Speaking of substandard education...

[cheri1122]

http://www.commondreams.org/news/20...ge-sons-terror-based-sex-education-goes-viral

It is a crime that this kind of misinformation is passed off as "education" these days. If you really want to reduce STDs, you start by increasing real education on the subject, and if you want to reduce abortion, you start by reducing the need for it. It will never be eliminated, it's been part of women's lives since women began having unwanted pregnancies - the best we can do is educate boys and girls properly. [And stop trying to emotionally bludgeon and shame the women - but not the men.] Abstinence is a fine goal, but it isn't remotely realistic as the sole option presented to hormonal adolescents who are prone to doing dumb things, inhabiting a body preprogrammed to procreate, and with intensity, to say the least. That has been borne out over and over again, so why are our young people still being misinformed? [Because: faith based teaching.]
Tell them why they shouldn't [there are plenty of reasons], but tell them the truth, for crying out loud!
I think one of the most effective teaching tools is the teen who can tell them from personal experience - and I don't mean someone like Bristol Palin, who had plenty of emotional and family support. I mean someone whose parents were not accepting or forgiving, whose 'boyfriend' ran out on her, who is trying to raise a baby without enough money to cover the steady supply of diapers. That's a truth they ought to hear, not the nonsense they get handed by the currently [politically] popular "educators". SMH.

 

[paullud]

Abstinence is a fine goal, but it isn't remotely realistic as the sole option presented to hormonal adolescents

It's not presented as the sole option. This idiot went in with the intention of causing a problem and to disrupt the learning process that some kids could benefit from. The presenters were there to explain why abstinence is the best option, it's guaranteed to be 100% effective against pregnancies and STDs. The idiot in the class tweeting who went there with no other intention other than to attack and mock the presenters was taking their words that she doesn't agree with and making them her own. We don't know what was actually being said and it's wise not to trust the interpretation of someone with an agenda.

 

[Turtle]

You do realize that "abstinence-based" sex education is an agenda in and of itself, right?

When I was in school we had sex education, at varying levels at varying grades, but it was always in biology class, not a specially constructed sex education class, and it was always about the biology of it and not whether we should or should not be having sex. Then AIDS happened and they started telling kids that if you're going to have sex then at least use a condom, and here's why, and that's when the religious folks went batcrap crazy and introduced a political agenda into the science classroom.

Under Michigan law, under the category of HIV/AIDS and STDs, unplanned pregnancy, and pregnancy "out-of-wedlock" (out-of-wedlock is an agenda right there), teachers are required to "Discuss the benefits of abstaining from sex until marriage and the benefits of ceasing sex if a pupil is sexually active," and "Include a discussion of the possible emotional, economic, and legal consequences of sex." Seriously? Premarital sex is 100% a religious agenda morality, and requiring emotional and economic consequences of sex is to provide a foundation to further that agenda.

All they really need to do is present the biology of it all, including the diseases, and be done with it. If you show the biology of it all, and say when you do this, then this can happen, there ya go, kids aren't stupid. But ever since politics has entered the biology class, particularly the requirement to preach abstinence and the glorious reasons for doing so, we have record numbers of kids getting pregnant and STDs. Good job.

 

[Pilgrim]

There are some things that immature and inexperienced high school and college kids - all with raging hormones and newly found independence - are going to do regardless of what adults may tell them and whether they're aware of the possible adverse consequences. Premarital sex and underage drinking are only two of them.

There may be a few that are mature beyond their years and will make the right decisions - they're a small minority. There may be others who will abstain because they've been brainwashed by religious doctrine that tells them they're doomed to eternal damnation if they partake of sins of the flesh or the Demon Rum. In the final analysis it's questionable which group is better off.

 

[paullud]

You do realize that "abstinence-based" sex education is an agenda in and of itself, right?

Sex education itself is an agenda. There are clearly people that want abstinence taught for their own reasons but presenting it as an option doesn't hurt anything.

When I was in school we had sex education, at varying levels at varying grades, but it was always in biology class, not a specially constructed sex education class, and it was always about the biology of it and not whether we should or should not be having sex. Then AIDS happened and they started telling kids that if you're going to have sex then at least use a condom, and here's why, and that's when the religious folks went batcrap crazy and introduced a political agenda into the science classroom.

Teen pregnancy and STD rates were increasing as parents decided that they didn't need to do the whole parenting thing. Sex education classes were seen as a necessary thing to help curb the problems.

Under Michigan law, under the category of HIV/AIDS and STDs, unplanned pregnancy, and pregnancy "out-of-wedlock" (out-of-wedlock is an agenda right there), teachers are required to "Discuss the benefits of abstaining from sex until marriage and the benefits of ceasing sex if a pupil is sexually active," and "Include a discussion of the possible emotional, economic, and legal consequences of sex." Seriously? Premarital sex is 100% a religious agenda morality, and requiring emotional and economic consequences of sex is to provide a foundation to further that agenda.

It certainly lines up with the religious beliefs but the statistics don't lie either. Look at the pregnancy and STD rates of teens that don't have sex, they are zero. Look at the rates of divorce or economic conditions for teen parents.

All they really need to do is present the biology of it all, including the diseases, and be done with it. If you show the biology of it all, and say when you do this, then this can happen, there ya go, kids aren't stupid. But ever since politics has entered the biology class, particularly the requirement to preach abstinence and the glorious reasons for doing so, we have record numbers of kids getting pregnant and STDs. Good job.

The teen pregnancy rates have been dropping for a couple of decades. The real solution is for parents to take personal responsibility. Parents are leaving the responsibility of raising their kids to the schools now.

 

[cheri1122]

It's not presented as the sole option. This idiot went in with the intention of causing a problem and to disrupt the learning process that some kids could benefit from. The presenters were there to explain why abstinence is the best option, it's guaranteed to be 100% effective against pregnancies and STDs. The idiot in the class tweeting who went there with no other intention other than to attack and mock the presenters was taking their words that she doesn't agree with and making them her own. We don't know what was actually being said and it's wise not to trust the interpretation of someone with an agenda.

First, Michigan law gives parents the right to observe the sex ed classes their kids are getting, and that's what this mother was doing [bc her son asked her to]. "This idiot" is a professor of medical humanities and bioethics, BTW, and the claim that She "went in with the intention of causing a problem and disrupting the learning process" is without a shred of evidence.
Second, abstinence IS presented as the sole option, per Michigan law. Educate yourself here:

http://school.elps.k12.mi.us/superintendent_letters/education/mde_sexed_laws_summary.pdf

Third: again, per Michigan law, the selection committee responsible for choosing the curricula for sex ed MUST include members of the clergy. That's an agenda, plain & simple - an agenda that misinforms students, rather than teach them correctly, with facts. "If we don't talk about it, they won't do it." How well has that worked out?
Last: we DO know what was actually being said, because there are examples of abstinence based sex ed all over the web, if one cares to look - there are groups that specialize in providing it, and they all work from the same basic script.. Most parents don't look, just as they don't care to teach it to their own kids, [OMG - sex!!!], or they teach what they were taught by ignorant people, and the ignorance [and STDs & pregnancies] continue, ad infinitum. Teenage girls who believe they can't get pregnant if it's only once, because that's what their friends tell them.
Saying all parents should take the responsibility of teaching it themselves is exactly like saying abstinence is all the kids need to know about: totally unrealistic, and stupid beyond belief.

 

[paullud]

First, Michigan law gives parents the right to observe the sex ed classes their kids are getting, and that's what this mother was doing [bc her son asked her to]. "This idiot" is a professor of medical humanities and bioethics, BTW, and the claim that She "went in with the intention of causing a problem and disrupting the learning process" is without a shred of evidence.

There is proof that she went in with the intention of causing a problem, the obvious one being that she caused a problem. She brought in her computer to live tweet her outrage about the program. She and her kid printed out information to challenge the teacher and tell them that the program was a waste during class. This idiot couldn't even address things in a reasonable fashion which resulted in her getting banned from school functions.

Second, abstinence IS presented as the sole option, per Michigan law. Educate yourself here:

http://school.elps.k12.mi.us/superintendent_letters/education/mde_sexed_laws_summary.pdf

This quote is from the link you provided. Try reading things next time.

"School districts must teach about the best methods for the restriction and prevention of dangerous communicable diseases, including, but not limited to HIV/AIDS. (§380.1169) Districts are not prohibited from teaching about behavioral risk reduction strategies, including the use of condoms, within their sex education program. (§380.1507)"

Then there is from another article. (Oddly this important piece of information was left out of your article. Gee, I wonder why.)

"He emphasized that the school’s sex-ed program is abstinence-based, not abstinence-only. “Abstinence-based instruction teaches that abstinence is the only way to be completely safe,” Fletcher said in the statement, according to the Lansing State Journal, “but the curriculum also reviews contraception choices. This parent attended on a day where abstinence was being taught.”

Third: again, per Michigan law, the selection committee responsible for choosing the curricula for sex ed MUST include members of the clergy. That's an agenda, plain & simple - an agenda that misinforms students, rather than teach them correctly, with facts. "If we don't talk about it, they won't do it." How well has that worked out?

The board has to include a lot of different people that are required because the board is supposed to represent the community and what standards they want to set. It's not some big conspiracy. If the clergy wants something that doesn't fit then it won't make it in, not a big deal.

Last: we DO know what was actually being said, because there are examples of abstinence based sex ed all over the web, if one cares to look - there are groups that specialize in providing it, and they all work from the same basic script..

We DON'T know what was being said because we weren't there. We know that this woman was upset and doesn't agree with what was being taught. She went in with a prejudice view as well so what she says isn't unbiased and likely isn't what was said but how she decided to process it.

Most parents don't look, just as they don't care to teach it to their own kids, [OMG - sex!!!], or they teach what they were taught by ignorant people, and the ignorance [and STDs & pregnancies] continue, ad infinitum. Teenage girls who believe they can't get pregnant if it's only once, because that's what their friends tell them.

That's the point of a sex education program.

Saying all parents should take the responsibility of teaching it themselves is exactly like saying abstinence is all the kids need to know about: totally unrealistic, and stupid beyond belief.

Thinking that parents should take responsibility for their kids is stupid beyond belief?

 

[cheri1122]

There is proof that she went in with the intention of causing a problem, the obvious one being that she caused a problem. She brought in her computer to live tweet her outrage about the program. She and her kid printed out information to challenge the teacher and tell them that the program was a waste during class. This idiot couldn't even address things in a reasonable fashion which resulted in her getting banned from school functions.

Causing a problem constitutes proof that one intended to cause a problem? Not in any sense I know of. You don't know why she brought her computer, maybe she planned to get some emails done during slow stretches. That she printed out info contradicting the teacher speaks to her intelligence, as one would expect of a Professor of Bioethics. They deal in fact, not wishful thinking, and when they are confronted with nonsense, they provide proof, not claims.



This quote is from the link you provided. Try reading things next time.

" Michigan has a model health education curriculum that is used by a majority of school districts in Michigan. In HIV/STD prevention, there are model curricula for Grades 4-5, 7-8, and, 9-12. The elementary lessons include one lesson per grade level. The seven-lesson middle school module is “abstinence-only” (i.e., condoms are not discussed as a means of risk reduction). The 22-lesson high school module includes abstinence-based and abstinence-only options. Districts can choose to adopt, adapt, or disregard the model curriculum and implement commercially or locally developed curricula. "
IOW, not prohibited means they can, while this paragraph [try reading things yourself] says they don't have to. Whether abstinence only or abstinence based, the information given is incorrect and incomplete.



"School districts must teach about the best methods for the restriction and prevention of dangerous communicable diseases, including, but not limited to HIV/AIDS. (§380.1169) Districts are not prohibited from teaching about behavioral risk reduction strategies, including the use of condoms, within their sex education program. (§380.1507)"

Then there is from another article. (Oddly this important piece of information was left out of your article. Gee, I wonder why.)

"He emphasized that the school’s sex-ed program is abstinence-based, not abstinence-only. “Abstinence-based instruction teaches that abstinence is the only way to be completely safe,” Fletcher said in the statement, according to the Lansing State Journal, “but the curriculum also reviews contraception choices. This parent attended on a day where abstinence was being taught.”

This parent has contradictory information from her son, which is why she was there to begin with: to see for herself. What she saw was a mockery of 'education'.




The board has to include a lot of different people that are required because the board is supposed to represent the community and what standards they want to set. It's not some big conspiracy. If the clergy wants something that doesn't fit then it won't make it in, not a big deal.

The board is required to include those who have a direct stake: parents of students at that school, health education professionals, and community health officials. Clergy have no role in public school education, sex included. They do not belong in the process, period. If parents choose religious teaching, they must provide it outside the school.



We DON'T know what was being said because we weren't there. We know that this woman was upset and doesn't agree with what was being taught. She went in with a prejudice view as well so what she says isn't unbiased and likely isn't what was said but how she decided to process it.

Again: there are abstinence programs available for perusal all over the net - we don't need to be there to know what was being taught. You have no idea if her view was "prejudiced" when she went in, more imagining on your part with no evidence. Of course she was upset - who wouldn't be, hearing their child being taught ideology, in place of facts?



That's the point of a sex education program.

The point is to reduce STDs and teen pregnancies, which abstinence only and abstinence based programs fail to do, over and over. Argue all you like, call a Professor [and concerned parent] an idiot, pretend the clergy should have a say in public education - but you are wrong. Abstinence sex ed is a glaring failure and an embarrassment to education.



Thinking that parents should take responsibility for their kids is stupid beyond belief?

That's not what I said. Thinking that parents will do what they should, [take the responsibility of teaching their child correctly] is unbelievably stupid.

Try quoting correctly, next time.

 

[paullud]

That's not what I said. Thinking that parents will do what they should, [take the responsibility of teaching their child correctly] is unbelievably stupid.

Try quoting correctly, next time.

I quoted your comment exactly. My point was that the parents SHOULD take on the responsibility and not leave it up to the schools to raise their children, not that they would.

Try understanding correctly, next time.

 

[skyraider]

How many parents can do fractions, basic percentage problems, or even know where Pearl Harbor is located or what ocean surrounds it? My 2 cents.

 

[Windsor]

That's easy, pearl harbor is in Milwaukee so its clearly surrounded by lake Erie. Next question please!

 

[paulnstef39]

I'd say half can do fractions, half can't and half don't know what they are.

 

[cheri1122]

I quoted your comment exactly. My point was that the parents SHOULD take on the responsibility and not leave it up to the schools to raise their children, not that they would.

Try understanding correctly, next time.

I understood just fine, and there's no defense for that comment - you don't and can't know what I understand.
The contention "that parents SHOULD, is the real solution" is exactly like the contention that because a ruckus occurred, it proves that a ruckus was the intent: wrong. W R O N G. What parents should do is not a solution to anything at all, except possibly a question on Jeopardy. Because they don't all do what "they should", [duh!] the problem exists, and persists. Insisting that they SHOULD does nothing to solve it.

 

[paullud]

I understood just fine, and there's no defense for that comment - you don't and can't know what I understand.
The contention "that parents SHOULD, is the real solution" is exactly like the contention that because a ruckus occurred, it proves that a ruckus was the intent: wrong. W R O N G. What parents should do is not a solution to anything at all, except possibly a question on Jeopardy. Because they don't all do what "they should", [duh!] the problem exists, and persists. Insisting that they SHOULD does nothing to solve it.

If the parents did take on the responsibility then there is no need for sex education classes. That is my point. It's the same thing as saying parents should be more involved in their kids education. They should be but they aren't. I understand that parents aren't doing what they should and that is the reason for many of today's problems and why there is a need for sex education classes.

 

[cheri1122]

The teen pregnancy rates have been dropping for a couple of decades. The real solution is for parents to take personal responsibility. Parents are leaving the responsibility of raising their kids to the schools now

The first statement is not true in all states, and even if it were, it wouldn't matter bc it's not good enough.
The second statement is just fatuous, period.
The third is a generality that is more untrue than true, but again, it depends on where. The reason for this thread is a parent who is NOT leaving the responsibility to the schools, but you call her "an idiot". A Professor of Bioethics is not as smart as a truck driver, huh?

 

[jjtdrv4u]

this is great, I love this stuff, keep it going folks!

 

[skyraider]

It is 0830 Central Time, and I am going to go for a walk now. By the time I get back, all worldly problems should be solved in here because we/us have the solutions. Amen?

 

[cheri1122]

this is great, I love this stuff, keep it going folks!

Just don't forget to tip your server! And would it kill you to jump in?