Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-11-2008, 10:37 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
877 posts, read 2,769,863 times
Reputation: 318

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That was/is already taught in Illinois schools in kindergarten, and the bill's supporters would have known that. The State Board of Ed which monitors legislative activity would have told them that teaching personal space, inappropriate touching, etc., in kindergarten, etc., were already covered in the state standards making the bill Obama supported unnecessary if that were his purpose.

Illinois Kindergarten Standards excerpts:

Learning Standard A
Demonstrate procedures for communication in positive ways, resolving differences and preventing conflict.
Recall safety rules at home, at school, and in the community.
Recognize when to ask an adult for help.
...
Discuss good and bad behaviors.


Learning Standard C
Demonstrate skills essential to enhancing health and avoiding dangerous situations.
Discuss who strangers are and why and when one should be cautious around them.
Define ‘good touch’ and ‘bad touch’.
Discuss how to react in dangerous situations.


To recap - they didn't need a new bill to teach kindergarteners good touch/bad touch. That was already a part of the state standards.
One thing that I am happy about by being part of the forum is the opportunity to learn things, even if I may not be in agreement with someone's viewpoint (not directed at you but a general statement). Thank you for the information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-11-2008, 10:39 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
877 posts, read 2,769,863 times
Reputation: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenejen View Post
There was a gap in curricular instruction that the bill was meant to address. Go to bed, will ya!
And the ability to learn even more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2008, 10:58 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,135 posts, read 44,939,566 times
Reputation: 13735
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenejen View Post
There was a gap in curricular instruction that the bill was meant to address.
What gap? This the first I'm hearing of a supposed 'gap'. And do you think the dangers of molestation/abuse started with the new millennium? Use your heads people. The education Obama claims was the purpose of the bill was already in place! We'd be idiotic to not have it in place. My kids had exactly the type of education Obama claims as the purpose of the bill 25 and 27 years ago when they were in kindergarten.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2008, 11:27 PM
 
Location: Baltimore
8,299 posts, read 8,616,169 times
Reputation: 3663
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
What gap? This the first I'm hearing of a supposed 'gap'. And do you think the dangers of molestation/abuse started with the new millennium? Use your heads people. The education Obama claims was the purpose of the bill was already in place! We'd be idiotic to not have it in place. My kids had exactly the type of education Obama claims as the purpose of the bill 25 and 27 years ago when they were in kindergarten.
Crap, I thought I included the link to that before and now I can't find it. The site was ABC news and they interviewed people involved with the bill, one of whom was head of the Illinois Parents Association (if I remember correctly), and they talked about the lack of training for many of those involved with sexual abuse prevention in schools. Hence, the need for additional curricular materials.

And I read the bill this afternoon when I posted a link to it.

Edit--Found the link. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...he-fact-c.html

Last edited by helenejen; 09-11-2008 at 11:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2008, 11:38 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,135 posts, read 44,939,566 times
Reputation: 13735
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenejen View Post
ABC news in Chicago ... interviewed two women involved with the bill, one of whom was head of the Illinois Parents Association (if I remember correctly), and they talked about the lack of training for many of those involved with sexual abuse prevention in schools. Hence, the need for additional curricular materials.
OK - what does that have to do with mandating STD education for kindergarteners?
http://www.city-data.com/forum/5233018-post51.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2008, 11:46 PM
 
Location: Baltimore
8,299 posts, read 8,616,169 times
Reputation: 3663
The intent was not STD education for kindergartners.
Political Punch

"I spoke to two Illinois advocates who were involved with assessing the bill in 2003 – Gretchen McDowell, the past president of the Illinois Parent-Teacher Association and Kelvy Brown, the legislative coordinator of the Chicago Department of Public Health – to see what the bill was trying to accomplish with regards to kindergartners.

The bill was updating Illinois law on health and sex education, addressing sex education classes that already existed at the time, and offering guidelines to instructors as to what should be in those classes....

The word “comprehensive” appears just once in the bill as applied to kindergartners, it the section saying that "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV" -- in other words, the word was focused on pre-existing classes that may exist.

McDowell points out that the bill states “All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.”

So what does “comprehensive sex education” mean in terms of kindergartners?

“It means teaching kids about families,” McDowell says....

"No reasonable person would believe we’re talking about teaching kindergartners about sexual intercourse," McDowell says. "I don’t think Sen. McCain believes that.”

McDowell says that Obama was correct, and says that the Illinois PTA had been active for a long time in encouraging schools to educate children about improper touching.

“A lot of schools don’t have people trained to explain that kind of thing to students without scaring them,” she says.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2008, 11:48 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
789 posts, read 1,335,556 times
Reputation: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenejen View Post
The intent was not STD education for kindergartners.
Political Punch

"I spoke to two Illinois advocates who were involved with assessing the bill in 2003 – Gretchen McDowell, the past president of the Illinois Parent-Teacher Association and Kelvy Brown, the legislative coordinator of the Chicago Department of Public Health – to see what the bill was trying to accomplish with regards to kindergartners.

The bill was updating Illinois law on health and sex education, addressing sex education classes that already existed at the time, and offering guidelines to instructors as to what should be in those classes....

The word “comprehensive” appears just once in the bill as applied to kindergartners, it the section saying that "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV" -- in other words, the word was focused on pre-existing classes that may exist.

McDowell points out that the bill states “All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.”

So what does “comprehensive sex education” mean in terms of kindergartners?

“It means teaching kids about families,” McDowell says....

"No reasonable person would believe we’re talking about teaching kindergartners about sexual intercourse," McDowell says. "I don’t think Sen. McCain believes that.”

McDowell says that Obama was correct, and says that the Illinois PTA had been active for a long time in encouraging schools to educate children about improper touching.

“A lot of schools don’t have people trained to explain that kind of thing to students without scaring them,” she says.
I think this settles it. Are we all in agreement?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2008, 11:50 PM
 
Location: Baltimore
8,299 posts, read 8,616,169 times
Reputation: 3663
Quote:
Originally Posted by fancofu View Post
I think this settles it. Are we all in agreement?
I already gave on the other thread on this very topic. But I still don't think we are in agreement. But I'm definitely done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2008, 11:52 PM
 
Location: southern california
61,286 posts, read 87,497,027 times
Reputation: 55564
i thought you would never ask. since adultery is 50% i think teaching kids bout AIDS should pass to educators not the irresponsible.
FYI aids does not show up for 90 days on a blood test and does not show physical symptoms for 7 years. kids are passing aids on a large scale right now and don't even know it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 12:00 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,135 posts, read 44,939,566 times
Reputation: 13735
Quote:
Originally Posted by fancofu View Post
I think this settles it. Are we all in agreement?
No. What they 'claim' it means is very different from what it actually attempted to mandate. I will have to ask you both again, what do any of these claims as to the intention of the bill have to do with mandating STD education for kindergarteners?

There was absolutely no reason to change the STD education requirement from grades 6-12 to grades K-12 to accomplish what they allege were the intentions of the bill.

The bill holds alcohol and drug education off until 5th grade, but mandates STD education in kindergarten. Why? And why would Obama give mandating STD education for kindergarteners his stamp of approval by supporting the bill?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top