State (Kansas) says parents must sign off on sex ed

TOPEKA, Kan. - School districts in Kansas must get parents’ written permission before teaching their children sex education, the state Board of Education decided Wednesday.

The board adopted the policy in a 6-4 vote. Up to now, most Kansas districts had an “opt-out” policy — they enrolled children in sex ed unless a parent objected in writing.

(snip)

One board member wants the new policy to go further and require abstinence-only courses. “We need to send the correct message,” Kathy Martin said.

Under her proposal, a school could lose its state accreditation if it did not offer nine weeks of instruction on “abstinence until marriage” at least once in grades 6-9.

The board said it would discuss Martin’s proposal at a later meeting.

(snip)

In November, after a debate that attracted worldwide attention, the board adopted standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11856589/


This is just dangerous for everybody.

This article resonates with a similar article on Missouri in LBN today:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2170204

I believe it's every parent's responsibility to know what their children are being taught in school and to be actively involved in their child's education. Abstinence should be taught as part of a larger sex ed cirriculum, but I think 9 weeks of it might be a bit much.

in addition to eliminating incorrect information that children have about how a woman becomes pregnant. You cannot control everything they do, but you can at least arm your children with knowledge.

And then you have to let them decide on their own how to use the information. Hopefully they decide to do the right thing.

parents like mine, for example. They both- intentionally- left me completely in the dark about everything involving dating, sex, etc. Being gay myself didn't help much, but still. They didn't even try.

And their lack of illumination on the subject wasn't even religiously motivated! Usually though, it is, at least from what I have seen and heard.

This is why schools should teach sex ed without the parents' permission- and they should treat it as an obligation to public health for everyong graduating to know all the realities of sex and intercourse. That is a state concern.

If parents don't teach their kids anything, they'll be at risk and will put others at risk. Oh, religion! They'll not have sex until they get married, and since everyone knows people in gaaaawwwwwdly marriages don't have to worry about those filthy sex diseases because people in gaaawwwwdly marriages don't cheat! To add to their illogic, they'll say about adultery statistics that if people's marriages really were gaaawwwdly, they wouldn't be cheating and thus wouldn't get STDs, so maybe they deserve to get sick and die!

NO SARCASM AT ALL. That's how some of these idiots think, and it puts other people's kids at risk. I have no doubt there are some religiously twisted kids out there, for example, whose parents have taught them that married people don't get STDs. It's NOT all that far a stretch- it's sort of like the midguided and dangerous belief that having sex with a virgin can cure HIV. That's one of the reasons the African HIV rates, for example are/were exploding in the past several years (I don't know if they're addressing these incorrect cultural beliefs or not, but if not, they need to do so).

These people are a problem our country needs to solve. I'm thinking we need to prohibit religion-inspired legislation, but short of a Constitutional amendment, I don't know how that can be done.

In our school district, parents have the option to come to school and view the sex education materials themselves. They can take their kids out of the classes if they want to do that. I only know one parent who came to see the material. She left her daughter in the class, too. I know the teachers here, and they do an excellent job.

When I went to school on visits, I often looked at the textbooks. I wanted to see how they were being taught, and with what materials. My daughter's geometry teacher told me that I was the only parent who ever asked to see the textbook.

Teachers are shocked when parents ask about materials and curriculum, because so few parents can be bothered.

at her male friend's pond behind his house, I was the only parent out of 100 kids' parents to call the host's parents (who I know) to ask if they knew about the party and would be present. The parents knew, they chaperoned (patroled), they took all car keys and I let my daughter go.

Some parents just abdicate their responsibilities totally. To not even bother making a phone call like I made is sheer madness when it comes to protecting your teenagers!

That would make a big difference for most kids.

When I was in high school we had a father/son or mother/daughter sex education that was provided in the evening. It was once a week I think for 8 weeks.

That would be one way of educating the kids.

I agree it is the responsibility of every parent to know what their children are being taught and actively involved. The first part is easy enough for the schools to do by informing thru information provided at the beginning of the school year as well as sending home notices about such classes. Getting the parents involved is not as easy. There are different levels of being involved. Most of the time not as much as it should be.

"Sex is dirty, undesirable and never acceptable unless two people are adamant about conceiving a child."

What's next? Forcing parents to opt their children out of mandatory theology classes???

These clowns need to keep their fucking religion out of our public schools!

:grr:

Both my kids, now out of high school, had to have permission slips signed. Our schools even sent home brochures with a basic description of the course outline. That was 10 years ago, I know, but has it really gotten LESS restrictive lately? This just makes common sense, imo. Little to lose by not doing, and it builds trust and goodwill with parents.

both of my boys, now out of high school had sex ed classes. I never signed anything nor was I asked. I had no problem with it.

From what I could tell this is leading to other things. We have one little hint in the article. It will not stop here until we boot these bozos off our board.

And I was in 5th grade nearly 20 years ago.

Only a few other states have such “opt-in” requirements on sex education, according to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a group that promotes sex education. Among them: Arizona, Nevada and Utah.

Maybe it isn't a state requirement, just a school policy. But remember, I'm in the pointy-headed liberal capital of the east. If anything, I'd thought people in our area would be LESS likely to be sending home permission slips for anything at all!

This is straight out of the 70s, along with 'bussing'--when sex ed. was first introduced there was a hue and cry...in most jurisdictions, liberal folded and allowed this 'permission' to get education as a compromise in most school districts.

Anyone that went to school in the 70s probably remembers this one...had it at my school way up in Canuckistan.

school sex-ed programs, and will tell their kids nothing, or else feed them inaccurate information. If that leads to more teen pregnancies or STDs, it is not in society's best interest. This is clearly a religious battle.

The 7th grade curriculum was worked into science class (biology) and the 9th grade in health class. No consent was needed for those, as they were required classes.

The 5th grade class was basic, and really didn't cover much detail. The girls went with the female teachers and the boys went with the male teachers. I don't know what the boys talked about, but we talked about getting periods and how to use sanitary napkins.

The second day, we watched movies of animals giving birth-I particularly remember a cow giving birth and it looked pretty gory to my 9 year old self.

The thing was, with the consent forms, the school also had a session on a weeknight that the parents were invited to in order to discuss the appropriate things to talk about. This is really the best way to handle it. It was a religiously conservative community, so the schools were sensitive to that. What it came down to in some ways was that the school didn't want to deal with 10 year old girls getting their first period during school hours and not know what was happening-"Carrie" aside, that is a frequent concern.

I don't want to get involved with teaching anything controversial unless I have parent permission.

And that includes anything that talks about S-E-X.

I do not think there should be either an "opt-in" or "opt-out" policy. I am of the minority that does not believe that parents should dictate this thing--there is a much broader social interest at work.

This should be a health issue, not a moral issue. But sex-ed and reproductive health care will never be viewed from that perspective.

in Oklahoma we had to have signed permission to view the reproduction process film in 6th grade...girls in one room, boys in the another... And if I remember correctly, that was about it for Sex Ed at the time.

The whole point of "opt-in" sex ed programs (versus opt-out ones) is to discourage participation and make the programs more difficult to administer.

Opt-Out if it is for abstinence-only?

Opt-In if it is for sex education without abstinence-only?

abstinance training, then nothing.

State (Kansas) says parents must sign off on sex

Which would be great, considering some of the craziness that has come out of Kansas lately. They should have permission before having children.

:think: :think: :think: :think: :think: :think: :think:

Too soon, we will see outbreaks of plague, pillorying (of the wrong people, I'd advocate it for some) and attempts to make witches sink in water in places like this as the tard patrol finishes leading the 'heartland' back to the middle ages. I suggest that just as the flatulators of the Inquisition, the (male) town fathers of Salem, the Klan, and those advocating unenlightened capitalism need to be run out of town on a rail (preferably with tar coating, and possibly after a whipping) the knotheaded perverts who want to keep the American people benighted should receive a sound application of boot to arse (theirs) in public. Who's up for a field trip ?

edit: oh yeah, I wonder when they're going to take over the lead from TX in unintended teen pregnancy and STD rates. Fuckin DUH.

What if people with sense start signing their children out of the abstinence only drivel?

O-kay. Opt-in it is. You know what? I've always been a big fan of base 12 arithmetic. It's just so much easier 'cause 12 has more prime factors than 10. So guess what? I'm not signing little Jane's permission slip for math class until they get with the program and start teaching base 12! That oughta show 'em! :sarcasm:

they're still teachin' 'em to do math on their fingers!

have twelve fingers, like their uncle grandpa!

Children From Sex", by Judith Levine. Discusses how all this "abstinence only" crap and other aspects of the current US hysteria over teens and sex is actually HARMFUL to kids. Kids need accurate, comprehensive info in order to protect themselves, and inculcating them with the idea that sex is dirty and evil is no way to produce happy, healthily-adjusted adults. Contains an absolutely kickass foreward by Dr. Joycelyn Elders - here's my favorite quote from the foreward:

"Perhaps what is most valuable about this book is the way it outlines the dominant, and often hidden, fact of discussions about sexuality in this country: the influence of the religious right (or what I have been known to call the "very religious non-Christian right"). I have spoken and written manhy times about my disgust with people who have a love affair with the fetus bot won't take care of children once they are born. "Harmful to Minors" not only makes explicit the crucial importance of frank and accurate information about sexuality being widely available to people of all ages, it lays out a sensible, positive, and possible program to do so."

The book was published in 2002, Certainly things have become much, much worse since then. (most of the research for the book was conducted between 1996 and early 2000. The author had a VERY difficult time finding a publisher who wanted to touch this subject matter with a ten-foot pole.)