Hopefully they won't show this guy at school!
Posted on 05/04/2007 2:10:49 PM PDT by rface
Parents gave local educators an earful after fifth-grade students at Derby Ridge Elementary School were asked to read a newspaper column supporting same-sex marriage.
Columbia Public Schools administrators say the assignment wasn’t appropriate for 10- and 11-year-olds. "The purpose was to become familiar with editorial writing and respond in an editorial back," said Jack Jensen, assistant superintendent of elementary education. "But it was not an appropriate topic to use at this age level."
The students had brought up the topic of gay marriage before the assignment during a classroom discussion on current events, Jensen said. The newspaper article used in Wednesday’s assignment was a nationally syndicated column written by Richard Cohen titled "Gay marriage ban no benefit to society." It appeared in the July 17, 2006, edition of the Tribune.
Responding to a New York Supreme Court decision to uphold a ban on same-sex marriage, Cohen argued that the court should "grant to homosexuals and lesbians the benefits of marriage so casually granted to heterosexuals."
Jensen said the school fielded several phone calls from parents upset about the assignment. Administrators have talked to the teacher, whom he did not name, but no other disciplinary action will be taken.
Jensen said teachers should collaborate with peers or administrators if they’re unsure about an assignment. "Unfortunately, that did not happen in this case," he said.
It’s common for newspaper articles to be incorporated into classroom lessons. Many newspapers, including the Tribune, supply schools with free issues through the Newspapers In Education Program. Research indicates students who use newspapers in classroom curricula become better readers, more motivated and more aware of the world and their communities, according to the Missouri Press Association.
But newspaper editorials often take stands on controversial issues such as gay marriage, stem cell research and abortion. Teachers sometimes have to walk a fine line between using those articles to teach current events and deeming whether the materials are appropriate, said Earnest Perry, chairman of journalism studies at the University of Missouri-Columbia’s School of Journalism.
"It’s not as easy as just saying, ‘No, it shouldn’t be done,’ or ‘yes, do it,’ " he said. "It’s up to a teacher to instruct at the grade level in which they’re teaching and to determine whether or not the students have a grasp of the subject and understand what’s going on. It depends on the age level and maturity level of the children whether they understand and can define what same-sex marriage is and the moral as well as political ramifications of that. Is that a subject the entire class will be able to understand?"
Schools rely on parental input to help make those decisions, Jensen said. "We’re pleased when the parents had concerns, they immediately called the school," he said. "We knew exactly how they were feeling, and we acted on that."
I am not choosing to be a vegetarian, so deal with it.
The teacher contacted me because of her 'flippant' response and I told her and the school principle that my daughter would be happy to turn in a paragraph with the prompt 'Choose either to be a vegetarian or a carnivore and support your choice,' but she would not write a paper on a personal choice that someone else made for her.
Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen
Gay marriage ban no benefit to societyBy RICHARD COHEN
Published Monday, July 17, 2006
There are exactly 316 benefits of marriage. I learned that from the decision of New York’s highest court upholding the ban on same-sex marriage, which means that the often-wed Elizabeth Taylor has enjoyed these benefits 2,528 times, while a lesbian could not have any of them, despite having a stable relationship and a child or two.
If it pleases the court, your decision is just plain idiotic.
I choose Taylor because she is everything this very important court - New York, after all - did not take into account in upholding its touchingly Victorian version of marriage.
The majority decision, written by Judge Robert Smith, more or less said that marriage has traditionally been between opposite sexes - and, until the Legislature decides differently, it should stay that way. Reading the decision induces vertigo from page after page of circular reasoning.
More compelling, more logical, more humane is the dissent of Chief Judge Judith Kaye, who likened the ban on same-sex marriage to the one that once prohibited interracial marriage in 30 states. When, at last, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 finally outlawed this racist prohibition in the 17 states that still retained it, its defenders argued - much as do opponents of homosexual marriage today - that it was unnatural and contrary to the will of God. For some reason, God did not file an amicus brief.
With same-sex marriage, the issue we are told is children. Even though the court observes that same-sex partners are not likely to have a child by "accident or impulse," it goes on to say something downright mysterious: "The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father." Those italics are my own insidious contribution because, really, there is nothing rational about such a belief. It is based solely and exclusively on staying in chambers or, when venturing out, going no farther than the ninth hole.
I am particularly and intimately close to one same-sex couple. I know their child, now a grown woman and - should you ask - heterosexual. She had the benefit of a loving home - although her parents had none of the 316 benefits mentioned above, some of them as mundane as visitation rights in a hospital. I can claim nothing special about her. She is neither better nor worse than people raised in more conventional circumstances. She is, though, the niece I love, and I know - probably better than Judge Smith - whereof I speak.
I know the children of similar relationships. Again, look as hard as you can, and all you’ll see are kids - ordinary kids. I know many more children of heterosexual relationships, and once again, it’s a mixed bag.
If you can find a rule here, you either have better eyes than most social scientists, or you are blinded by ideology. Throughout history, kids have been raised by a single parent, three parents, no parents - my father, the orphan - or in traditional, two-parent families, such as the killers of Columbine.
Judge Smith does suggest one salient point: As unjust as the present situation is, it should be the New York Legislature’s obligation to fix it, not the court’s. This strikes a chord with me because if we have learned anything in the 33 years since the Supreme Court insisted on a right to an abortion, it is sometimes better to have such advances based on legislative, as opposed to judicial, decisions.
Gay marriage, like abortion, is a highly emotional issue and, at the moment, commands nowhere near overwhelming support.
Depending on how the question is asked and the polling organization itself, anywhere from 40 percent to nearly 60 percent of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. If the latter figure is accurate, permitting same-sex marriage by judicial fiat would produce yet another protracted fight over yet another social issue. Roe has been bad enough, thank you.
Yet the case for same-sex marriage is so much clearer and easier to make than the complexities that produced the tortured reasoning of Roe. It is based primarily on the easily understood and widely accepted words of the Declaration of Independence: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Because none of the counterarguments can prove any damage at all to society, the New York State high court missed a chance to further an education process and, justly, grant to homosexuals and lesbians the benefits of marriage so casually granted to heterosexuals.
Way before getting to 316, it’s clear one of the benefits is as American as apple pie: the pursuit of happiness itself.
Good for you!!!!!!
Not all schools are like this.
My son is in seventh grade in the Bible belt. He is scheduled to start sex ed in a week. I examined the curriculum. It is straight up abstinence, in gender segregated classes. I called the school and asked some questions, indicating that we used to live in CA, and so I was concerned. The teacher I spoke to said “But we’re in the Bible belt. In fact, we’re the buckle.”
There will be absolutely no discussion of homosexuality, and
if any inappropriate questions are asked the teacher will only say “We are not going to discuss that, please ask your parents.” I am pleased, and happy that my faith in my school district is once again justified.
Bah formatting :(
Holy mackeral! Where do you live??? We have been looking for a place to move to that is like that! Thank you in advance for sharing this information (hoping that you will do so).
Thanks for posting the poem. That says it pretty well.
Hopefully they won't show this guy at school!
Now, give her a good solid course in flippancy. This teacher deserves it.
A couple of good paragraphs on 'Why Education Majors Shouldn't Be Allowed Anywhere Near A Public School' should do the trick.
Don’t leave me hanging, how did the teacher and principal respond?
Homosexuality is 100% about recreational sex.
All sexual education requires parental consent and approval,
100% of all lessons with homoseuxal conent requires the consent and approval of parents.
In additional seriousness, OUTSIDE of the public school context, exposing 10 and 11 year olds to homosexual materials would be a criminal act.
Bravo. If the school continues to press the issue, have your daughter submit an essay examining the rhyme and meter found in the old vegetarian classic: "Beans, Beans, the Musical Food".
Obviously the reporter could learn the teacher’s name from one of the PO’ed parents, but chose not to publish it.
A liberal teacher tried to shove in a piece of propaganda. I read the editorial, and it was much to advanced for 5th graders to understand. They can not conduct a proper response to that. They are too young to understand the moral risks, health risks, and societal implications of permitting same sex marriage. They just figure that it should be permitted because the two people love each other, and they should be able to get married.
If only more schools would listen to their parents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.