It is obvious to me the District is not wiling to listen, despite the show they sometimes out on.

Did you read what they are saying is important to parents? Funny I saw nothing about “quality education”. We will see if the do provide “openness & accountability”, but despite hopes, I’ve little reason for positive expectations.

No one said the Lesson 9 committee was too small; almost universally it was called “1-sided”. Big Difference. Fighting the will of the community is no way to pass a parcel tax. Don’t you see that? It would have been more progressive to take smaller or slower steps toward providing a better LGBT-positive space in our schools.

Here’s how I see it: Lesson 9 was the first anti-bullying lesson to specifically address a protected class. During the public meetings last spring, it became clear that other protected classes should also be addressed. In other words, the Board of Ed and district staff heard the complaints of the community and responded.

I see that as a good thing.

By the same token, it seems clear that the district has heard the complaint that the previous committee was too small and is now working to redress that problem. Again, the district heard the complaints and is responding.

To continue to complain about problems in the original process — when the district is working to solve those problems — makes no sense to me. It’s like complaining that potholes developed on your street — long after the city filled them in, in response to your request.

Why not throw your energy into supporting the district’s efforts to improve its anti-bullying programs? Or, for that matter, support the district in its laudable Master Plan process? It puzzles me that you are so often the voice of criticism and bitterness, when there is so much good, exciting work that you could focus on instead.

Perhaps you missed the BOE meeting this week where it was made abundantly clear, repeatedly, over and over again – like beating your dead horse – that Lesson 9 is the ONLY lesson in the entire CSC that explicitly deals with any of the protected classes! I tried to make that clear – how could you miss it? (Are you planning to take Jenson’s spot on the Board? You have the same gift of denial.)

The regrettable decision of the BOE to allow the desires of Sean Cahill and his committee to have sole powers for determining how and what is included in the pro-LGBTQ curriculum for K-5 also means that only one of the ‘protected statuses’ will have specific lessons geared toward protecting them from bullying. How many times did Superintendant Vital repeat that at Tuesday’s meeting? Really so many times I lost count…Also like I stated, AUSD will now be dropping the entire CSC curriculum and have to spend time and money searching for a replacement and retraining teachers, staff etc .

Actually it is more likely that teachers and staff will still not get the training they had been requesting when this new curriculum was substituted for the training the teachers were asking for.

I wonder if the Superintendant has learned the importance of not allowing ‘exclusive committees ” to determine what will be taught to our kids. Maybe this whole horrible scene was a ‘teachable moment’ for her too.

The real issue for me is still “How does staff, or you, deal with these situations you say you witnessed?”

Did the negative behavior you witnessed follow the pattern of the city and the state as far as the amount of harassment based on race, ethnicity, religion, LGBTQ, handicaps etc? How did you real with these issues. How did the district train you before you were allowed to supervise playgrounds? Isn’t that the training the teachers were asking for?

Your statement “There is very little ‘bullying” in Alameda on the LGBT
issues – and none of it in Elementary school” is false.

During the public meetings about the curriculum last spring, a number of people who either work in the district, volunteer at the elementary schools, or are parenting as same-gender couples noted that they have witnessed children using the words “gay” or “fag” to bully other children. To say that this did not happen just because it wasn’t reported to the district office is ridiculous. As a volunteer noon supervisor, I couldn’t possibly report every instance of bullying that I witness on the playground — it happens too fast, too spontaneously, and too often.

Your statement that elementary school children think “gay” just means “stupid” is also false. When I have questioned first and second graders using that term on the playground they have said things like, “boys who love boys” or “man-love.”

Finally, your continued complaining that other protected classes aren’t included in the curriculum is out of date. Even last May, Superintendent Vital promised to have staff look at the curriculum and find ways to expand it; this week she announced that a formal plan had been created for that work. You’re basically beating a dead horse at this point. Or rather, you’re beating a horse that’s already stood up and walked away.

The AUSD and our Board of Education are leading a pioneering effort to
eliminate bullying of all kinds, and there are precious few road maps out
there for them to follow.

-Your kidding right Jon?

There are plenty of ‘roadmaps’ – there are all kinds of programs being used. Perhaps among the thousands of emails to the District, Mike McMahon’s website, the blogs etc, you only read what you wanted, and skipped all the other posts about other better programs.

Perhaps you never used Google to see the kinds of acceptable programs that are in use around the entire country. There are some that were put together by a Santa Rosa group that is being used not only across America, but also in about 15 other countries. There is no shortage of options for inclusive programs. Some are used in AUSD schools now – such as ‘Character Matters’. That you ignore the facts, and make such silly remarks is incredible.

The meeting last night reiterated the fact that the BOE’s decision was a bad one; one that started a whole new problem with its implicit focus protecting only one specific group, and doing so in a way that brought thousands of people to BOE meetings to argue against and for it.

This is the most divisive thing I can remember for the AUSD community. And a terrible time to do so since we now have to ask for another parcel tax, AND noe we also have throw out the Caring Schools Curriculum because staff allowed a vocal group of minority activists to destroy the ‘open framework’ nature of CSC. It also seems the BOE votes over-stepped the allowable restrictions on what can be done without ‘opt-out’. Why would tax-payers support such wasteful habits when if the BOE followed the outline on McMahon’s website that is supposed to guide decisions which affect constitutional rights, we would have had an outcome that everyone could have agreed to. Too bad too many activists were too hard headed to have a fair or balanced round table discussion. Too bad too many BOE members refused to demand a better solution.

For me, the foolishness of the BOE vote far outweighs my personal feelings of opposition to the curriculum itself, (especially after the changes made to it), but my youngest is now in 4th grade, and we have a very permissive and open-minded household. I do however realize the political nature of the vote, and that there is no clear right and wrong, and that everybody is not on the same side of any issue. The was a major community division about respecting each other’s rights. Our BOE should have respected that.

Lesson 9 is the ONLY anti-bullying lesson that specifically protects any
of the protected classes – you know, “…on the basis of sex, religion,
nationality, handicaps, race, ethnic group, or, …and this gets longwinded,
sexual preference, gender, or perceived gender…”

In short, despite the huge public demonstration against a this pro-LGBTQ
curriculum for only grades K-5, LGBTQ is now the only protected class that
has lessons specifically addressing their protection in the entire Caring
School Curriculum. No lessons specifically address race, ethnicity or
religion (or any of the others.)
According to the District’s own statistics, local bullying follows the
state-wide patterns – Race, ethnicity and religion are the main targets of
“bullying behavior” There is very little ‘bullying” in Alameda on the LGBT
issues – and none of it in Elementary school.

Saying “That’s so gay” is not bullying – it is little kids misusing a term
they think means “stupid”. (This according to my elementary and middles
schools children) We can tell them those are things, or sentences we don’t
say, …because it is against school rules. We don’t have to try to explain
it any farther to 5, 6 or even 8 year olds.

I favor having very clear and open discussions and lessons on Sexual
tolerance, acceptance, and empathy, to improve understanding of all the
LGBTQ issues, but they should not start until Middle School, and should
continue thru high school. Such lessons on empathy and understanding
should also exist for all the other protected statuses as well.

IMO elementary students if using any kinds of slurs should be told to
’stop it’ – they don’t need, and at the younger grades are not capable of,
philosophic understanding of these issues. It a ‘just say “no”’.

At the BOE meeting of Aug 25, AUSD reveled that because lesson 9 is the
only lesson in the Caring School Curriculum that specifically addresses
issues of a protected class, that AUSD will stop using the curriculum
soon. They will now be forming a new committee to choose a new curriculum
that specifically addresses all the protected classes. CSC was chosen
years ago because it was a suitable framework for teachers to use as their
judgment allowed.
Now at great expense and because of poor judgment allowing the specific
K-5 lessons to support the outspoken LGBTQ activists, it is all just a big
waste that split the community. (And split the vote for the next needed
parcel tax) That lack of good judgment is all the reason I need to want to
dump those members of the BOE who supported dividing the community.

I absolutely support LGBT issues, I resent being called ‘homophobic’ on
local blogs because it is so opposite the truth, but the target age of
K-5, IMO is just not appropriate. At young ages, children need to just be
“told” what not to do as far as playground conduct. It is a time of
socialization, true, but also a time they must begin to understand there
are rules they simply have to follow. As they get older and they can
understand more, more can be reveled to them in our public schools. As far
as sexual awareness, “let the children play”, and later in their young
lives there will be plenty of time for those sexuality lessons.

It is, IMHO, the profound misinterpretation–perhaps willfully by some, especially from outside of Alameda–of that effort that has led to vocal opposition to the AUSD’s good-faith efforts in our community. I hope that the recall proponents and other opponents of the district’s superb efforts to make all public schools safe from bullying for every student will now cease their recall efforts and await the unveiling of the new and better(?) curriculum in November.

Alameda’s schools are under too much stress–and our students are at risk–due to the Sacramento budget debacles for a recall campaign. Our students and their parents–of every real and perceived orientation, gender, race, nationality, creed, religion, ability, etc.–need safe, healthy schools, and the recall effort will not help reach that goal.

Neither will suspending the existing Safe Schools curriculum, which the BOE has wisely decided to leave in place in the interim.

The BOE and AUSD staff deserve our thanks and support for always putting our kids first, not a recall or intervention by carpetbaggers manipulating our community in order to achieve their self-serving and callous political goals.