I have to say please consider allowing parents who do not agree with this agenda due to religious beliefs, to allow their children to opt out. Otherwise, by forcing them to attend "the school district is violating a First Amendment right for those who have a religion that doesn't support homosexuality." As stated in the article, “ But the school board says otherwise, and its attorneys say that if the curriculum is adopted, the parents will have no legal right to remove their children from class when the lessons are being taught.” What about their First Amendment rights covered by the Constitution?????? If you force the issue, be prepared for legal action!!!

Your school is setting an example for the nation! The nation’s eyes are upon you. Do the right thing and don’t let this controversial curriculum pass. Please do your job and educate the children on reading, writing, arithmetic, etc….and please leave the family/moral issues up to the family to teach their children how they see fit. It’s really not your job as a school district to teach children about gay marriage, and how to survive/adapt in their community. That’s the parents’/guardians’ duty to do so!! Remember, as a parent, you are your child’s first teacher, and lifelong teacher! Think about what your parents/grandparents/guardians have taught you while growing up. Would you have wanted that replaced by your school district teaching you what they felt you needed to learn? Parents/grandparents/guardians should be allowed to teach their children about life experiences and to shape their child into a capable adult willing to take on the world! It’s just not the schools place to do so!

Also remember….. “California is no stranger to the controversy surrounding gay issues. Last November, voters passed Proposal 8, which overturned a Supreme Court ruling and banned gay marriage in the state.” Obviously, the majority of Californians do not support gay marriage and possibly the majority are also in opposition to this proposed curriculum as well. If your school district chooses to ignore the opposition and goes ahead with this curriculum, be prepared for backlash and lawsuits.

In my opinion, the school system is overstepping its bounds and going into an area that is considered a FAMILY/MORAL issue! Homosexuality should be something that is explained to children at home, by their parents or guardians, when the time is appropriate for that child. As you know, each child is different, but isn’t Kindergarten usually a little early to process this sort of information????

Out of Town Resident 5/22

I just read the write-up on FoxNews regarding the district’s proposed plan for the integration of LGBT sensitivity training into the curriculum. I noted that several people with students in the district are absolutely opposed to this plan, and feel that their First Amendment rights are being impinged upon by the district. I personally tend to agree with this stance, within the fact that you are not allowing parents to “opt out” their children for these classes. Therefore, I have a proposal for you to consider;

Proposed curriculum changes should be adopted as presented, with the requirement for parents with children attending schools within the district to receive 5 days advance notice of the date of the instruction. (School is REQUIRED to provide 5 business days advance notice.)

Parents will be afforded the opportunity to “opt out” their students from this class, with the proviso that this allowance is given for the purpose of addressing these issues with their child in a manner which they deem age-appropriate and in-line with their individual spiritual beliefs and practices.

If the opted out student is subsequently involved in an incident which is inclusive of this type of subject matter, then the district reserves the right to;

a) Suspend the student for a period deemed appropriate by the school district, or

b) Include the student in subsequent reinforcement classes which address this subject matter. (If the parent(s) won’t do the job, then the school is able.)

Parents will be given the option of either (a) or (b), based upon their individual spiritual belief set.

Each subsequent violation of this area of policy will be addressed in a progressive manner, up to and including expulsion from the district and its schools.

I understand the need for Alameda Unified to address these issues in a constructive, age-appropriate manner. What I don’t agree with is your preemption of the parents’ right to deal with this in a manner which is consistent with their beliefs. I feel that the above “happy medium” will address this, and maybe alleviate some of the concerns that parents have expressed to news outlets such as Fox and CNN. If Alameda Unified adopts the curriculum in the above fashion, it’s a “win-win” for all concerned.

Alameda Resident 5/22

Bullying in school is, in fact, a significant problem. Tools for teachers to address this issue are quite appropriate.

It seems, however, that this issue is being used by some groups, e.g. lgbt and I'm sure others, to advance their own agenda. The national attention that your school district is getting is indicative of citizens becoming very aware of programs being used by various special interests, and thereby subverting the broad support that the original program (e.g., anti-bullying) enjoyed.

Please do not let this happen in the Alameda Unified School District. The causes of bullying are many and varied. While childhood is the best time to curb such bad behavior, remember the KISS principle, keep it simple s___. Don't add unnecessary agendas to the issue. And please don't forget the views of children's parents.

Thank you for listening to this concerned citizen (though not of your school district). I pray that you will come up with viable ways to handle the bullying problem - other school districts will be watching for viable solutions.

Alameda Resident 5/22

I am writing to express my support for the Caring Schools Curriculum and the School Board's effort to address stereotypes and bullying relating to homosexuality and gender identity. My family has lived in Alameda for eight years. My daughter does not attend school in Alameda but we are long time supporters of the Alameda schools. My daughter's school does have a curriculum that addresses gender identity issues and I really appreciate the respect and care that the children at her school show toward each other, regardless of the makeup of their families or how they identify themselves. As I read the proposed curriculum, the only "agenda" being advocated is that of respect for each other as each of us happen to be. A public school system, indeed any school, should do nothing less.

Alameda Resident 5/22

I just heard about the phone survey that you will be doing to gather information about Alameda residents' view on this curriculum. I hope the phone survey will be fair in that it will fairly describe the curriculum that is proposed.

Define what LGBT is, as some people may not be aware of the acronyms.
that this is targetted for K-5 level.
That none of the other protected subgroups are explicitly mentioned in the curriculum.
That the curriculum mainly focuses on introducing LGBT and acceptance of LGBT.
That this is going to be Lesson 9. LGBT will be the only subgroup to receive its own lesson in this curriculum.

Please be fair in representing what this curriculum is about and the amount of lesson time it's given in the context of the entire Caring School Curriculum.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

The quality of education in our schools has been gradually eroding since falling under union control. Despite the almost universal failure to teach our children, "educators" now think they can do a better job "teaching" our children about sexual issues than their parents? Now you're trying to give parents no choice in the matter threatening them legally?...95% of Americans are being "bullied" by the 5% of Americans who are not heterosexual!...To pass these regulations will be a slap in the face to parents who love their children and an infringement on their First Amendment rights!...You should be ashamed to even consider such a measure! Liberalism is reeking with arrogance!

Alameda Resident 5/22

I am a teacher at Bay Farm School and an AUSD parent.

Next week, you will be making the decision if our district will add one lesson per grade level to our Caring Schools curriculum.

I am writing to voice my support for this curriculum.

I believe that adding this one, 45-minute lesson to our school year is a good idea.

I have briefly reviewed the materials and think they are a nice way to encourage our students to be more accepting and tolerant students and citizens.

I am sad that so many members of our community have reacted so defensively to the idea that we, as educators, see a problem and are trying to help solve it.

It is my understanding that the argument by many is that this is a lesson which should be taught only at home in the schools.

Bullying, gender based name calling and same gender parents are a reality in our schools, therefore it should be addressed at home AND in our classrooms and not ignored.

Alameda Resident 5/22

As Alameda parents, professionals and members of a local church community, we are writing to express our strong support for the Caring Schools Community LGBT Curriculum soon to be implemented within the Alameda Unified School District’s public schools.

A student’s ability to function optimally at school is a product of an interaction between that student and his or her learning environment. The environment’s role in labeling, causing or maintaining the harmful or discriminatory treatment of any member of its community – directly or indirectly – serves only to spread and grow an increasingly uninformed and reactionary community at large. Hence the appropriateness for early intervention within school settings!

Experiences with diverse people and families, along with education, has proven helpful in promoting mutual respect and understanding between dominant majority groups and those of minority backgrounds. There is no possibility of safe, fair or equal treatment of minority group members where exclusionary or discriminatory attitudes are allowed to persist.

Our highly qualified educators and curriculum specialists cannot realistically teach tolerance to students without the support of parents and others who share this fundamentally American value. Furthermore, when hate crimes, name calling and other forms of mistreatment known to occur on school campuses it is critical and, in fact, mandated that schools assume an active and preventive role against such truly destructive forces in our community.

Thank you all for your consideration of the multiple perspectives concerning this curriculum. You have our ongoing support in working to cultivate a climate of compassion and understanding of the experiences of LGBT family members in our local schools.

Grossmont Union High School Teacher 5/22

No wonder people want to limit funding to state education!!! The fruitcake agenda will only make it worse. Teach, don't recruit.

Out of Town Resident 5/22

Capital Resources Institute provided the following letter.

Alameda Resident 5/22

Please vote against the curriculum. In light of all of the different voices of opinion, it is clear that the most equitable route would be to allow a more transparent and inclusive process to create a curriculum that would best meet the needs of our students. Furthermore, reviewing the last two meetings, the concerned public was not at all at a consensus about this curriculum. On a side note, to pass a curriculum of such suspect quality with the most basic grammatical errors overlooked would be quite embarrassing and troubling.

In addition, I want to clarify that the goal of the curriculum is TO STOP BULLYING as stated by the Safe Schools initiative. If this is the case, below are some guiding principles regarding the most effective bullying-prevention strategies (http://www.drthrockmorton.com/respectandthefacts/documents/bullyingprevention.pdf), a research-based resource for schools. As an educator, I see in this resource clear learning goals and activities and vocabulary that are aligned to meet those stated learning goals. This stands in stark contrast to what we find in the Lesson 9 of the Safe Schools curriculum. Here are some findings from the research:

"Successful bullying prevention programs most often require collaboration between school and home. "

Therefore, a successful curriculum or plan would be one in which Alameda parents and teachers alike are supportive of what is being taught.

"No group or student should be marginalized or maligned to promote another group...Further, if the objective is to create a social situation where students are truly accepting of differences, it does not seem reasonable to marginalize any group based on activity preferences or ability levels. "

"Bullying policies should provide protection for all students."

"Action objectives that have been derived from research regarding bullying prevention include...To provide skills for students to deal with bullying."

Please, on behalf of our students, parents and schools, decide upon the most educationally and fiscally responsible choice and reject this curriculum (or lesson) in favor of lesson plans that actually meet the needs of our schools.

Alameda Resident 5/21

I wasn't able to get a place at the mike over the last 2 mtgs, but I wanted to register my strong support for proceeding with this curriculum in the elementary grades.

Truly, it was my grade school kids who changed my mind. I had been uncertain about having conversations that introduced the entire LGBT spectrum to young children. But when I asked my 2 kids (5th and 7th grade) if they had any idea what the "I DO" placards that appeared in some Alameda yards meant. Independant of one another, they both correctly identified the issue, and when asked their opinion, both spoke strongly to the basic fairness of the issue. They had classmates with 2 moms or 2 dads. It was no big deal, and their feeling was that the kids deserved parents who were united in the same way as other parents.

They convinced me with their sincerity and basic values approach to the issue.

Alameda Resident 5/21

I just wanted to point out that the attorneys who wrote in opposition to the curriculum have an average of 3.5 years experience with 3 practicing less than 1 year.

In contrast the attorneys who wrote in support have an average of 14 years experience one with over 32 years.

If I were to hire a team of lawyers to represent me I would chose the firm with the most experience not the firm with mostly junior associates. Wouldn't you?

Alameda Resident 5/21

I just received an automated phone survey about the AUSD school curriculum. It was sponsored by the Capital Resource Institute. It seems that there are so many people from outside of Alameda that have taken on this cause. It is very unsettling and makes me wonder if we even know what the residents of Alameda want. This have become a very destructive and divisive process.

Alameda Resident 5/21

As I sat in the audience at Kofman Auditorium, I wondered where the Spanish speaking and black residents/parents/teachers/students were. They certainly were not there.

While Trish Spencer spoke, I agreed with every point she made.

I do not think think separate lessons based on this "curriculum" are best for the students, teachers, or parents.

Put the books in the library for anyone to read at any time. Let the students take them home if they want to read them with their parents. Do NOT force any students to read/study this "curriculum"Instead, teach the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If the adults do this, the children will follow

Alameda Resident 5/21

As Roman Catholic persons and citizens of Alameda, as well as senior citizens, we urge you to approve the Caring Schools Curriculum to address LGBT.

YOU can help people who need all of us to extend our hands to them or "FOR GOD'S SAKE" at least leave them alone.

Alameda Resident 5/21

I am writing to you as an Alameda parent of two school age girls (Kindergarten and 2nd Grade) and a proud supporter of the initiative of the Alameda School Board to place this curriculum of education and enlightenment in the Alameda Schools. The reality is whether or not the Initiative passes next Tuesday, children will still receive an 'education' on what it means to have different families in their lives. The problem is that this education will be taught in the playground, the mall and anywhere else children can torment those who do not subscribe to what the very few, but very vocal have deemed to be 'normal'. The Alameda School Board has the opportunity to correct this and offer a positive, well rounded view on what it means to be part of a family, all families in the year 2009--without the traditional bias and prejudices of small minded individuals.

Alameda Resident 5/21

Those individuals opposed to the implementaion of the Caring Schools curriculum have engaged consevative right wing politcal interest group Capital Resource Institute based in Sacramento to conduct a biased phone survey of Alameda residents in an effort to bolster for their fight against tolerance and inclusion in our district. A robo-survey has been calling residents this evening with questions designed to create an appearance that Alamedans are opposed to this curriculum. Please do not fall for the dishonest tactics of this group.

Alameda Resident 5/21

My husband and I are writing because we support the LGBT curriculum and are very disturbed to have just received two phone calls with an automated, biased survey designed to falsely document opposition to this proposed curriculum. The phone survey, funded by Capitol Resources Institute, reflects a one-sided, biased campaign that is being mounting against AUSD and does not reflect the values and beliefs of our Alameda community.

Regardless of a person’s philosophy or beliefs about homosexuality, same-sex marriage, or words like gay, lesbian, or transgender—

ALL STUDENTS in the Alameda school district should learn to respect and treat one another kindly regardless of their family structure, their parents’ sexual orientation, or their own sexual and gender identification.

We are parents of xxx Elementary and xxx Middle School students. I am also a former teacher, and am currently a professional educator involved in health education research. I have carefully reviewed the proposed LGBT curriculum. It is age-appropriate and has the potential to help create a more caring school environment for all children in Alameda . My husband and I believe that ALL children should learn about respect and diversity in their school environment. No one should opt out.

We are very sorry that AUSD and the Board of Education is the target of such a one-sided campaign by Capitol Resources Institute. Their campaign appears to be designed to incite and misrepresent the issues. During this time of fiscal crisis we should be able to focus on educating our Alameda children and not be fighting an out-of-town group with money and power to misrepresent the important issues and misrepresent the views of our community.

Thank you for your hard work and your attention to this very important topic. We urge you to support the LGBT curriculum for all students.

Alameda Resident 5/21

have reviewed the lessons on line and I support them being used in the Alameda Schools. I am the parent of a 9th grader, a former PTA president and Girl Scout leader and currently a teacher in Alameda. They look age appropriate to me. This evening I received a disturbing robo-call push poll from the Capital Resource Institute which was very misleading. I am sorry that our school board has been put in the middle of this highly emotional debate but I hope you stand up to these bullies. I am sure you must feel you are in a no win situation but I wanted you to know I appreciate all the hard work you have put in on the school board and thank you for representing the families of Alameda.

Alameda Resident 5/21

Please vote no on the subject curriculum for our schools.

Alameda Resident 5/21

I received an automated call today from an outfit calling themself 2009 Survey. At the end of the survey they thanked me for my participation on behalf of the Capitol Resource Institute. Since my home phone numbers are on the do not call list, I don’t know how they are able to robo call.

In researching this organization, I found myself angered. I do not share the viewpoints of this organization and resent the fact that someone from Sacramento needs to involve themselves in the raising of our children in our community. Living in California, our children are enjoying an enriching life with various cultures and lifestyles. I don’t believe that we should ignore sections of our society because we don’t agree with how they live their lives. We need to show everyone respect and kindness. I don’t believe that this organization is doing that. I believe that our school district is trying to help the children understand tolerance and acceptance. I also believe that it is a tough subject for parents to accept and teach their children. There have been hot issues that our society has had to face and I hope that you don’t allow the bullying tactics of an organization to stop you from helping our children get along in the world.

I do thank them for angering me enough to pass this information along to you. Your contact information is listed on their web site and I wanted to make sure that my views were heard.

Alameda Resident 5/21

I was on your website last night and I noticed that there is an error. The website stated that Monday's meeting had 60% speakers in favor of the curriculum and 40 % opposed. If I read the website correctly, then that is an error for sure. I listened very carefully to all the speeches on Monday night, except for missing the first 9 speeches. According to my count for Monday night minus the 9 speakers, there were 63 speeches opposed and 14 speeches in favor of the curriculum. I hope you will correct the percentages written on the website, and make them reflect what really happened on Monday night.

Editor Note: You are correct about the recap of speakers. However, my statement is correct based on attendance.

Alameda Resident 5/21

Thank you very much for continuing the public hearing last Monday, which I attended. As a first-time attendee of these meetings, I was appalled by the way people who opposed the curriculum were booed and intimidated. After hearing the arguments, I'd like to state my strong OPPOSITION to the passing of this curriculum. Thank you and I hope you will make the right decision.

As an Alameda resident and a father of a 3rd grade student, I strongly oppose the proposed LGBT curriculum.

Its controversial contents surely cause split of the society and community.
It's not reasonable to transfer such kind of knowledge, with which even adults have conflicting and confusing viewpoint, to young children.
for more than rather safer or better feel someone make will school elementary into curriculum such of introduction the sure really you are curriculum, supporting those

Alameda Resident 5/21

I am overall appalled at the behavior of those who wish push the agenda from this past week's meeting--booing, hissing, and the anger that came because one young Alameda resident showed up before he did and filled out a speaker slip during last week's meeting. And sadly, I feel that this is the sort of "tolerance" that will be pushed on my daughter.

I also wanted to respond to some points in an email I saw posted on President McMahon's website:

1. People need to stop co-opting the word "bully". You, the opposition, are speaking from a place of privilege. You are the apparent majority at these meetings. You are NOT being physically threatened, pushed around, taunted, or assaulted. MY DAUGHTER HAS BEEN BULLIED. She is 5 and has been picked on, teased, and physically assaulted by classmates all school year (ftr, we have spoken with the teacher, the principal, written letters to the school board members, and the superintendent). It started because some kids decided she is more like a boy than a girl. So when you stand up there saying YOU FEEL BULLIED it makes my skin crawl and my heart ache. My daughter has been bullied. So just stop with that. It's offensive.

I am sorry, but I have been bullied for being Asian-American (by both whites AND asians), for not looking Asiatic (and been called all sorts of races), having an odd hairstyle that is purely genetic and not commonly Asian, for being overweight, etc etc. I have too. You are blowing hot air right now. Many of us, myself included, know what its like to be bullied. We dont like it. But we dont agree with this curriculum either. It's that simple. You dont know what you dont know, and I havent played the sympathy card on this side because I didnt think it as relevant to the issue at hand.

2. I keep hearing people opposed to the curriculum say that they have been called "haters". Really? You are the only people that I have heard use that term in YEARS and only at the podium. It strikes me as disingenuous. I believe you are trying to make yourselves out to be the victim here. Again, STOP. It is offensive.

Just read the Nat'l Center for Lesbian Rights email. Our opposition is called "hate". Look at the Prop 8 campaign. Who is being called "unfair" and "wrong"? We are. For exercising rights as citizens and voters who have reasonable disagreements. So who is offensive here?

3. One speaker for the opposition alluded to a possibility of being assaulted on his way out. Well, have you ever heard of "gay bashing"? It is real. It is deadly. I can not tell you how many young people I have known who ended up in the hospital with broken ribs, punctured lungs, black and blue faces because they actually WERE ASSAULTED for being LGBT or perceived as LGBT. Even more have had to at least physically defend themselves or run to find safety because they were clearly no match for a bunch of dudes with 2x4's. Do you get this? YOU ARE NOT THE VICTIM.

The numbers are revealing that racism is far worse. We have been victimized far more than you. Funny, Asian Americans have faced far worse scandals, but no one thinks twice about it. Like the Sunset murders in SF. Like Vincent Chin. I wont even pretend to represent African Americans because they have suffered far worse than any of us. Again, get your facts straight.

4. Your children will learn anti-gay slurs as soon as they hit the elementary school playgrounds. If you think your children are too sweet for this, guess what. They aren't. I thought that about my own children but they learn from their peers. I had to reteach my kids everything I have taught them and will continue to do so as long as needed. So you can let your kids learn hateful words without any context or understanding or you can teach them about what these words mean and who they really hurt. I kind of have a feeling that this isn't your dinner table conversation. Maybe it's time for schools to step in.

No, I agree. Thats why I think the school needs a 0 tolerance policy because kids--even yours--pick up garbage all the time. And no, schools are not parents, and that is not their role.

5. Someone spoke about the difficulty of explaining how two moms could have a baby. I can tell you from experience that It's not that hard. If you can say "daddy planted a seed in mommy" you can say a doctor planted a seed in one of the mommies. Or the mommies adopted. Or whatever applies. Kids get it. It's not hard to grasp. You underestimate your children.

I dont want to teach my kids that this is proper. I dont underestimate them. I want to wait until they are a proper age to reason for themselves, and then I can teach them sexuality, ethics, philosophy, etc. And then they can decide for themselves.

6. Please remember that you are the vocal majority here. Please stop acting persecuted with your claims of how your children will be bullied for not agreeing with the teacher or how confused your child will be when the teacher says something different than you do. I had to explain to my kids that Christopher Columbus was responsible for the genocide of my ancestors rather than a super-coool hero. You can surely handly this, no?

We are not. In fact, as another astutely pointed out, we are the minority since Prop 8 opposers far outnumbered the supporters. Get your facts straight. I dont even like this debate and wouldn't be here if there was an opt-out, but YOU have advocated for an even stronger original curriculum without an opt-out.

7. GLBT people are not unicorns or gnomes living in mushroom houses. It is not something you can "believe" in or not believe in. They are real. No matter what you think of them. It's time to stop pretending they don't exist in your schools. They do. Your children will meet them. How do you really want that meeting to happen? With misunderstanding and contempt for a "lifestyle" or understand and acceptance. WWJD, afterall.

Yes, they are real. No, I am not saying make them invisible. But yes, it is a lifestyle and a conduct until science shows it is natural, which it has not. And as someone who knows many who have had this issue, I assure you, so much of is environmental. Its no reason to discriminate, but you will not tell my daughter that all lifestyles are equally viable. They are not. A lifestyle that is cruel toward babies is not viable. A lifestyle that has domestic violence is not viable. Let's get this straight. I dont want to teach my daughter about this lifestyle being viable. Period. WWJD, I dont even want to go there.

I get the sinking feeling that I will need to pull my daughter out and homeschool or find a private school. And if this passes, I am seriously reconsidering an offer I was about to put in for a house in Bay Farm. I am opposed to this curriculum and ask you to oppose it as well.

Alameda Resident 5/21

I am writing in strong support of the LGBT tolerance curriculum as a step towards understanding and reduced bullying in our schools. As a Marriage & Family therapist specializing in child therapy and a certified school counselor, I have seen the devastating effect of bullying on kids, especially when their family is different from the mainstream. We adults need to better protect these children from the hatred and humiliation aimed at them, often in ignorance or tacit permission.

At the same time, I am a realist and feel that the Board should consider the opt-out option for this curriculum in order to get more support from the community. This option allows most students to be exposed to the curriculum while not enraging the parents who feel forced to present their children with values with which they disagree. If the focus is on tolerance and respect, more students than not will attend and benefit.

Alameda Resident 5/21

You've done a wonderful job appearing fair and equal during the discussions you've held for the CARE curriculum.

My question is, how will you and the other board members come to a decision?

Although I've been told of the many meetings you've held in establishing the curriculum, and I've sat through PTAC meetings and gotten updates, and listened to nine hours of 3-minute arguments in favor or against the curriculum.

I really do not understand how you all will make your decision.

Throughout this entire school year, I was under the impression the program would be adopted, and the pre-meetings were to establish it's form.

Will you just tally the number of people against and for? Will you use email letters or speakers as a count?

And, if you decide not to implement this program, what will happen to it?

Will it not be reconsidered or will it be changed in it's format?

It's all quite confusing to me as I was under the impression that the program had been accepted in general, and that the meetings you've held over the past year were to revise and review it.

If you have time in your busy schedule, can you please let me know how the decision will be made?

Thank you very much for your time with this subject, and at least seeming to look at all views impartially.

Alameda Resident 5/21

I'm writing to urge you to support the LGBT lessons. I understand that you and the other members of the Alameda Board of Education would like to know about people's experiences with similar curricula in other districts.

My daughter is currently in 4th grade in San Leandro Unified School District. She attended grades K-3 in San Francisco Unified School District, so we have a fair amount of experience with elementary school curricula that are inclusive of families with LGBT parents. I cannot express strongly enough that without the family diversity lessons my daughter's classes have received over the years, her experiences in school would have been much, much more difficult, compromising her learning and her relationships with her peers. Families like ours already are in our pubic schools. Their peers already have questions about how a child can have two mothers or fathers, or why a child is adopted. Chidlren like mine, from families that differ from the norm, often have to handle questions from other students that adults, including teachers, ought to be handling. The lessons proposed for schools in Alameda responsibly address some of those questions, leaving more room for children like mine to focus on learning rather than worrying about how other students are reacting to their families.

We are a conspicuously different family: two white mothers and an African American daughter. Our daughter, who spent most of her early life in foster care, came to us just six weeks before her first day of kindergarten. Our family attracted lots and lots of questions from students, both her age and older, from the beginning. Our experience is that after a lesson or two about how there are different kinds of families, our daughter got fewer intrusive questions from other students. I understand that one of the concerns opponents of the LGBT lessons in Alameda have is that those lessons might provoke questions about sex. That has not happened in our experience, since the lessons have reassured children that all families, including theirs, deserve respect. When we finalized our daughter's adoption in the spring of her kindergarten year, her whole class celebrated with us, revisiting the theme that love is the most important thing in a family.

In her San Francisco public school, my daughter and her classmates watched parts of the movie "That's A Family!" and discussed some of the themes in the film. It helped a lot that there was discussion and acknowledgment of multiracial families and families with adopted children in addition to families with lesbian and gay parents.

We moved to San Leandro at the beginning of her 4th-grade year. We were all anxious about being such a different and visible new family. The lessons that her peers had done in previous years, and that they all did this year, have made a big difference. Without lessons like these, our children end up doing the educating. That's simply not fair. This is an adult responsibility.

Alameda Resident 5/21

I was reading Mr. McMahon's lesson 9 site, I am bothered by how facts from public hearing is presented. Someone could view BOE as trying to hide something or lean toward one way or another. If you are listing an internal accounted statistics of % of all attendance in favor or opposed to the curriculum, you should list the more openly accountable (to those attended) statistics of % of all speakers who were in favor or opposed. Not everyone attended the Monday meeting and TV broadcasting was not available either. I trust board's capability to get all facts right and square.

Alameda Resident 5/21

I've been silent on this issue because it's been well-covered in the community already, from all sides. However, people are pressing me for an opinion.

Clearly we need a way to address these bullying issues. But it sounds like we need to specifically address issues of race and religion-based bullying/harassment too. I'm not opposed to the LGBT curriculum, but unless I see it expanded to also address discriminatory behavior on the basis of race or religion - for example, a book with a story about a black penguin mom and a white penguin dad with a mixed-race penguin child, reflective of my family, which some people would consider "different" - I won't be voicing support for it either. It seems that a more comprehensive program - one that specifically addresses racial, religion and LGBT-based harassment - is needed.

I also want to suggest that you make sure not to ignore the voices of parents of inter district transfer (IDT) students who go to AUSD schools but live outside of Alameda. It seems to me that there are indeed people who live outside of Alameda who have a legitimate claim to be heard by the board.

Interesting to note - a high proportion of IDT students are likely non-white. It was well-documented in the local press at the time of the closure of Harbor Island Apartments that they were largely occupied by non-white residents, and AUSD's 2007 demographic study notes that roughly 15% of the 500 K-12 students that lived in Harbor Island Apartments "left Alameda and became inter-district transfer students" after the evictions. As a result, it may be inadvertently racially discriminatory to ignore the concerns of IDT parents on the basis that they don't live in Alameda. Don't throw the baby out with the "don't live in Alameda" bathwater.

Alameda Resident 5/21

I'm sorry to even do this but this person responded to my email point by point and I just can't let it stand as is. This is long.

To the person who tried to twist and dismantle my email-

1. You- I am sorry, but I have been bullied for being Asian-American (by both whites AND asians), for not looking Asiatic (and been called all sorts of races), having an odd hairstyle that is purely genetic and not commonly Asian, for being overweight, etc etc. I have too. You are blowing hot air right now. Many of us, myself included, know what its like to be bullied. We dont like it. But we dont agree with this curriculum either. It's that simple. You dont know what you dont know, and I havent played the sympathy card on this side because I didnt think it as relevant to the issue at hand.

Me- I am not saying no one has ever been bullied for any reason not relating to LGBT issues. I'm not white and have dealt with racism myself. I totally get that. I was talking specifically about people standing at the podium saying they feel bullied by the people who disagree with them. I'm sure there has been plenty of dirty looks and eye rolling (I'm surprised my own eyes have come back to the front and I can still see) but these things are not bullying. I'm sure you get this given your own experience. What is happening here is two groups of people are standing up for what they believe in and being challenged by the opposite belief. Not bullying.

2. You- Just read the Nat'l Center for Lesbian Rights email. Our opposition is called "hate". Look at the Prop 8 campaign. Who is being called "unfair" and "wrong"? We are. For exercising rights as citizens and voters who have reasonable disagreements. So who is offensive here?

Me- Again, I am speaking about specific comments made by speakers at the podium who have claimed to have been called "haters" by "members of the LGBT community" at the meetings. Not the word "hate" on a website. Not being called "unfair" over prop 8. Trust me, we have been called many things and told we are going to hell. There was name calling on both sides of prop 8. Have you seen the hateful signs outside of the meetings? The devil, for one. And those, I think we can agree, were hateful and not representative of your whole movement. I don't think anyone was too thrilled with that guy.

3. You- The numbers are revealing that racism is far worse. We have been victimized far more than you. Funny, Asian Americans have faced far worse scandals, but no one thinks twice about it. Like the Sunset murders in SF. Like Vincent Chin. I wont even pretend to represent African Americans because they have suffered far worse than any of us. Again, get your facts straight.

Me- I don't disagree that racism is the cause of massive amounts of violence. Truly I do not. More attention should surely be paid to this issue. My facts are not wrong as I did not say any one group suffers more than the other. I don't think that should disregard the suffering of LGBT people (by the way I'm straight just to clarify). Yes. The sunset murders, the disappearances of women in Juarez along the U.S. Mexico boarder, etc. Yes. People should certainly pay more attention to these issues and it is a disgrace in this day and age (or any past) that people do not.

4. You- No, I agree. That's why I think the school needs a 0 tolerance policy because kids--even yours--pick up garbage all the time. And no, schools are not parents, and that is not their role.

Me- We agree on zero tolerance (and, as I said, my own children have learned many hateful slurs, it's true). I just disagree that this one curriculum prevents a zero tolerance policy.

5. You- I dont want to teach my kids that this is proper. I don't underestimate them. I want to wait until they are a proper age to reason for themselves, and then I can teach them sexuality, ethics, philosophy, etc. And then they can decide for themselves.

Me- I guess we just completely disagree on children's understanding of this issue. Teaching them that these families are okay does not mean they will abandon everything you teach them. They will continue to learn beyond one forty minute lesson. This lesson is a drop in an ocean. A much needed drop, in my opinion.

6. You- We are not. In fact, as another astutely pointed out, we are the minority since Prop 8 opposers far outnumbered the supporters. Get your facts straight. I dont even like this debate and wouldn't be here if there was an opt-out, but YOU have advocated for an even stronger original curriculum without an opt-out.

Me- I said you are the majority at these meetings. I also agree that you are not the majority in Alameda and hope other people can see that. But really, you must admit that at the meeting the VAST majority of speakers are in opposition. There has even been a group from Sacramento called in along with the robo-call survey. Your side is extremely well organized. I don't like this debate either. We can agree on that for different reasons.

7. You- Yes, they are real. No, I am not saying make them invisible. But yes, it is a lifestyle and a conduct until science shows it is natural, which it has not. And as someone who knows many who have had this issue, I assure you, so much of is environmental. Its no reason to discriminate, but you will not tell my daughter that all lifestyles are equally viable. They are not. A lifestyle that is cruel toward babies is not viable. A lifestyle that has domestic violence is not viable. Let's get this straight. I don't want to teach my daughter about this lifestyle being viable. Period. WWJD, I dont even want to go there.

Me- Trans is still listed in the DSM 4, this is true. Under the title of gender identity disorder. This is debated greatly among scientist, the psychiatric community and others. It is the only disorder that has the recommendation of accommodating it as treatment. Treatment involves helping the person feel more comfortable in his or her body (hormones, surgery, etc) rather than changing the way the person sees him or herself. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM and gender identity disorder will surely follow.

Okay you are really losing me with the "cruel to babies" thing. What? This makes zero sense. If we are going to talk about domestic violence we should be talking about heterosexual couples as well. Domestic violence crosses all boundaries of sexual identity, orientation, race, culture, and class. it knows know bounds.

If people don't want to discuss religion they should stop invoking it as a reason to opt out of this curriculum.

You- I get the sinking feeling that I will need to pull my daughter out and homeschool or find a private school. And if this passes, I am seriously reconsidering an offer I was about to put in for a house in Bay Farm. I am opposed to this curriculum and ask you to oppose it as well.

Me- Funny I have felt the same way about pulling my daughter out of school. It seems to be a hostile environment all around. My daughter is certainly not the only child dealing with violence and name calling at school (and I agree with your previous statement that it happens for many and almost any reason). It's sad when we can not feel safe sending our children to school.

Good luck in your house hunt.

Alameda Resident 5/21

My husband and I have four boys, ages 12, 9, 6, and 4.

We have read the curriculum and find nothing age-inappropriate in the teachings.

PLEASE vote to pass these teachings.

If you oppose these lesson plans, the one church that sent the majority of speakers to City Hall and AHS these past two weeks will have won. Their singular voices will have prevailed, versus the general public, in favor.

Please take that scary step and pass these lesson plans. You will help so many people; gay and straight will be enlightened, as we have been these past three years when lesbian and gay families have become true friends.

Alameda Resident 5/21

I can be silent no longer. This issue is not about religion.

As a youth group leader at a local church for the past two years, I have gotten to know how young minds think. My experience showed me that the youth are happy to accept the fact that families are different. More than accept it, I saw time and time again that they celebrate each other because they are different, and unique people.

I am now an Ordained Minister, working at a hospital as a Chaplain. And there I give care to many children and youth in our Pediatric unit. These kids are usually scared, because they have discovered the world to be a dangerous place, full of disease, abuse, and needles that hurt.

I believe this cirriculum can help make the world less scary.

The least we can do is pass this cirriculum which will help every child to feel safer at school, and understand that LOVE is our common gift, no matter what our family looks like.

Please listen to your heart.

Alameda Resident 5/20

Just a quick message to let you know that our family fully supports the safe school curriculum

I am the mother of a child entering Kindergarten at Franklin School this Fall. I have read the Safe Schools Curriculum in its entirety the wholly support its implementation. I applaud your patience in hearing out the reactionary concerns of individuals who have neither read the curriculum nor have children in the Alameda Unified School District, and I have faith that you will do the right thing and adopt the proposed curriculum as written.

The misinformed and malevolent speeches I witnessed at the Board of Education meetings underscore the tremendous need in the City of Alameda for the teaching of respect and consideration toward ALL people. Clearly, the "traditional values" of fear of differences, hatred and divisiveness linger in our community but have NO place in our schools. Outdated notions that being gay is amoral, an aberration or a choice must be addressed with the age-appropriate education of a Caring Curriculum to oust harmful stereotypes so that our schools can be safe for ALL children.

Alameda Resident 5/19

I want to let yo know that I support the inclusion of accepting the concept of including the discussion of different kinds of families. I taught in AUSD for a long time, from 1965 until 2003. In one of my last third grade classes at Otis School, I had a little girl who had two gay mommies.

On an class activity when parents were invited to assist, both of the mom's had volunteered to come to help out. The little girl looked at me with a panicked look on her face for fear that the kids might laugh at or tease her for having two mothers. One mother was a regular looking woman , but the other mom was very heavy, had short hair, wore jeans, with keys on the the belt and had a tattoo. My welcoming and the expression on my face told the children that this woman was welcome to the class. Both mom's relaxed, and had a good time working with the children. The little girl came up and hugged me and when the bell rang, the larger mom cried with relief and appreciation that they were both welcome in my class and that the children were so nice to them. . It's a matter of attitude, respect and common decency.

I'm sorry to say that in my past I may have had students with gay parents who were too afraid to come to help at school. And I'm also concerned that those children mayhave suffered bullying and teasing as they got older.

Alameda Resident 5/19

Our very conventional family (mother, father, daughter, son) supports the proposed LGBT curriculum for the A.U.S.D. Our very connected, caring, committed neighborhood community in the east end includes numerous wonderful families that vary from our personal Leave-It-to-Beaver model, and we want to do everything possible to ensure the safety, comfort, and support of those parents and children in the context of our local public schools. Our daughter will be attending Otis school in the fall, and our young son will start there in a couple years. We believe that this curriculum will be to their benefit, too.

Alameda Resident 5/19

I listened to the meeting last Monday. I think one thing that people who are proposing to use this curriculum is that they want to be heard, and that people opposing this curriculum are trying to silence them. This is not true. They are trying to silence the people who disagree with their values and forcing their values on other people.

My husband and I are an interracial couple. I know many people who believe that you should not marry interracially, including our own parents. Eventually our parents grew to love the other person, and we had their blessing when we married. Should we propose a curriculum that teaches kids what "interracial" is, so that they don't grow up to be racist? Let my voice be heard!! (how self-centered am i?)

The curriculum teaches this lifestyle, brings in a lot of slang words, or words that lose their original meaning (queer, gay, partner), and if you just don't agree with this value, you are called "intolerant." How ironic on who is the one being intolerant. This issue is causing division and not bringing people with different viewpoints together

Alameda Resident 5/19

Thank you for your dedication and many long hours hearing both sides of the LGBT curriculum controversy. I have only been able to be a participant from afar since I have a very young daughter BUT I'm in support of the languages changing so that by the time my daughter gets to school it will be a kinder and more gentle environment.

Alameda Resident 5/19

Based on the Master Plan Meeting tonight, it is clear that AUSD is in need of funding for our schools for basic educational needs. In the past 7 years, more than $7 MILLION cuts have been made to our schools. Chipman Middle School students are suffering from lack of programs desperately needed to help these kids in basic reading, math, and science skills that are needed to build a solid academic foundation. Why would the AUSD spend money on this LGBT special interest group curriculum when there are some very very basic needs that are deplorably unmet in our district? Please oppose this curriculum and put the money where it's really needed. These kids who are not even performing at grade level will be suffering the rest of their lives and will not have the opportunities other children have. Basic reading, math, science skills are so important. How can we justify using tax dollars to pay for the LGBT curriculum when basic educational needs right here in our school district are not met?

Alameda Resident 5/19

Thank you for allow everyone to speak on Monday night. Special thanks to Trish Spencer for raising key questions and concerns over the curriculum. Clearly you are a woman interested in details because you care deeply about children and understand what its like to raise children...its all in the details.

I want to point out something about the vocabulary used in the curriculum. My 2 daughters, ages 4 and 5, frequently ask my husband and I to define words they hear used by adults around them. Their keen little ears to pick up on words they don't understand even at ages 4 and 5. How will a teacher define "intimate relationship" for my kids in the second grade when that is used to define a couple. Is it really necessary to define "Couple" for second graders? Based on the definition in the curriculum, I can easily see children saying "my mom and I are a couple" or "my best friend and I are a couple". The rest of the vocabulary and definitions are on the same level of vagueness and will only trigger more questions. And I don't have any confidence that all teachers will properly, age-appropriately define these for my children. These are things that parents (heterosexual and lgbt) should teach their children, based on their own value of familial relationships.

Please reject this curriculum.

Out of Town Resident 5/19

I am an Alameda resident and parent of 2 children in the district, w/ another incoming this fall. I DO NOT support the LGBT curriculum for the schools. Please do not adopt this curriculum

As tax payer and resident of the Alameda county, I am writing to you to express my opposition to the LGTB curriculum. Most of the reasons of opposition had been discussed during the Tuesday hearing. In addition to what has been said at the hearings, I believe 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 the potential of bringing more sexual identity disorder. Hence not suitable for 6-7 year old children. As a parent of young kids, these concerns are not unreasonable.

Not only because the elementary school kids are impressionable and not prepared for this, giving out only the positive side of homosexuality and hiding the negative side of it from children is unethical. If they are to be taught about the heroes of LGTB, they should also be taught the disproportionate number of diseases that have been brought to the society: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5326a1.htm

Alameda Resident 5/19

I attended both hearings on the LGBT curriculum and an disturbed by your apparent inabilty to realize what happened on both occasions. On what basis do you make the statement on your webpage that 350 people attended the hearing, 10% were from out of town (how do you know this?), 40% were opposed and 60% in favor of the LGBT curriculum? Where did you get those figures? I was at the hearing the entire time and at no time did I hear anyone ask people where they were from. If you are going on the basis of the people who signed the lists out front, you are making a mistake. People were signing in whole families - I witnessed two adults sending about 4 minor (I mean young, like 5, 6, 8 at the most) children to sign up, saying "you have a right to speak too!" I do not recall being asked to give my address on that sheet so am unclear as to how you know who were Alameda residents, unless you are counting those who told you their residence when they spoke. I signed in to speak because I already had a slip turned in last week - many people signed in thinking they might get to speak. Many people DID NOT sign in because they did not have a slip in already, and did not realize you were going to be making such incorrect statements based on who signed in. Those lists out front are an inaccurate way of deciding who is for and against the currculum and you should take that statement off your webpage. You have no way of knowing who signed those sheets and where they were from, and to make any statements regarding the number of people opposed or for the proposed curriculum using those sheets is simply misleading and wrong.

Based on the speakers last week, May 12, and last night, May 18, the overwhelming majority of those in attendance oppose this curriculum, your efforts to confuse the facts notwithstanding. I note that the Muslim community has weighed in and are in opposition. The media, the AUSD staff, the Supt., and many vocal members of the LGBT community assume that the politically correct position will be taken in spite of the overwhelming numbers of Alamedans who spoke against adopting this curriculum. The people have spoken. You're not listening - or do you discount the voices of those who say things you don't want to hear?

Editor Note: If there was not a overcrowding problem and a lack of speaker slips at the May 12 meeting the list of speakers used for Monday night would have been different.

Alameda Resident 5/19

I want to write to express my vote of no-confidence for Superintendent Vitale and her staff. The LGBT Curriculum is an embarrassment. i cannot believe that it's filled with grammatical errors and that the wording of its sentences and definitions are so loosely constructed that they can cause confusion for our children. Aside from the politics and arguments from both sides, the curriculum as it stands, is not worthy of the Alameda School District, unless of course you think poorly of our schools and our district. Furthermore, I thought it was quite embarrassing for several attorneys to point out that the curriculum with it's no opt out clause violates California education codes. Your attorneys did not do their homework! Superintendent Vitale and her staff did not do their homework. What bothers me is that we're paying her $185,00 to $200,000 for shoddy work and research.

Having heard all the arguments from both sides, it seems that the curriculum does not have any legal ground. Unless you and your attorneys demonstrate otherwise, I don't see how you can possibly approve the LGBT Curriculum, violate California Education codes AND represent the AUSD school board.

I would like to see some investigation into Superintendent's competence to fulfill her post. In addition, I would like to see the LGBT Curriculum voted down and sent back to the drawing board

Alameda Resident 5/19

My partner (cc'd here) and I attended the Monday evening meeting; he has 3 children in Edison School, we are homeowners and of course we vote. We had not signed up to speak and were quite distressed to listen to so many speakers, including some educators, opposing the proposed curriculum. I'm writing, in part, to thank you for asking us to stand up. This gave us the opportunity to feel like we were being counted and also to see how many others support this thoughtful approach to discourage and, hopefully, prevent prejudice and intolerance.

I just finished reading the revised Safe Schools lesson plan. While my teaching and stepparenting experience is limited, I found and feel very strongly that the lessons outlines and the goals are all age-appropriate and do not "promote LGBT lifestyles". They are politically quite neutral and promote an understanding of and critical thinking about family diversity and LGBT identity. With friends who have adopted and maintain relationships with birth parents and family who have grandparents playing a major parenting role, in addition to same sex friends who have had children, I particularly appreciate inclusion of all types and styles of families.

Finally I have to add that I found a couple of typographical errors in the lesson plans posted on the AUSD website. Please let me know if there is an appropriate person to whom I can send the details.

Alameda Resident 5/19

I am the Godparent of a child in the Alameda School System and also have a same sex partner. My Godchild knows that diverse families are normal and wonderful. I thank you for having diverse cultural curriculum. Children need to be taught that diversity is a good thing and hate should never be tolerated. It is a great thing that AUSD is suggesting putting this curriculum in.

Alameda Resident 5/19

I'm an Alamedan parent of a 7th grader at Lincoln Middle School. I support teaching tolerance. I support the Safe Schools curriculum.

Alameda Resident 5/19

I am an Alameda resident, voter, and taxpayer. My wife and I have lived in Alameda for over 10 years.

More importantly, I am a parent of an AUSD K-5 student, with another on the way.

I want – no, I expect – that my children will be able to go to Alameda public schools and be protected against attacks. I have no idea whether my children will be straight or gay, and whether AUSD adopts this curriculum or doesn’t, whether it’s a lifestyle “choice” or not, I expect my children to graduate from AUSD knowing that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is not OK. I support the proposed curriculum.

Some speakers last night seemed to be saying that we should enact a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy – that no one should be bullied for any reason, but that we also shouldn’t acknowledge that our children’s classmates may have one mom, two moms, one dad, two dads, a divorce, foster parents, etc.; that we should pretend we don’t see families all around us of many different kinds. I saw the incredible pain that these comments were causing, a pain that I think that the speakers with the message of “tolerance” or even “respect” did not comprehend.

Some speakers seemed to be saying that having a curriculum to prevent bullying of one protected class, would preclude AUSD from having curriculum to prevent bullying other protected classes. Or that it would prevent AUSD from having curriculum to prevent bullying of non-protected classes (e.g., weight). As far as I know, what the Board would be adopting does not have to be exclusive; nothing prevents AUSD from having additional diversity/respect/anti-bullying/etc. curricula.

Some speakers seemed to be saying that by making students aware of a protected class, that AUSD would cause issues with the parents’ belief system. That issue has come and gone. This is the law.

Perhaps most disturbingly, some speakers seemed to be encouraging AUSD to reject the curriculum on the grounds that it is “divisive.” We have a school named Ruby Bridges here in Alameda. I suspect that when she started school, her presence was “divisive.” Sometimes we expect our elected officials to be able to take actions that are decisive, because they are right. I hope that is what you vote to do.

Alameda Resident 5/19

I fully support making our schools welcoming for all children and to that end I have recommended age-appropriate books representing gay families to be included in the classroom. I also endorse anti-bullying programs that train teachers and kids how to respond to bullies. However, I have grave concerns about the open-ended nature of the proposed lessons for grades 2-5. AUSD’s staff have already shown that they do not have good judgment and can not remain neutral regarding this topic.

In the Spring of 2008, Franklin School’s Principal hired a man who had had a sex change to come speak to the children. His co-presenter suggested the children could alter their sexual identity as well, saying “[we all need to] find out what works for us… you can do whatever you wanna do … look however you wanna look…” These presentations were made to children ages 5 to 11, without parental notification.

Many parents were deeply upset by this and voiced their concerns. In an email dated April 7, 2008, then-Board President Bill Schaff wrote “…we understand that we need to make parents aware when these topics are discussed. We …will make every effort to make these processes more transparent in the future.”

Yet AUSD did not make things more transparent. In fact, they concealed their plans from the community. In the June 2008 School Board meeting, AUSD staff promised to solicit input from the community to help develop the curriculum. Instead, Debbie Wong gathered a group of like-minded educators and one gay parent to create it.

Then they booked two rooms for community meetings but did not invite anyone from the community to attend. It was only because a District employee “leaked” the information that the community became aware of it.

Ms. Wong made various statements about the curriculum but when parents investigated for themselves, they discovered those statements were misleading, even completely false. At a community meeting, a first grade teacher presented what she had done during the pilot program. She proudly displayed a Venn diagram “proving” there are no differences between boys and girls. I could not find it anywhere in the curriculum. Finally I realized she had developed the activity on her own that related to Lesson 7, which was intended for grades 4-8.

At another Community Meeting, a parent asked what a teacher will say to a student who says that his parents told him homosexuality is wrong. The teacher said she would tell the child that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

These are the things that teachers are saying openly at Community Meetings. What will they say behind closed classroom doors?

After the way the Staff have handled this, it is very difficult to trust them. Once something inappropriate is said, you cannot unsay it. We must not forget that "the firsts" in a child's life often leave a permanent impression and affect how they feel about the subject for the rest of their lives. Parents should be the ones to discuss these issues with their children.

If you pass this curriculum, you will open a Pandora’s Box. Please respect parents’ rights and reject this curriculum.

Alameda Resident 5/19

With all due respect as a family we respectfully ask you to please vote NO to accepting the proposed curriculum.

Alameda Resident 5/19

I am the parent of a 3rd grade student in AUSD, and I am writing to express my support of the proposed Safe Schools curriculum.

I attended the meeting at Kaufman last night, and listened to speaker after speaker express their opposition to this fact-based curriculum (which most of them had seemingly not read). They were all “on message,” speaking from the same script, and one of the arguments we heard over and over was that the board should not adopt this curriculum because it is divisive. Please do not be intimidated by their thinly veiled threats to sue the district and to vote you out of office if you support this curriculum. I am sure you don’t need to be reminded that many of the most important steps our country has taken to protect civil liberties and free speech, and to promote social justice for all were divisive at the time, but they were the right thing to do. My husband and I support this curriculum because it is the right thing to do. We believe that the majority of parents in this district, gay and straight, believe there is a critical need for this program.

I do not agree with everything my daughter learns in school (starting with the Pledge of Allegiance). But she is a smart, curious, and engaged child, and when an issue arises, we discuss it as a family and try to understand how it relates to our own family’s beliefs and values. One of the greatest gifts of education is the exposure to a diverse student body and to a diverse set of ideas, and I genuinely feel sorry for children whose parents are afraid of and unwilling to expose their children to ideas different from their own.

Please vote to include this curriculum in our schools.

Alameda Resident 5/19

I am reiterting my support for the Safe Schools Curriculum, and I hope the school board will stand up to the organized tactics of the opposition.

It seems odd to me that 80% of the oponents at last night's meeting were Asian and that 75% of that subset were women. While I know Asian females are a significant component of the Alameda community, my daughter among them, the speakers did not reflect the composition of our community.

Either a coincidental passion has emerged among that demographic group, or a network with many such members has spearheaded the anti-Safe Schools curriculum.

It also seems odd and unfair as far as how the speakers were given opportunities to participate. From what I hear, the opposition arrived at the City Hall meeting early and took the vast majority of speaking slots. This made last night's meeting biased towards those who showed up early. I admire their puncuality, but a better system should have been used.

I commend board president McMahon's request for a show of those in favor and support of the curriculum. The result showed a 50-50 split in the audience. Looking further, one would see greater diversity among the proponents of the curriculum.

My hope is that the board looks beyond the electoral ramifications and the false and misleading arguments of the opponents and does the right thing. One speaker said that this curriculum could not be accepted in Alameda because we are not Berkeley. Then what are we, Topeka? San Leandro has the curriculum. Are we not as progressive as our neighbors with the big box retail to the south?

He also said there would be Hell to pay. What kind of threat is that? Honestly, I think if the curriculum is instituted, the members of the network who packed the auditorium will vote against you and nobody else will care. It's the same as the "slate" of city hall candidates who were shut out in our recent municipal elections. A lot of passionate opposition against progress, which most people don't agree with.

Whether or not the majority agrees with the curriculum is not the main point. The key is keeping kids safe. This is where the curriculum emerged from, and what it is intended to do. I'm not happy that one father said he would show his son the back of his hand if his son used an anti-gay slur. We need to keep gay kids, gay parents of kids, and kids who might get hit by their parents for using anti-gay slurs safe. Let's do it in a responsible and organized fashion. Let's do it.

Alameda Resident 5/19

I did not have a chance to speak last night, but would still like to communicate my thoughts. I will most certainly follow through with legal action if the proposed curriculum is adopted.

I must ask - how does the District propose to equip teachers and administrators to handle concerns from students and parents who feel negatively impacted by this curriculum? The problem that has been alluded to as the reason for the introduction of this curriculum sounds like it came from the school yard, yet the proposed response veers away from correcting behavior and focuses on philosophical and religious differences. I for one would like to know what practical steps were taken to correct the problem, and why they were found insufficient, before this change in curriculum was proposed. I am a stakeholder, but find myself completely uninformed about this.

A reasonable person can be tolerant and respectful, yet still be opposed to the teaching of the LGBT curriculum to our children. Tolerance is defined in Webster’s as “sympathy or indulgence for diversity in thought or conduct.” It does not include a provision that one’s personal beliefs be made subservient to that diversity in thought. No one would dream of teaching intolerance or bullying against LGBT children or families in today’s environment, yet the proposed curriculum WILL set aside children whose personal religious beliefs are not in alignment with it. In effect, it will teach them that they are wrong, and that is not the right of the public school system. For example, children who answer “incorrectly” during the Stereotype exercise, regardless of their private and protected religious beliefs, will be labeled in the minds of their classmates as insensitive and bigoted. How will teachers counter that perception?

Remedial efforts to correct the bullying or offensive behavior of students, regardless of the protected class at which it’s directed, should be guided by the provisions already in place, and should include practical consequences already used for behavior modification in the classroom and on the school yard.

Alameda Resident 5/19

I heard about the Alameda Safe School Curriculum. I am against this curriculum.

Alameda Resident 5/19

Please have lessons about two moms and two dads. It makes me happy!

Alameda Resident 5/19

It was good to see the meeting move so quickly last night, and Koffman auditorium was a much better location for this meeting. Thank you. It is clear that there was a vast majority of people who spoke against the adoption of the curriculum both Tuesday (5-12) and Monday (5-18) nights. I was at both meetings till the end. And yet, it seems as if only one person on the Board of Education was listening to all of us! Can you not see how hundreds of families are grieved over the proposed curriculum???

Ron Mooney, you mentioned that you personally do not have any problems with the words, gay and lesbian. How will you teach my 10 year old about the words, "bisexual" and "transgender"? Those words are also in the lesson plans. The vocabulary word "romantic"--how do you explain that--usually by saying that people are "falling in love". Do you think it is appropriate for teachers to be introducing these concepts of falling in love with either gender? changing genders? How does this material make any kind of reasonable sense to you???? Don't belittle our concerns over this curriculum. You say it's just the words, gay and lesbian, and it is NOT! The committee must revise this curriculum. LGBT does not belong in elementary school. Kids may be able to handle LG, but BT is absolutely inappropriate for this age group. Can we not agree on this?! Don't allow this type of confusion to infiltrate our school curriculum. I am angry that you have minimized the concerns of hundreds of reasonable families that spoke and thousands that did not speak.

Trish Spencer, you heard everyone. You seem like the only board member up there that cares. I have attended several school board meetings this year, and you are consistently the only one who ever questions the status quo. You are working towards improving our schools in Alameda, not rubber stamping everything the Superintendent and District sends forward. You are not a puppet of the District like the other board members seem to be. Thank you for being courageous and willing to challenge our District staff to do better for the children they serve. You may often stand alone amongst the other members, but you stand tall and you are the voice of reason. I listened very carefully to the many questions and concerns you had about the LGBT curriculum, and I think the District needs to find a way to answer those questions. Why are we putting the burden on all our teachers to teach a curriculum that is filled with errors: all families are not viable like you pointed out--some are riddled with abuse and neglect, etc....

Tracy Jensen, the District keeps telling us that the teachers have been asking for this kind of curriculum. And you were concerned about what would happen if the Board didn't pass this and give some sort of tool to the teachers. I have spoken to several Alameda elementary school teachers, and they do not concur with the District's statements. NONE of them were asked if they wanted this curriculum, and certainly none of them were asking for it. It looks like the District said, "This is what we're going to do, so get on board." Did you ever attend any of the district's public forum meetings in the community? I attended two of them--Otis and Bay Farm. From those public forums, it looked pretty obvious that the only teachers who were asking for this curriculum were teachers with a gay or lesbian background. How does that translate to "ALL THE TEACHERS" asking for these lessons?? The teacher's union rep said she spoke for all 600 teachers in AUSD in support of this curriculum, so when did they take a poll of every teacher in the district over this curriculum? The answer is, they haven't. Unfortunately, most elementary school teachers in Alameda haven't even seen the curriculum, eventhough it is on the website. I am tired of hearing the same lie spoken over and over again as if it were fact. Just how many elementary school teachers in our district have seen this curriculum, approved it, and want to teach it? Teachers currently have the CSC curriculum as a tool. The proposed Lesson 9 addition to the CSC is riddled with problems. Don't pass something just because you want to pass something. Make the District strive for something that will bring our community together and that will protect all families.

Mike McMahon, you are supposed to be the leader of the Board of Education, but you seem like just another District employee. The Board of Education should be a body of governance that works as a checks and balances with the School District and the Community. The majority of speakers who came out in large numbers are asking you to CHECK and BALANCE a curriculum that needs revising. A new committee needs to be formed to put together a curriculum that would address Lesbian and Gay family concerns along with the other 4 protected classes of at risk people. No one is saying to ignore lesbian and gay families in the curriculum. Let's work together to make something that works for all our children and families. You asked Kirsten Vital to comment on what the legal exposure would be if you voted for or against the curriculum; I believe you could avoid legal exposure by sending Lesson 9 back for a revision by a new committee. If AUSD can improve the process of creating a curriculum, I believe the natural outcome will be a far superior Lesson 9 that would have the community's full support.

Neil Tam, I hope you will take the time to thoroughly study the curriculum and view all the arguments for and against that were made at the last 2 board meetings. I realize that the Board has all the speaker slips in hand, but according to my count at the May 12th meeting, there were around 44 speakers opposed and 26 speakers for. I missed the first 10 speakers at the May 18th meeting, so my count for that meeting is not precise; however, I was there to count 63 opposed and 14 for the curriculum. In all, 73% of community speakers were opposed to this curriculum and 27% were in favor of it.

You all have a tremendous responsibility and decision to make. I believe you can serve the LGBT community in Alameda without disregarding parent's rights (give people an opt out) and neglecting to protect all 5 classes of at risk groups. Send Lesson Plan 9 back to the drawing board, and this time have a group of educators that represent all 5 classes present and accounted for. ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CAN DO BETTER!!!!! WE NEED TO DO BETTER!!!!!

Alameda Resident 5/19

As a parent of a child who will be in an Alameda school this fall, I think it is outrageous that an opt out of the curriculum instructions will not be allowed.

To impose one particular, controversial view on everyone is not what America is about.

Alameda Resident 5/19

As a long time resident of Alameda, and as a parent of a child who will be attending kindergarten in Alameda this coming fall, I am against the caring schools (LGBT) curriculum.

I am for creating safe environment for our schools, and I am for teaching our children how to treat other people respectively regardless of their background and beliefs. However, this curriculum takes away my right to teach my child what I consider to be the right values regarding this sensitive topic.

I respectively urge you to vote against the curriculum.

Alameda Resident 5/19

Thank you very much for hearing us out yesterday, and for your patience in taking each person's opinion seriously. I want to again voice my opposition to this curriculum and instead urge for a new one to be created that can encompass values of respect and kindness that all sides can agree with. I think what will speak volumes to the children of Alameda is if they see their parents, whether they are LGBT or heterosexual, being able to work with others who may have opposing viewpoints and do so in a civil, respectful manner to achieve the goal together of keeping our schools safe for ALL. Seeing their parents live out tolerance and work together is what is going to impact these children and serve as a model for how they should behave towards each other.

Out of Town Resident 5/19

live in Oakland, and my mother and several close friends (and their children) live in Alameda. I attended last night's meeting from around 7 til its adjournment, and wanted to share some thoughts with you that I wrote after returning home. Thank you for your time.

After hearing people talk for many hours both in support of and against approving an addendum to the Safe Schools curriculum which explicitly affirms the existence of gay and lesbian families, I have a million thoughts running through my mind. The theme that I feel compelled to write about is that of the "other protected classes," which were never fully defined, but seem to include race, disability, religion, and a fourth unnamed category.

The arguments against the curriculum that were most powerful to me (and I should make clear that like many who spoke in favor of its adoption, I doubt that it is perfect, but an imperfect beginning is better than nothing!) were those that genuinely expressed a sense of sorrow or outrage about the continuing inequalities faced by people of color and other minorities. These arguments against the curriculum's adoption are, I think, ultimately flawed, but they are powerful because they contain an important truth: blacks, Latinos, Asians, people with disabilities, Muslims, poor people, and others who were not mentioned by name continue in this country to be systematically disenfranchised. The under-representation of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities in school curricula is real; the 'achievement gap' is real; the continued "tolerance" in this country for the blatantly unequal distribution of educational and other resources is real.

But the argument that therefore the curriculum in question should not be adopted fails on two counts. First, as several people pointed out tonight, it assumes a zero-sum universe, wherein one minority's gain is another's loss. Second, and I think even more importantly, it implies that people are uni-dimensional: they are gay OR Asian, disabled OR Muslim, black OR Latino.

Given the number of times that speakers tonight invoked the "I have gay friends" line, perhaps I will be forgiven for saying: I have dear friends, colleagues, and neighbors who identify as black AND lesbian, Indian AND queer, Chinese AND gay, Deaf AND transgendered. As a white queer-identified woman I absolutely do not claim to be able to speak on behalf of anyone else, but the implication that my friends do not exist - or that only one part of them could exist at a time - saddened me. The mainstream gay movement(like the feminist movement) has been the target of powerful and necessary criticism for representing the white, middle-class gay experience as universal. One had only to look at those who stood when the school board asked supporters to stand up to know that in Alameda as in the rest of the country (and the world) the LGBT community - and here I include allies - is wildly diverse.

I end this train of thought by reiterating that a step, however small, in the direction of recognizing and affirming the many and multiple ways we inhabit this stretch of earth is a step in the right direction.

Alameda Resident 5/19

I have been a resident of Alameda city for past 7 years. I have been a voter and tax payer. I would like to voice my opinion on LGBT curriculum. I oppose to the LGBT revised curriculum. Our children should be protected from the skewed view, which is imposed by one single group of people. Our children should have a right to learn our values that our country was found, at least they should have "opt-out" out.

Please consider Alameda residents' voices.

Alameda Resident 5/19

Thank you once again for listening to all of our concerns and comments, new and old, last night. It is heartening to hear that the Board is carefully considering the different arguments and questioning the viability and validity of the curriculum before making its difficult decision.

I really believe that some of the tension, frustration, and emotion can and should be worked out apart from this curriculum debate and that we must carefully weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the curriculum and its repercussions on our city, schools, and students - apart from how opposing sides may react as a result of its passing or rejection.

This is a difficult issue and so I very much appreciate your balanced judgment of the issues and likewise on the part of the rest of the Board.

Alameda Resident 5/19

As an Alameda Resident, I would like to voice my opposition for this curriculum. I was there last night to hear all the different viewpoints. After hearing everyone's side I still feel this curriculum is the wrong way to go. Though there are many arguments, there is one primary one that has held me in this position.

This curriculum is impeding the rights of the parent. The right of a parent, a mother, father, guardian, to chose the WHEN and the HOW when it comes to addressing personal matters such as family, family structure, sexuality, relationships, sexual orientation and so on. These are 6-10 year olds! The last thing I would want is for a child to come home suddenly exposed to whole new set of information with perhaps a bunch of very personal questions that a parent perhaps would not have wanted the child to be exposed to at that age. High school maybe, but K-5, absolutely not.

I agree with many of the Alameda Parents who came forth urging the board to rather focus on prevention and zero-tolerance. For the kids that do bully, train the teachers to deal with them sternly and how best to approach the matter. Show zero-tolerance. Intervention, the way it always has been. To bring a curriculum (that seems to address bully perhaps 30% of the time... which is another problematic issue) that will expose all kids to topics as personal as these is not right. The school has no right to take that right of a parent.

I am also concerned about the legal imprecations that are to follow if this curriculum is passed. It is abundantly clear this is a controversial issue that has heavily charged topics. Is the school district ready to take on the lawsuits? Do we have the money to fight against them? Are they ready for the outrage of many parents? School districts are already short handed on funds, please don't go down this road that could further cripple our funds.

The sheer controversy this has caused should raise a lot of concern. It goes against common sense to pass something that seemingly more than half of the group (according to turnouts to meetings, emails sent in) disapproves. Either axe it altogether or form a curriculum that is 100% bullying focused that a clear majority can agree on. But again personally I rather the funds and time be allocated to a preventive & intervention training for the teachers.

Please do not let personal bias have the final say, I am very concerned and hope you make a good sound decision based on facts.

Alameda Resident 5/19

I attended last night's meeting at Kofman auditorium and was appalled at the hissing and booing of those in favor of the curriculum, which repeatedly interrupted the speeches of those in opposition. Although I recognize that it was an isolated incident, i felt very upset over the physical intimidation that one young lady faced, and I feel that you or staff members could've done more to prevent the situation, given that when the man was approaching the young lady, only members of the audience stood up.

Once again, these incidents show how this curriculum has so thoroughly divided our community, and that instead of uniting schools and teachers and the community together, it will create more tension and an adverse environment for our children. I feel that the LGBT community does have a lot of visibility in our society at large without such a curriculum, particular since the Bay Area has a more diverse, open, and welcoming culture than most parts of the country. I appreciate the questions that the Board Members posed to the staff, particularly with regards to the exclusivity of the emphasis offered to one particularly subgroup of society. I understand that there's a need for teachers to have tools to address bullying with regards to LGBT, but I seriously wonder if this is the right approach to address that and I once again want to state my opposition to this curriculum.

Alameda Resident 5/19

Thanks so much for the continuation hearing last night, for ensuring a safe space for everyone to come forward to express their opinions.

I hope that given the bounty of statements made against the opposition, and the obvious legal and curricular pitfalls that were brought up, you will vote against adopting the curriculum.

Dear board members I am a voter and tax payer of the city of Alamede. I have already emailed you in regards to the Safe Schools curriculum, but I would just like to add on my opinion of last night's meeting. I think it's evident that families hold very diverse values. As one speaker had mentioned, we love America so much because of such diversity and our ability to express our diversity. Passing this curriculum would work against what our country has worked and fought for because it would intrude on the values of those families who are raising their children on the traditional marriage. My opposition to this curriculum is by no means of ill intention to the LGBT community, but like many community members have said, there are many flaws to this curriculum. I'm sure we can come up with a better one that would be acceptable by all sides and be of utmost respect to those who hold on to the values of traditional marriage and the LGBT community.

Alameda Resident 5/19

Thank you so much for your hard work in educating our children. I'm writing to you because I was not able to speak during yesterday's meeting.

I have 2 elementary boys attending AUSD currently. I believe creating safe educational environment is very important. I like to ask your to reject current LGBT curriculum. I believe these curriculum will not achieve district goal to create safe educational goal.

As I was growing up in elementary, I have experienced both end of being bullied and to bully others. As a parent and looking back now, I am regretful and ashamed to say that I was bully at school. But I want to share with you my past experience and hopefully give you little different view. If these curriculum were instated in my elementary school, I would not have learn to respect others people and accept them at all. This will only have provide my young mind with the ammunition to attack against the people that I want to make fun of and torment them. This will only make the environment even more unsafe for children. Only time I would stop bullying someone is when the bullied kid stands up for him/herself than I will eventually stop bullying. If we want to provide safe educational environment from bullying, we need to teach and equip our children with ways to standing up for themselves and self-esteem. But when I've review all these lessons, I didn't see lessons on how to deal with bullying.

Also to address bullying, I believe we as parent and teachers need to work together. How I come to understand bullying is not acceptable was not from some curriculum and lessons from school. It's from my parents and teachers telling me what I have done is wrong and disciple I have received. I really believe getting parents and teachers involved to address bullying is best way to address it. I would like to see training, provide teachers with procedures on how to address bullying and working with parents to create safe educational environment.

Alameda Resident 5/19

Thank you so much for working to bring diversity into our school curriculum. Our children live in an area where many different populations are represented and they see families with one parent, separated parents, and two parents of the same gender frequently. This past year, my two children (one currently enrolled in Edison and one who will join him in 2 years) were dealing with our divorce. The fact that there are diverse family make-ups within their immediate social circle, classroom, sports teams, etc was enormously helpful in helping them to feel like belonged in the community, that family doesn't have to mean mom, dad, and kids, and that the community is going to supportive of families no matter how they are made up.

Alameda Resident 5/19

My husband and I are not gay. We have two children in 2nd and 4th grades at Amelia Earhart School.

I would like to write about the topic of “Opting Out” which has come up at various discussions that I have attended.

I will begin with the definition of what it is to “opt out”. We all know the most common use of the term lately which has to do with receiving marketing calls or materials and emails. By deciding to “opt out”, the recipient no longer has to “deal with” the nuisance of receiving unsolicited marketing. The dictionary and thesaurus refer to “choose or select, leave, pull out, and reject”.

The lessons (one per grade level) to be added to the Caring Schools curriculum deal with the social fundamentals with which we embrace in our public school system; inclusion, tolerance, equality and respect. These are such critical elements of the daily social fabric of our schools. Such core elements are not “electives” which can be selected for attendance. Every child deserves to have the same basis with which to seek harmony and achieve respect in relating to others. More importantly, our teachers need a consistent manner with which to approach issues which come up relating to “intolerance and lack of respect”. I have had to speak to both of my kids teachers due to others calling them hurtful words such has “gay”, “faggot” and “woman” and the first two came from second grade. I doubt the child who was calling these names out truly knew the meaning of them or that he or she could be causing hurt to another child.

We all want to do the best for our kids. We take whatever “productive” measures we can to ensure they are safe, healthy and happy and to enable them to have the best opportunities we are able to offer them. The additional curriculum component at the center of this discussion is a “productive” measure that our school district feels will be a beneficial element of providing a “safe” environment to ALL of our children. Opting out or avoiding this issue is only going to lead to further detriment. It sends the wrong message regarding the core of this issue which is inclusion. Not everyone will agree that a gay or lesbian lifestyle is what would chose or condone. However, this issue is not about condoning or approving, it is about offering fairness, equality and inclusion to all kids regardless of their particular family dynamic. We live in a world full of conflict, rivalry and elitism. As individuals, we can decide to subscribe to specific beliefs, groups and clubs. Private schools can adopt certain views due to their “elective” status. Public school on the other hand embrace the dynamic and by not assuming specific views maintains a sanctuary for everyone regardless of their beliefs or family dynamic. The public school population is a collective. We have a common goal of providing a valuable education to any and EVERY child. Opting out sends the message of separatism which is what this curriculum is trying to avoid. I ask you to use your “collective” mind in thinking about this issue.

In response to the opposing group, I have had my children tell me on several occasions that they have been told by classmates that “you are going to go to Hell because you don’t go to church”. My response to them is, “Well, some people and their families believe that and that is their right. However, our family does not believe in that and that is our right. Both are valid because they are important to each person and their family. It is better however to talk about our commonalities rather than accentuate what makes us different.

Alameda Resident 5/19

I was there last night. it was pretty upsetting but i'm hopeful for a positive outcome. the folks speaking in favor of the curriculum were very eloquent. fingers x'd for next tuesday's decision.

Alameda Resident 5/19

As representative of the Muslim population in Alameda, as well as a concerned parent, I have been following the board meetings specifically addressing this proposed tolerance curriculum. Alameda has a very large population of Muslim families and we hope that you would consider the needs of NOT just one group of population but the many different constituents that you serve. Please take the time to read the letter we submitted. To ensure that you all are able to access it, I am also sending it in e-mail format. In the future, we would be more than happy to be part of the committee to study issues that are culturally sensitive and relevant to our community. Thank you for your time & consideration.

First of all, let me commend you all on the wonderful job that you have been doing in light of the many challenges facing our school district. I appreciate that you, the School Board Commissioners are taking the time to acknowledge and listen to your constituents’ concerns in this widely diverse and dynamic city. On behalf of the Muslim community here in the city of Alameda, I am writing to let you know that we strongly oppose the proposed LGBT Tolerance curriculum for K-5th Grade. Along with this letter, we are submitting a five-page signed petition from our community supporting this motion.

Accordingly, the School District has already adapted a “NO-BULLYING” policy in Alameda schools K-12. Hopefully, this policy is being vigorously implemented on the different campuses of the city, and that the incidences of bullying would be at a minimum. Bullying or intimidation is not to be tolerated -- respecting one another as individuals with rights to human dignity is what should be taught at all grade levels. We do not agree that certain groups should be highlighted over others in terms of respect and dignity, and that we do not condone the idea that our young children, ages 4 ½ to 11 should be subjected to accept these lifestyles as correct or acceptable. We are further informed that with the proposed curriculum:

parents will not given the right to be notified when the subject matter will be introduced or taught to their children
there will be no requirement to provide the parents with curriculum materials
there will be no option for parents to remove their children from this instruction

As Imam and representative of the Muslim population of Alameda, many parents come to me with concerns, especially those with children attending public schools. The most recent incident is of an immigrant Muslim family whose daughter is in the 4th grade.

She had transferred from Ruby Bridges to Washington Elementary which is her school site. In the beginning of the school year, this 4th grader came to school wearing “hijab” (head scarf). Unfortunately, she became a target of ridicule by two specific students from her classroom that now, according to her parents, she no longer wears her hijab and have no desire to do so. To this day, she refuses to tell her family who are the instigators of this bullying for either fear of retribution or being labeled by her peers as a “tatel-teller.”

The above incident clearly demonstrates that the issue of bullying extends further than the proposed target population of LBGTs. Bullying should be addressed on the grounds of universality, crossing gender-lines, ethnicity, religion, lifestyle and culture. We should hope that respect for human dignity should be the foremost priority in instilling values and morals to our children and that these are best taught at home and reinforced in the schools. With the proposed curriculum and no room for choice for dissenting opinions, Muslim families as well as others are faced with the difficult decision of removing their children from attending Alameda Schools, enhancing further the possibility of declining enrollment and less money for the school district. I thank you once again for the school board’s openness in addressing this issue and hope that consideration be given on the grounds of what is correct and fair for everyone.

Alameda Resident 5/19

I fully support tolerance and the "Safe Schools" curriculum. As an Alameda resident for almost 60 years, we must be inclusive and respect the rights of others.

I have been a resident of Alameda for 17 years. I was out of town and unable to attend the hearing on this issue last Tuesday, and wanted to express my support of this proposal.

Lessons on diversity and on tolerance of persons different from ourselves are an extremely important part of the educational process. It helps not only LGBT students, but all students. Speaking as someone who was bullied because of their sexual orientation while in school, it would have really made a difference to me and to my classmates to have had this kind of program in place when I was growing up.

Thank you for proposing this change - please implement it!

Alameda Resident 5/19

I have a few points to make regarding last night's Safe Schools meeting and some of the things that were said there.

People need to stop co-opting the word "bully". You, the opposition, are speaking from a place of privilege. You are the apparent majority at these meetings. You are NOT being physically threatened, pushed around, taunted, or assaulted. MY DAUGHTER HAS BEEN BULLIED. She is 5 and has been picked on, teased, and physically assaulted by classmates all school year (ftr, we have spoken with the teacher, the principal, written letters to the school board members, and the superintendent). It started because some kids decided she is more like a boy than a girl. So when you stand up there saying YOU FEEL BULLIED it makes my skin crawl and my heart ache. My daughter has been bullied. So just stop with that. It's offensive.
I keep hearing people opposed to the curriculum say that they have been called "haters". Really? You are the only people that I have heard use that term in YEARS and only at the podium. It strikes me as disingenuous. I believe you are trying to make yourselves out to be the victim here. Again, STOP. It is offensive.
One speaker for the opposition alluded to a possibility of being assaulted on his way out. Well, have you ever heard of "gay bashing"? It is real. It is deadly. I can not tell you how many young people I have known who ended up in the hospital with broken ribs, punctured lungs, black and blue faces because they actually WERE ASSAULTED for being LGBT or perceived as LGBT. Even more have had to at least physically defend themselves or run to find safety because they were clearly no match for a bunch of dudes with 2x4's. Do you get this? YOU ARE NOT THE VICTIM.
Your children will learn anti-gay slurs as soon as they hit the elementary school playgrounds. If you think your children are too sweet for this, guess what. They aren't. I thought that about my own children but they learn from their peers. I had to reteach my kids everything I have taught them and will continue to do so as long as needed. So you can let your kids learn hateful words without any context or understanding or you can teach them about what these words mean and who they really hurt. I kind of have a feeling that this isn't your dinner table conversation. Maybe it's time for schools to step in.
Someone spoke about the difficulty of explaining how two moms could have a baby. I can tell you from experience that It's not that hard. If you can say "daddy planted a seed in mommy" you can say a doctor planted a seed in one of the mommies. Or the mommies adopted. Or whatever applies. Kids get it. It's not hard to grasp. You underestimate your children.
Please remember that you are the vocal majority here. Please stop acting persecuted with your claims of how your children will be bullied for not agreeing with the teacher or how confused your child will be when the teacher says something different than you do. I had to explain to my kids that Christopher Columbus was responsible for the genocide of my ancestors rather than a super-coool hero. You can surely handly this, no?
GLBT people are not unicorns or gnomes living in mushroom houses. It is not something you can "believe" in or not believe in. They are real. No matter what you think of them. It's time to stop pretending they don't exist in your schools. They do. Your children will meet them. How do you really want that meeting to happen? With misunderstanding and contempt for a "lifestyle" or understand and acceptance. WWJD, afterall.
Mr. McMahon, you must be exhausted.

Alameda Resident 5/19

I was at the meeting last night with my son, a student at xxx Elementary School here in Alameda. I'm an Alameda homeowner and volunteer in my son's school.

I am more convinced than ever that we need this curriculum. If some families are so intent on treating queer-parented families as "other," it can only end in bullying or worse. My son was musing that he might be gay last year, as he holds a lot of love for his best friend, William. To suggest that elementary-aged schoolchildren do not need this vocabulary is preposterous! How can kindergartners process a schoolmate having two moms without it?

I told my son that he has plenty of time to figure it out. But we do not have plenty of time to lay a foundation of respect and tolerance. The time is now.

Alameda Resident 5/19

I strongly support the Caring Schools Curriculum. I am a parent of a child in Alameda public school system. My 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 5/19

I attended last night's school board meeting and was shocked and saddened by the ignorance and intolerance that I heard. I was unable to sleep last night thinking about the fact that this group of people are out there representing the community that I live in and love.

I do not feel that a highly organized, highly scripted group of like minded people fairly represent the children, families and community of Alameda. Our children attend Edison school, and from the many conversations I have had, I have yet to meet 1 person who is opposed to this curriculum. I hope that you will keep that in mind as you make your decision.

I hope the board has the courage to do the right thing and move Alameda forward one more step. We have a past history of racism, intolerance and a "raise the bridge" mentality that I think most are wanting to leave behind. Please don't listen to a vocal few and listen to your heart and your conscience.

Comments. Questions. Broken links? Bad spelling! Incorrect Grammar? Let me know at webmaster.
Last modified: , 2009

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
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.