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.
Since the school's letter to parents provides an ex post facto description of the incident (and the book), I would have to conclude the mom did not know what was being taught.
That's fair. And confirmed with this line from the article:
Quote:
In Sinclair's case, she's not sure how the teacher talked to her daughter. One day, Sinclair said her daughter came home worried that her dad might no longer like girls.
Sinclair also worries that her daughter's education was interrupted to prioritize one type of diversity over another. It was two days after meeting with the principal that Sinclair was handed a letter saying it was the girl's last day in school and that the situation was "not a good fit."
The bolded part is what triggered this whole discussion between Sinclcair and the school.
A 4 year old asking that question -- about her dad's sexual preferences -- clearly shows there was more discussion beyond "this is a daddy" and "this is a mommy".
having a clue as to what was being taught via conversations with her daughter does not begin to imply that she had access to the curriculum, as you earlier claimed.
The school sent out a letter discussing the curriculum. The parents in a parent co op are highly involved in the class and the running of the school. If she wasn't aware, then she is the one at fault. My kid goes to a regular old public school, and I have access to his curriculum any time I want.
You haven't demonstrated that they even have the capacity for what they're being taught, and that's the very definition of poor education. Your attempt to defend this is "I'm a parent, so I don't need to". Like willful ignorance is an acceptable answer?
And like you said, a 4 year old already knows the definition of "mommy" and "daddy". So why teach that over again? That's poor education too.
So either this curriculum is:
A) teaching something they already know (definitions) or
B) teaching something they don't yet know (relationships between family members)
Which is it? If it's A, that's poor education. Teach them something new.
If it's B, prove they have the capacity to understand different types of relationships (parent-child, parent-parent, sibling-sibling, etc).
I didn't make any claim regarding childrens understanding of the concept of love.
If a child knows what parents are they have a (mommy and a daddy) they may not know that other children have different types of parents (grandparents, step parents, adoptive parents, same sex parents) so while thy know what parent are, they may not know about other types of parents. So it is teaching something new that is related to knowledge that they already have.
Care to back up your claims that parents are starting the gender reassignment process on 3-5 year olds?
Or are you going to deflect again?
That's fair. And confirmed with this line from the article:
The bolded part is what triggered this whole discussion between Sinclcair and the school.
A 4 year old asking that question -- about her dad's sexual preferences -- clearly shows there was more discussion beyond "this is a daddy" and "this is a mommy".
I can't tell you the number of times I've heard of miscommunications based on what a young child heard.
I know a teacher you upset a lot of children because she said as a fund raising event they would be selling afghans. There were several children present who were recent immigrants from Afghanistan and they were really upset.
A private company has the right to refuse service to a customer. So a baker that doesn't want to service a straight couple should be able to, but a baker MUST service a gay couple. So again a private company has the right to refuse to service a customer, unless that customer is gay. That is equality.
People with kids or grandchildren, pay attention. If this is happening in this city, you don't think they are pushing even more stuff in places like NYC, LA etc. They are. Things are sure picking up quick, stay positive, stay vigilant, and don't give up on your morals.
A private company has the right to refuse service to a customer. So a baker that doesn't want to service a straight couple should be able to, but a baker MUST service a gay couple. So again a private company has the right to refuse to service a customer, unless that customer is gay. That is equality.
People with kids or grandchildren, pay attention. If this is happening in this city, you don't think they are pushing even more stuff in places like NYC, LA etc. They are. Things are sure picking up quick, stay positive, stay vigilant, and don't give up on your morals.
This has nothing to do with public accommodation laws. And in states that include sexual orientation in their PA laws, you can not refuse service to a straight couple either since heterosexual is a sexual orientation too.
I didn't make any claim regarding childrens understanding of the concept of love.
If a child knows what parents are they have a (mommy and a daddy) they may not know that other children have different types of parents (grandparents, step parents, adoptive parents, same sex parents) so while thy know what parent are, they may not know about other types of parents. So it is teaching something new that is related to knowledge that they already have.
Care to back up your claims that parents are starting the gender reassignment process on 3-5 year olds?
Or are you going to deflect again?
There are only two types of parents: mothers and fathers. Their relationships can be in any combination, and in this case, talk about those relationships led to their daughter asking about her father's sexual orientation.
Why you refuse to acknowledge that, I don't know. Talking about definitions of "mommy" and "daddy" alone wouldn't lead to talks about sexual preferences. Talking about relationships would. Relationships. Types of love. Same thing.
So it's back to my question...
Is 4 too young to learn about hetero and homosexual relationships? If no, please show me the academic studies showing 4 year olds are capable of understanding that. If yes, you agree with me, and we can move on.
I can't tell you the number of times I've heard of miscommunications based on what a young child heard.
I know a teacher you upset a lot of children because she said as a fund raising event they would be selling afghans. There were several children present who were recent immigrants from Afghanistan and they were really upset.
There are only two types of parents: mothers and fathers. Their relationships can be in any combination, and in this case, talk about those relationships led to their daughter asking about her father's sexual orientation.
Why you refuse to acknowledge that, I don't know. Talking about definitions of "mommy" and "daddy" alone wouldn't lead to talks about sexual preferences. Talking about relationships would. Relationships. Types of love. Same thing.
So it's back to my question...
Is 4 too young to learn about hetero and homosexual relationships? If no, please show me the academic studies showing 4 year olds are capable of understanding that. If yes, you agree with me, and we can move on.
Let's see the studies.
Where do you get that father's sexual orientation was being questioned? Even heterosexual males may not like women.
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.