[shadowgovt]

Life doesn't leave the kids alone though. Those families you've described were all my fellow students in kindergarten.

Can't help but wonder how much damage we did to them by reinforcing they were abnormal when we talked about mommies and daddies and they didn't have those. Guess we take talk of nuclear families off the table too, for everyone's safety.

... And then we've made a strange world where kids can't talk about their parents at school.

[Clubber]

>Life doesn't leave the kids alone though.

Not sure your point with this one.

>Those families you've described were all my fellow students in kindergarten.

Yes, it's quite common unfortunately. I've always heard it referred to as "a parent or guardian," by schools which is a pretty good approach in my opinion.

>... And then we've made a strange world where kids can't talk about their parents at school.

No, you're misrepresenting the opposing argument. The law only concerns classroom instructions by school personnel or third parties. In my mind, this would be akin to, "today's lesson is about LGBTQ studies." The law doesn't apply to what kids are allowed or not allowed to discuss amongst themselves.

>Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties

[everforward]

> In my mind, this would be akin to, "today's lesson is about LGBTQ studies." The law doesn't apply to what kids are allowed or not allowed to discuss amongst themselves.

The problem is that the teacher is the source of truth, so that discussion is likely to end up in the teacher's lap. What do they do then?

What I'm afraid this bans is the teacher being able to respond with something like "Yup, some people have 2 dads. And some have 2 moms. Some people have families that look nothing like yours, but it's not a big deal."

Basically I would hope for explanation and normalization along the same lines as divorced parents. Nobody is expecting them to explain why people get divorced, or what sexual orientation is. Just an acknowledgement that it exists, and it's fine, and little Timmy isn't a weirdo because his parents are gay or divorced.

Maybe on Pride Day they read a children's book where the parents are just incidentally LGBTQ. The "Timmy goes out to play in the rain with his dog, and comes inside muddy. His moms/dads are mad that he tracked mud all over." Doesn't have to be a whole lesson gay identity and culture, just a reminder that not everyone has the same kind of family. They honestly should do the same thing with single/divorced parents; I don't feel like they exist in children's books either.

[Clubber]

>Basically I would hope for explanation and normalization along the same lines as divorced parents. Nobody is expecting them to explain why people get divorced, or what sexual orientation is. Just an acknowledgement that it exists, and it's fine, and little Timmy isn't a weirdo because his parents are gay or divorced.

Yes, I don't think the law bars that discussion, especially if the child initiates it. I would hope it wouldn't. Of course it will be up to the courts to interpret what classroom instruction means.

>Maybe on Pride Day they read a children's book where the parents are just incidentally LGBTQ. The "Timmy goes out to play in the rain with his dog, and comes inside muddy. His moms/dads are mad that he tracked mud all over." Doesn't have to be a whole lesson gay identity and culture, just a reminder that not everyone has the same kind of family. They honestly should do the same thing with single/divorced parents; I don't feel like they exist in children's books either.

I think on Pride Day, they should teach colors and math and reading just like every day to K-3 kids. Why introduce this to the curriculum? Why introduce the concept that some kid's parents are drug addicts? It just doesn't belong. Parents can do that if they feel it's important for their kids to learn, not the public schools.

Also consider the kid who's parents are gay could certainly feel that this whole discussion is singling them out and not like having the teacher bring it up. Just because a teacher intends the discussion to make someone feel inclusive doesn't mean it won't have the opposite affect in a child's mind. Kids can also be cruel, imagine during the discussion some kid says, "Ha ha, Jimmy has two mommies!" followed by snickers and laughs. That's certainly not the outcome you are imagining, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Now the kid feels like an utter outcast, the exact opposite of the intent. Best just to stick to the basics of elementary education and not let teachers go, "off script."

[everforward]

> Yes, I don't think the law bars that discussion, especially if the child initiates it. I would hope it wouldn't. Of course it will be up to the courts to interpret what classroom instruction means.

That might be the disconnect for us; I think it will end up being pretty broadly defined. The term doesn't seem to be legally defined (in this context), so the closest I can find is Florida's legal definition of a teacher:

"(a) Classroom teachers.—Classroom teachers are staff members assigned the professional activity of instructing students in courses in classroom situations, including basic instruction, exceptional student education, career education, and adult education, including substitute teachers."

Given that it doesn't separate out discussion, I would guess that effectively anything that happens in the classroom is "instruction".

Only time will tell, I could totally be wrong.

> I think on Pride Day, they should teach colors and math and reading just like every day to K-3 kids. Why introduce this to the curriculum?

Kids at that age are learning what normal is, and by the end of it are starting to judge things as not normal. You can see it in those stupid Children React videos; those kids already have an idea of normal and not. Or if you were to offer an American 3rd grader some kind of cultural delicacy. They'll say it's gross and weird, meaning it doesn't fit into their definition of normal. Kindergarteners will happily eat it, because they don't have a sense of normal just yet.

The purpose is to help them realize it's a normal thing. We still teach them what pigs and cows are, even though most people will interact with far more gay people than pigs or cows. If pigs and cows are taught as normal in an urban area, why would it be so weird to introduce the idea of gay people? It's certainly more pertinent.

> Why introduce the concept that some kid's parents are drug addicts?

I probably should have gated that with "loving and healthy parents". The goal is to teach children that there are other normal family arrangements, not to drag 2nd graders into a discussion about the nature of evil.

> Also consider the kid who's parents are gay could certainly feel that this whole discussion is singling them out and not like having the teacher bring it up. Just because a teacher intends the discussion to make someone feel inclusive doesn't mean it won't have the opposite affect in a child's mind. Kids can also be cruel, imagine during the discussion some kid says, "Ha ha, Jimmy has two mommies!" followed by snickers and laughs. That's certainly not the outcome you are imagining, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Now the kid feels like an utter outcast, the exact opposite of the intent. Best just to stick to the basics of elementary education and not let teachers go, "off script."

That would be traumatic, but also basically the default outcome unless you somehow believe that children are kinder to each other when the teacher is gone. If the kids are going to snicker and laugh while the teacher is there, I can't imagine they'd be any kinder if they found out on their own.

I don't think it will always be perfect, but I don't think leaving the kids to figure it out themselves is going to lead to a better outcome.