B.C. school trustee vows to stay

[rustled]

I don't instruct these classes so I don't know who does or why they do specifically. That rationale about who is qualified to teach what has to do with a lot of particulars. The "degree" whether grad/post grad is the ticket to the show and the particulars of "special interest" subjects are sometimes taught by classroom teachers who have done some study in that field, or have special interest in a topic. Other specialized instructors may be deemed qualified by their particular area of study or practice.
It is up to a principal and the board offices who they bring in and why.

In larger districts there might be a travelling instructor who does a kind of seminar on sexual health, that particular worker might be a medical professional, it might be a social worker, it might be a specialized classroom teacher who has some kind of study in the field. In smaller districts it may be just the regular classroom teacher.

Hm. Well:

...
Actually, and this is one area I'm not entirely certain on, I believe that there won't be special gender identity classes, but rather it will be part of other classes, integrated and just a natural component to discussing identity in social studies and such. Since identity is an important part of who we are, it's a reasonable way to handle it.

And apparently this is now part of the job for people who are "somewhat qualified" in this area. Parents who aren't sure their child's classroom teachers are qualified to do a good job of this are going to find it pretty tough to exercise the opt-out you'd mentioned earlier.

It seems to me Neufeld represents a segment of the public who are expressing reasonable concern here, and should not be expected to step down for doing so.

[Verum]

?
Somewhat qualified?

You're suggesting on the one hand that a trustee voicing his concerns about whether or not it is appropriate to implement curriculum that requires classroom teachers to raise and explore gender identity with 7-year-olds should step down because his opinion could lead to harm for some students.

Meanwhile, you acknowledge that even the teachers with an MA are only somewhat qualified to raise and explore gender identity with those same 7-year-olds.

My, goodness. This is quite the brave new world, isn't it?

No, I said "at least somewhat qualified". You made up a strawman argument based on misrepresenting my post and I certainly did not say "only somewhat qualified".
And his voiced concerns were that this curriculum was "a weapon of propaganda" and "nothing short of child abuse", which is certainly not questioning "whether or not it is appropriate to implement curriculum that requires classroom teachers to raise and explore gender identity with 7-year-olds" but rather outright claiming that it is "child abuse". I like the way you try to make his position seem more palatable as if he's just not sure it's quite the right thing to do, rather than being vociferously against it, as he is.

[rustled]

You think that's a misrepresentation? Fair enough. let's fix that. Bottom line for all of us should be: they're not fully qualified, and frankly, if I was aware people who were only "at least somewhat qualified" were going to be raising the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity with my young children, I'd be vociferously against it, too.

[Verum]

You think that's a misrepresentation? Fair enough. let's fix that. Bottom line for all of us should be: they're not fully qualified, and frankly, if I was aware people who were only "at least somewhat qualified" were going to be raising the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity with my young children, I'd be vociferously against it, too.

Again, I never said "only" and I don't see why you feel the need to keep misrepresent my position.
All teachers are at least somewhat qualified to teach. That's a true statement and one with completely different meaning to saying that all teachers are only at least somewhat qualified to teach. Quite different meanings.

[rustled]

You think that's a misrepresentation? Fair enough. let's fix that. Bottom line for all of us should be: they're not fully qualified, and frankly, if I was aware people who were only "at least somewhat qualified" were going to be raising the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity with my young children, I'd be vociferously against it, too.

Again, I never said "only" and I don't see why you feel the need to keep misrepresent my position.
All teachers are at least somewhat qualified to teach. That's a true statement and one with completely different meaning to saying that all teachers are only at least somewhat qualified to teach. Quite different meanings.

And that's why the word "only" didn't appear in the quotes.

We're not talking about "qualified to teach". We're talking about whether or not they are fully qualified to teach young children about sexual orientation and gender identity.

Surely you can see why some of us feel that people who are not fully qualified to raise and explore gender identity with 7-year-olds probably should not be required to raise and explore gender identity and sexual orientation with 7-year-olds.

Surely you can understand why some of us are concerned about classroom exercises intended to ensure 7 and 8-year-olds can correctly identify sexism in action.

Perhaps it isn't PC to acknowledge the problem here?

[dirtybiker]

In the classroom where is the line split from personal agenda to
legit curriculum ?
'deleted by poster"


Slippery slope..

[Verum]

In the classroom where is the line split from personal agenda to
legit curriculum ?
'deleted by poster"


Slippery slope..

Teachers generally try to keep their politics out of the classroom and rather stick to the curriculum. They know that everything the say to kids will come out at home and you definitely don't want to deal with an irate parent complaining about their beliefs or political opinions being undermined in the class.

I had a kid basically tell me that they don't discuss some topics in Genocide Studies (a grade 12 class) because the teacher didn't want to bring controversial politics into the discussion. Think about that, a teacher teaching a very politics heavy course being unable to discuss certain modern situations as it might offend some current political sensibilities.

[Verum]

And that's why the word "only" didn't appear in the quotes. So why did you need to add it as a qualifier?

We're not talking about "qualified to teach". We're talking about whether or not they are fully qualified to teach young children about sexual orientation and gender identity. My experience is that modern teachers are so qualified to handle the topic in general, and that for some specific topics it may make sense to bring in an outside expert, as is done for some topics anyway.

Surely you can see why some of us feel that people who are not fully qualified to raise and explore gender identity with 7-year-olds probably should not be required to raise and explore gender identity and sexual orientation with 7-year-olds. Fair enough. The teachers who will be bringing this up should be ones qualified to deal with this and if you have concerns for your own kids, maybe you should take it up with the school. That is a valid concern and were it the concern expressed by Neufeld, I could understand that, but it certainly isn't.

Surely you can understand why some of us are concerned about classroom exercises intended to ensure 7 and 8-year-olds can correctly identify sexism in action.Teachers have been doing this for a long time and are equipped to do so.

Perhaps it isn't PC to acknowledge the problem here?

Nobody is chastising you for not being PC and the disagreement isn't over being PC or not. I actually would sooner have you feel free to express yourself freely than feel the need to censor yourself. It is hard to discuss these topics if someone feels that they are unable to properly express themselves.

[rustled]

Nobody is chastising you for not being PC and the disagreement isn't over being PC or not. I actually would sooner have you feel free to express yourself freely than feel the need to censor yourself. It is hard to discuss these topics if someone feels that they are unable to properly express themselves.

?
Heavens, I didn't feel anyone was chastising me. You seem to completely miss my point.

Oh, well.


It seems to me Neufeld represents the portion of the public who no longer feel represented in the public school system. The efforts to silence him and remove him from office seem to show a lack of inclusiveness.

I viewed some of the PAC material around SOGI 123, and I'd suspect parents who have any qualms about what's happening in our primary schools around this topic (as in, "is my child's teacher fully qualified to raise and explore gender identity with my 7-year-old?" "How important is it for my 7-year-old to know how to identify sexist behaviour?") probably wouldn't be welcome to share their concerns, either. I wonder if this sort of thing is behind some of the increasing interest in private schools?

[fluffy]

I had a chance to do a little homework on this last night, and have a couple of points to add. The opposition to this and similar programs is coming largely from the religious right, but they do raise some valid points. The science on introducing this sort of thing into schools is certainly not conclusive. There are many who say offering potentially confusing choices at a time of life already fraught with confusion is potentially damaging if those making the choices are not fully aware just what they are doing, and that the cost of delivering adequate information, along with the cost of inclusionary measures like gender-neutral washrooms and change rooms, is way out of proportion with the relatively tiny number of students involved.

I’d like to see some of the studies used in instituting these programs, if for nothing else but to satisfy myself that this isn’t some flavour of the month exercise in political correctness.

Edited to add: We saw the same sort of resistance decades ago as women started to enter traditionally male workplaces, and that didn’t turn out so bad other than the few males who are still stuck in Neanderthal mode. I consider myself fairly liberal and open to new concepts, but I do like to know that things have been thought through adequately.