Posted on 06/12/2012 9:54:54 AM PDT by Sopater
ONALASKA, Wash. - You can tell Onalaska is old fashioned just by looking.
"We're in the country, we're small town, we like it that way, said parent Kadra Gilliland.
But something at the elementary school last week has folks in this quiet town making noise.
"What gives this woman the right to come down here and go above our authority, is the way I look at it, said parent Curt Pannkuk.
"I was one pissed off cowboy," said parent James Gilliland.
These parents are upset about a sex education class for the fifth graders last week.
"She learned oral sex and anal sex, things 10- and 11-year-olds do not need to know, said Kadra.
When the school's principal, who was teaching the course, was asked what oral and anal sex were, she told the students.
James Gilliland couldn't believe it.
"It's basically the same as raping a kids mind and taking their innocence, he said.
"I think the principal handled it appropriately at the time; she only gave factual information, no demonstrations, said Onalaska Superintendent Scott Fenter.
Fenter says state law requires fifth graders to learn about sexually transmitted diseases.
Parents can review the curriculum, which does mention oral and anal sex, and can have their child excused.
But Fenter does not think the lesson goes too far.
"Because in 6th grade they start becoming sexually aware and you've got to teach them ahead of time, he said.
"There are some questions you just don't answer or you answer them politically correctly; she was not politically correct, said parent Jean Pannkuk.
School ends Friday, but these parents won't let their kids go back unless the curriculum is changed.
"Might as well give the kids a Kama Sutra book and teach 'em the same thing, said James Gilliland.
Since 1988, state law has required some sort of sex education beginning at fifth grade. A state spokesperson says the curriculum has only generated limited complaints since then.
They may learn about both in history, the first when talking about Clinton, the second when the history books look back on the Obama Presidency and talk about what he did to the country.
——Schools have no business, that is absolutely NO business, is sex education.——
If parents agree to send their children to a “place of education” that proscribes the simplest worship of God, Who is the beginning and end of all things, then they have no logical complaint. Anything goes.
We asked for a “God-free zone,” and God is allowing it.
-—. Free love is back, from the same socialist scum who pushed it generations ago.——
Desensitization. That’s all it is. Break down the moral order. Replace the voluntary, free society with the leviathan State.
This ping list is for the other articles of interest to homeschoolers about education and public school. This can occasionally be a fairly high volume list. Articles pinged to the Another Reason to Homeschool List will be given the keyword of ARTH. (If I remember. If I forget, please feel free to add it yourself)
The main Homeschool Ping List handles the homeschool-specific articles. I hold both the Homeschool Ping List and the Another Reason to Homeschool Ping list. Please freepmail me to let me know if you would like to be added to or removed from either list, or both.
While there is no harm in some basic education on the facts of life -(I had it in 5th grade. They had a girls only talk about the changes to expect growing up and a similar boys only talk for them but NOT sex ed)- at that age, IMO, they should still be encouraged to think that the other still has cooties.
For as long as possible.
“I think the principal handled it appropriately at the time; she only gave factual information, no demonstrations, said Onalaska Superintendent Scott Fenter.”
Well, thank God for that.
What a brainless putz.
Seriously? Demonstrations were a "considered" option? As a School Psychologist I am completely appalled by this story.
For as long as possible.
You mean that was just a fib?
Now they tell me?!
WTH?!?!?!"ONLY" factual information?!?!?! No demonstrations??????
Like somebody would even think that that was a possibility?????
So it's OK to mentally rape these kids as long as they didn't have to see it acted out in front of them????????
God help us.
Yeah, and if you or I did it to a kid down the street, we'd be brought up on charges so fast our heads would spin.
That Scott Fenter is a jackass, let me tell you. snort! They didn’t demonstrate it indeed! good thing, that!
I’m sure the transmission of sexually-transmitted diseases is demonstrated at some schools in the state: in the bathrooms, on the bus, in a vacant classroom or closet ...
One has to wonder, though, how they would be to convey any useful information about preventing STDs without going into graphic detail about sex acts. The alternative is to leave students thinking that they might contract HIV or gonorrhea from a handshake or a water fountain.
Thinking this through, one might deduce that the “safety” aspect of this mandated curriculum is simply a cover for graphically discussing sexual practices with pre-teen children.
Like somebody would even think that that was a possibility?????
All in good time, all in good time...
Here’s an insider’s secret that I learned about the ‘just answering the kiddos’ questions game. The pervs plant the questions so they can introduce the age inappropriate subjects to the children.
If these parents are serious about this offense, they have to fire the slut.
Yeah. Brave New World, here we come.
I agree tax chick... and ALL who are here...did you see where the parents could have opted out their children?
This was not just something that the principal decided to do on their own...it was mandated by the state(sex-ed) to start in the fifth grade...the class could have been opted out of by the parents of the children...and face it moms and dads...middle school kids can and do have sex... that’s why the sex-ed starts in the 5th grade so they can be at least somewhat prepared...just because something is discussed does not mean it is condoned.
just sayin
I think it's very unlikely that the principal discussed oral and anal (or any other) sex acts in terms of categorical moral condemnation. (e.g., my first "politically correct" statement on the topic.)
However, that was not my main point. My point was that the parents should have known what was going to be taught. If they don't think this is suitable information for 5th graders, they need to be addressing it at the state level. I suspect that, if these people were asked if the school should teach the students about STDs, they would have said, "Of course!" without ever thinking it through.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.