Obama kindergarten sex ed
I had a great discussion at work the other day, which should provide fodder for more than one post. One of the issues that came up was the release this week of an ad by John McCain that accused Obama of supporting comprehensive sex education for kindergartners; one of my coworkers stated that the intention was only to educate them about sexual predators so that they could protect themselves better.
So yesterday, Sean Hannity spent perhaps five minutes discussing the kindergarten sex education issue, and I had a little more basis to do some research and thought I’d share what I found with you.
To summarize: the McCain camp made the statement about Obama being in favor of kindergarten-age sex education. I’m not sure where there’s any current Obama camp response; I did find one from 15 months ago that echoed what was said in the office that "You can teach a kid about what's appropriate and not appropriate to protect them from predators out there", which I found here, among other places. According to that piece (and others), Obama spokesman Bill Burton issued a document “showing” that the Sexuality Information And Education Council of the United States has a curriculum for those in kindergarten, as does the Oregon State Board of Education. FWIW, the OSBOE document (you can find a link here) is a pretty sensible document, and they seem to have a reasonable handle on the concept of “age-appropriate”. HOWEVER: according to the guy writing the article (Daniel Brody, never heard of him before, so I can't vouch for his credibility but things do seem to fit together), he was referred to the OSBOE document by Obama’s people in 2007; that same year, they sent the SIECUS guidelines to MSNBC.
You can find the SIECUS document here. They divide the curriculum up by age; “Level 1” is defined on page 50 as ages 5-8. It then describes several different areas of the curriculum, with an accompanying educational objective by target level. Some of the material there is completely reasonable, IMHO. Other topics are completely insane to even be mentioning to any child in the Level 1 age group:
· Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation. (page 51)
· Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not. (page 51)
· Masturbation should be done in a private place. (page 51)
· People often kiss, hug, touch, and engage in other sexual behaviors with one another to show caring and to feel good (page 52 – do we really need a reference to “sexual behavior”? “What’s sexual behavior, mommy?”)
· Like other body parts, the genitals need care.(page 58 – what does Susie and Billy’s kindergarten teacher do – show pictures? Describe things? Hopefully, mommy and/or daddy have already taught them how to wash themselves. I don’t remember any particular need for any other care for me, my siblings, or my own kids at that age).
· Sexually Transmitted Diseases (page 63 – the last point excepted about picking up needles found on the ground, do we REALLY need to start teaching kids at this age about STDs?
· HIV/AIDS (page 64 contains 11 new points focused on HIV/AIDS. I’m a little torn here, but my general feeling is that it’s too much information for “Level 1” children
· Sexual abuse (page 67 – yes, it’s true – one portion of the curriculum focuses on abuse and predation. As you can plainly see, though, predation is not the only topic covered)
Part of the problem here is one of resources and time allocation: if we’re teaching this stuff, it takes repetition to sink in – you can’t just mention it once so what do we do about all the other legitimate diseases (cancer, diabetes, mental illness, Downs syndrome, tuberculosis, etc etc etc). The guideline acknowledges this on page 81, though they do state that ideally, all programs would cover all topics. OTOH, page 82 says that you can’t just present the bullet points to consider the job done; you’ve got a responsibility to fill in the information when necessary. What do you say when Johnny asks teacher how masturbation feels good, when he went home yesterday and tried it in a private place and didn’t feel good, is there something wrong with me?
More directly relevant to my discussion of the other day, however, is the Obama campaign’s denial that Obama’s comments supported anything EXCEPT warning them about predators. In thinking about this, “unwanted touching” doesn’t even have anything directly to do with sex education. It’s the same as finding a needle on the ground, or being exposed to another person’s blood – don’t touch it. In the case of predators, I believe that general guidelines are sufficient: don’t let strangers touch you, don’t touch strangers, run away, private parts are private, even when it’s mommy or daddy unless you’re hurting and need their help. There is no requirement that this be couched at this age level in any kind of sexual context.
We all know that there’s spin on both sides. But in this case, Obama’s spokesman apparently refers to a document that puts the lie to his own words. I have referred to this tactic (on all sides, in many situations) as lying by telling half the truth. And unfortunately, the defense of Obama in this particular appears to have been based on an acceptance of the Obama spin machine’s denial. I doubt this is my coworker's primary issue and I doubt that finding this out will sway his opinion much, if at all. But I did want to provide him and you with a few more facts.
UPDATE: OK, I found the McCain ad that apparently set off the furor. If you haven’t seen it, it’s embedded here. There’s also a link to the Illinois Senate bill at the top of that same page. You have to wade through the legalese, but boiled down it says that each class offered in any grade K through 6 SHALL (a magical legal word which compels action) include instruction on prevention of STDs including AIDS. Then, there’s language (subparagraph c(2)) that says material shall be age-appropriate, which leaves the door wide open for interpretation, and sure as God/Darwin made little green apples, some teachers will construe that as permission to teach materials at the kindergarten level which others will believe are best left alone until 10th grade.
Also, apparently a lot of the objection is to the use of the term “comprehensive”. Whether it was the right word to use or not, the Illinois senate bill uses precisely that phrase – “comprehensive sex education” – when referring to everything which comes within the definition of the act, including what’s taught to kindergartners. And yep, I agree, that’s the McCain people using the truth to convey the wrong impression, because the word “comprehensive” is not used in the act (I hope!) the same way most of us would use the word in normal discourse.
So yesterday, Sean Hannity spent perhaps five minutes discussing the kindergarten sex education issue, and I had a little more basis to do some research and thought I’d share what I found with you.
To summarize: the McCain camp made the statement about Obama being in favor of kindergarten-age sex education. I’m not sure where there’s any current Obama camp response; I did find one from 15 months ago that echoed what was said in the office that "You can teach a kid about what's appropriate and not appropriate to protect them from predators out there", which I found here, among other places. According to that piece (and others), Obama spokesman Bill Burton issued a document “showing” that the Sexuality Information And Education Council of the United States has a curriculum for those in kindergarten, as does the Oregon State Board of Education. FWIW, the OSBOE document (you can find a link here) is a pretty sensible document, and they seem to have a reasonable handle on the concept of “age-appropriate”. HOWEVER: according to the guy writing the article (Daniel Brody, never heard of him before, so I can't vouch for his credibility but things do seem to fit together), he was referred to the OSBOE document by Obama’s people in 2007; that same year, they sent the SIECUS guidelines to MSNBC.
You can find the SIECUS document here. They divide the curriculum up by age; “Level 1” is defined on page 50 as ages 5-8. It then describes several different areas of the curriculum, with an accompanying educational objective by target level. Some of the material there is completely reasonable, IMHO. Other topics are completely insane to even be mentioning to any child in the Level 1 age group:
· Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation. (page 51)
· Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not. (page 51)
· Masturbation should be done in a private place. (page 51)
· People often kiss, hug, touch, and engage in other sexual behaviors with one another to show caring and to feel good (page 52 – do we really need a reference to “sexual behavior”? “What’s sexual behavior, mommy?”)
· Like other body parts, the genitals need care.(page 58 – what does Susie and Billy’s kindergarten teacher do – show pictures? Describe things? Hopefully, mommy and/or daddy have already taught them how to wash themselves. I don’t remember any particular need for any other care for me, my siblings, or my own kids at that age).
· Sexually Transmitted Diseases (page 63 – the last point excepted about picking up needles found on the ground, do we REALLY need to start teaching kids at this age about STDs?
· HIV/AIDS (page 64 contains 11 new points focused on HIV/AIDS. I’m a little torn here, but my general feeling is that it’s too much information for “Level 1” children
· Sexual abuse (page 67 – yes, it’s true – one portion of the curriculum focuses on abuse and predation. As you can plainly see, though, predation is not the only topic covered)
Part of the problem here is one of resources and time allocation: if we’re teaching this stuff, it takes repetition to sink in – you can’t just mention it once so what do we do about all the other legitimate diseases (cancer, diabetes, mental illness, Downs syndrome, tuberculosis, etc etc etc). The guideline acknowledges this on page 81, though they do state that ideally, all programs would cover all topics. OTOH, page 82 says that you can’t just present the bullet points to consider the job done; you’ve got a responsibility to fill in the information when necessary. What do you say when Johnny asks teacher how masturbation feels good, when he went home yesterday and tried it in a private place and didn’t feel good, is there something wrong with me?
More directly relevant to my discussion of the other day, however, is the Obama campaign’s denial that Obama’s comments supported anything EXCEPT warning them about predators. In thinking about this, “unwanted touching” doesn’t even have anything directly to do with sex education. It’s the same as finding a needle on the ground, or being exposed to another person’s blood – don’t touch it. In the case of predators, I believe that general guidelines are sufficient: don’t let strangers touch you, don’t touch strangers, run away, private parts are private, even when it’s mommy or daddy unless you’re hurting and need their help. There is no requirement that this be couched at this age level in any kind of sexual context.
We all know that there’s spin on both sides. But in this case, Obama’s spokesman apparently refers to a document that puts the lie to his own words. I have referred to this tactic (on all sides, in many situations) as lying by telling half the truth. And unfortunately, the defense of Obama in this particular appears to have been based on an acceptance of the Obama spin machine’s denial. I doubt this is my coworker's primary issue and I doubt that finding this out will sway his opinion much, if at all. But I did want to provide him and you with a few more facts.
UPDATE: OK, I found the McCain ad that apparently set off the furor. If you haven’t seen it, it’s embedded here. There’s also a link to the Illinois Senate bill at the top of that same page. You have to wade through the legalese, but boiled down it says that each class offered in any grade K through 6 SHALL (a magical legal word which compels action) include instruction on prevention of STDs including AIDS. Then, there’s language (subparagraph c(2)) that says material shall be age-appropriate, which leaves the door wide open for interpretation, and sure as God/Darwin made little green apples, some teachers will construe that as permission to teach materials at the kindergarten level which others will believe are best left alone until 10th grade.
Also, apparently a lot of the objection is to the use of the term “comprehensive”. Whether it was the right word to use or not, the Illinois senate bill uses precisely that phrase – “comprehensive sex education” – when referring to everything which comes within the definition of the act, including what’s taught to kindergartners. And yep, I agree, that’s the McCain people using the truth to convey the wrong impression, because the word “comprehensive” is not used in the act (I hope!) the same way most of us would use the word in normal discourse.
Labels: Obama kindergarten sex
posted by pyroman at 2:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home