Public school sex education is a huge deal. I don’t think that most parents realize how huge of a deal it is. Maybe if they knew exactly what propaganda and agendas are being taught to their children, they might perk up and pay attention, but then again, maybe not.
Fremont School Board members met last night 01/14, to adopt a new sex education program, after learning last year that their current junior high program was not compliant with California state law.
There have been rumblings that some trustees might be considering removing sex education altogether from the junior high schools.
I say that if they don’t have a decent program, if they want to promote the gay lifestyle and same-sex attraction, then go ahead, loose the program all together. It would likely be in the best interest of the children anyway. I say, have an optional program, maybe several evening seminars over several weeks, where parents could attend with their children, or come alone to learn how to talk to their children about sex, while still being able to preserve their value system by teaching their children at home. Oh wait, the bureaucrats in charge of the public school system do not care about anyone’s value system. I guess it’s nice in theory.
School districts are not required to provide sex education. But those that do are mandated to offer a comprehensive curriculum, meaning that the use of condoms and birth control must be taught in addition to abstinence [and as we have all heard, more and more SSA is being taught and promoted in these public school sex-ed programs].
The school board has reviewed two possible new curricula that are up for possible adoption — one called “FLASH” and another called “Teen Talk”.
Teen Talk was developed by the Teen Pregnancy Coalition of San Mateo County and is used in many Peninsula schools. 7/8 F.L.A.S.H. was developed by the Seattle–King County Department of Public Health and is used throughout the country.
These programs start as early as 4th grade teaching children about HIV. I am stunned and appalled. My husband and I have a 5th grader, and I don’t think that children this young need to be taught about sex as explicitly as these programs teach it, and I certainly don’t think they have a need for HIV info either. Tell them about puberty and teach them from a scientific and medical standpoint about the changes that will occur in their bodies, but HIV. . .? I also find it very strange that in these programs, the STD and HIV lessons are at the bottom. After they have talked to the kids about “touching,” “sexual exploitation,” “gender identification” and “sexual health and hygiene” then they will tell them, well you could get a disease. This is beyond ridiculous. I am so shocked by these programs, that I might just do a little critique of them tomorrow.
This week, several people from the health and sex education advisory committee or the American Civil Liberties Union, which advocates for reproductive rights, said individuals who support an abstinence-only curriculum have been contacting school board members and asking them to do away with sex education.
As reported by the ACLU,
California law states that sex education in public schools must be science-based, free of bias, and include medically accurate, age-appropriate information about abstinence, condoms and contraception in grades 7-12. California schools may not use “abstinence-only” curricula.
Of course not. That would be leaving too many rights to the parents, if abstinence-only were to be taught. Then they would be able to teach their children what they wanted them to know. Wake up parents! What your children are being taught about sex in school is very much an infringement on your parental rights.
A huge round of applause for these parents who are obviously involved in their children’s education and care about what they are being taught. For those parents on the other side of the fence, who think that their children need a “comprehensive sex ed program,” the ACLU has so graciously offered a form letter that you can sign your name to and email out to the board directly from their website. The ACLU does not need to be involved in advising a school board on their sex-ed program. Do people really believe that a 4th graders sex education falls under the civil rights category? I see it as a gross infringement on that child’s parent’s civil rights. Here’s what the letter says:
Dear [Decision Maker],
As a Fremont community member, I am writing to ask you to follow through on your commitment to the parents and students of FUSD by adopting a medically accurate, comprehensive sex education curriculum for middle school at your meeting on January 14th. The two comprehensive curricula proposed for adoption meet state requirements and have been evaluated and recommended by teachers and the district’s advisory committee.
Comprehensive sex education that includes age-appropriate, accurate information about condoms and contraception as well as abstinence is effective. Students who receive comprehensive sex education are 50% less likely to become pregnant as students who receive abstinence-only education and 60% less likely to become pregnant as those who receive no sex education at all.
At a time when one in four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease, according to the CDC, young people more than ever need accurate, responsible information about their sexual health.
I urge you to provide FUSD middle school students with the comprehensive sex education that they deserve and the law requires.
[City, State ZIP]
Trustee Ivy Wu, who has been bombarded with emails, advises her children to obstain from premarital sex, however,
“I know that as a board member, I cannot impose my own personal beliefs on other people. … I also understand that there are kids who are already sexually active. For these kids, … they need to know the right way to protect themselves.”
Why not? The school district does. They impose their beliefs on other people’s children all the time. Too bad Trustee Wu didn’t push a little harder for them to do away with sex ed all together. These kids don’t need Fremont school district to teach them about sex. They already know, and if they already know, then they are likely getting their sex-ed from MTV, or hopefully, and more appropriately, their parents, which would trump anything Fremont would say. Those kids watch more MTV (or sex-TV as it should be called) than spend time in any public school sex-ed class. MTV promotes safe sex, so there, problem solved, right?
No school board member contacted said they wanted to do away with sex-ed completely, but they do have some concerns about the two curricula being considered.
Read the Rest Here