MyCommunityNOW.com
Blog Home |  Email Author  |        Welcome to MyCommunityNOW - Blogs Sign in | Join

Brookfield Basics

A column about history, culture, policy, and things in between.

Boiling the Frog

By Tom Gehl
Friday, Sep 14 2007, 03:44 PM
In October of last year I made my first post to this site.  It was about a riot on an NCAA football field, and in it I noted that the descent into our current cultural state has occurred in small steps, over long periods of time.  And like the proverbial frog in the slowly heated pot of water, we have become insensitive to our cultural water temperature.

The recent discussion on the topic of oral sex, in curriculum intended for eleven year-old students, is representative of this. 

I absolutely believe that any potentially recommended curriculum would be tempered, and presented under the umbrella of abstinence.  There would be no lurid or detailed depictions of certain acts, and certainly no advocacy.  And given this, I can recite all of the arguments as to why this might be a sensible step.  I just don’t agree with those arguments.  I believe there is a larger point to be made when considering this topic.  It is a point of our culture and our individual responsibilities, more so than one of education.

Are we to get so caught up in the more mechanical aspects of this debate that we can’t take a step back for a moment, and see how far we have come?  Twenty years ago, if someone had told you that this topic would be considered for the 6th Grade, what might your reaction have been?  And given that, where might we be twenty years from now?

By all means - let’s calmly debate the relative merits of such programming, and let’s consider our community’s list of pros and cons.  But as part of that discourse, let’s include the question of how effective America’s educational system has been in this particular area.  And lets consider where our own responsibilities as parents and citizens lie.

As for me, I do not see the merit of such content.  I do not suggest that we can, or even should shelter our kids from such matters.  On the contrary - my wife and I talk about them with our kids whenever we deem necessary, or whenever they ask.  But to use a sports analogy, such critical discussions are like “crunch time” in a basketball game.  And when it comes to crunch time on matters of our children’s social and emotional welfare; I want the ball in the hands of only two people.  

This is not because Barb and I doubt the competence or intentions of our school staffs.  Rather, it is because no one knows our kids like we do, and no one else is as committed to their welfare and their development.
 

It is also because we want to present such information in an overall context of human sexuality and relationships that is not permitted in our schools.

Is this really so unreasonable? 

If not, then maybe it’s time to take the frog out of the water.

Comments

mick   

I can't argue with your position or the way you have expressed your views. So how did this particular sensitive curriculum 'adjustment' get past you and your fellow Board members?  

September 14, 2007 4:47 PM

BrkfldDad   

That's a question to pose to Murphy, Schwei, Sylla and Wartman.  Tom first was elected in 2005.  Apparently this issue was discussed (however, not approved - see Dr. Gibson's apology) in 2004 before the board.  It took 3 years for the district to implement what they didn't have the go ahead for.

September 14, 2007 6:12 PM

mick   

Tom is a Vice President. Being elected in 2005 is not an excuse for not knowing what's going on...particularly when he has some strong and reasonable views. When you refer to "the District", just who are we talking about? These Board members have thick books full of agenda items, procedures, policies, etc. The most insignificant minutia is covered ad nauseum, but something potentially controversial seems to 'slip thru the cracks'? So this must be a case of 'something was done but no one knew about it'? Really. Do you believe this?  

September 14, 2007 7:29 PM

BrkfldDad   

Sure so, but previous experience gives me a very unique view into the working of the school board, so I have an unfair advantage.  Given the curriculum was discussed in 2004, and the district staff then develops the content outside of the board, it makes perfect sense.  It makes even more sense knowing that this item was not sanctioned to move forward, so permanent records that Tom and others may have, and may have researched did/do not reflect what the district staff tried to pull.  Knowing how passionate he is about a number of items, I personally trust that this blindsided him.

September 14, 2007 10:15 PM

mick   

Yes, Tom probably didn't know...and neither did the other Board members. But I'll bet that Dr. Gibson knew. Apology aside, issues like this aren't moved forward without his knowledge. He's been around a long time and he knows that HG&D is/can be controversial. He orchestrates much of what the Board discusses and decides. But this is just one issue where the Board may have been, well, left out. Now we're finding out that the last facilities plan may have been a little more 'generous' then necessary. Maybe the Board needs to exercise a little more functional responsibility and a little less reliance on the Superintendents singular perspective/agenda. Getting back to HG&D...possibly Tom has a response of his own?

September 14, 2007 10:49 PM

Cheri M.   

I agree with you 100%, Tom.  I believe this topic, particularly presented in a mixed gender setting, breaks down barriers of modesty, privacy, and decency.  Our society benefits from having and encouraging modesty. Once these barriers are missing, their absence influences future choices in conversation and behavior: Where are the boundaries?

Fellow commentators, please remember that Tom nor the board sent out the Parent Information Letter.  Just because they are mentioned in the letter, does not make them a party to this error.  (Think of times when others in your daily lives may have "name-dropped" to give something an aura of credibility?)  I personally believe that the board members, in general, may be a bit overloaded with volume of work, which by accident or design allows some things to receive short shrift of attention.

The letter itself may have received an annual update of the dates and been sent out as routine, without proofreading.  Not OK, but within the realm of understandable human error. NOTE TO DISTRICT: Please do not be too focused on referendum to address the mundane. (Perhaps in the future the board would want to read the Parent Information Letter before it goes out?  Or would this be the work of the Director of Communications?  Perhaps someone would verify and sign off on each point in the letter, verifying approvals and availability of curriculum for parental preview at the public library and on the district website?)

Moving forward, it is important to remember that the interest of the State Of Wisconsin in creating Human Growth & Development guidelines is that of preserving the public health.  As such, public schools which adopt a HG&D program are to teach about diseases and abstinence. This could be accomplished by without specific reference to o.s. ("transmitted by any contact with bodily fluids, including kissing, sharing food or beverages, cleaning up vomit or blood without protective gloves.")

Attending HG&D advisory committee meetings, previewing the curriculum, and contacting advisory committee members as well as board members, will all help ensure the best possible outcomes for our students: their desire to be disease-free, healthy, self-respecting individuals with a sense of modesty and an ability to set clear boundaries.

September 14, 2007 11:15 PM

ShawnMatson   

Tom is one of the most responsible guys I know--When he does something it's for a reason.  If he misses an issue or a fact, it's not because he's careless, it's because it was probably out of his hands.

About 95% of the time I don't agree with him, but he is darn sure a guy with strong convictions and very developed ideas.

September 15, 2007 1:01 AM

Christine McLaughlin   

I think that those reasons for including discussion of oral sex in the curriculum that you don't care to go over are worth stating.

The most important ones: oral sex is a (shockingly) common practice starting in middle school and even earlier. Even in the suburbs. Maybe especially in the suburbs, where kids know they have a future and don't want to get pregnant.

And post-Clinton generation kids don't think oral sex is sexual intercourse, and they don't realize it subjects them to the same sexually transmitted diseases--and the same emotional turmoil--that "regular" intercourse does. It's important for them to have this information.

It's really hard for folks our age to get our minds around this. For one thing, in my generation, oral sex was (and probably still is) considered even more intimate than what WE call "sexual intercourse."

A lot of the research on youth sex behaviors is skewed because for years researchers if they'd had sex, meaning what you and I think of as sex, and they said no, when all along more than you and I would like had been having other kinds of penetration.

You are absolutely on target when you say "It is also because we want to present such information in an overall context of human sexuality and relationships that is not permitted in our schools."

So my question is why can't the schools teach (and emphasize) the importance of relationships, how to develop them, how to say no, along with the mechanics? Sex ed should never be taught outside that context, IMO.

Disclaimer: I taught comprehensive sex ed to west suburb middle schoolers in church for years. I've heard what kids at the Brookfield schools do, from the kids. Ask yours what some of the other kids are up to.

September 15, 2007 10:10 AM

Christine McLaughlin   

Let me fix one incomprehensible paragraph(my bad proofreading!)

It should read:

A lot of the research on youth sex behaviors is skewed because for years researchers ASKED KIDS if they'd had sex, meaning what you and I think of as sex, and they said no, when all along more KIDS than you and I would like had been having other kinds of penetration.

September 15, 2007 10:15 AM

intewedm   

I have a granddaughter who is in 4th grade this year.  I can't believe that next year it will be necessary to go into very much detail about sex with her.  I think that the issue of all kinds of sex needs to be very lightly touched on (if at all) in elementary schools.  Once the  kids enter the middle schools, the older boys will be the ones to make the issue of sex come to light for the new students (at least that was our experience).  It is at this point that I think sex education is more important with an emphasis on victimization, peer pressure, abstinence, and STDs.  Parents should be alerted that the subject is being broached and that they should discuss in more detail with their children.  The schools are prevented from discussing the morality of premarital sex and for many parents this is a major issue.  I agree that if you are going to discuss sex in any detail, o.s. must be part of it since kids seem to think it's not sex and aren't aware of the dangers it exposes them to.  Techniques are not necessary and demonstrations, i.e. putting a condom on a banana, are completely out of place in the classroom.  It must be very difficult to be a young girl these days!

September 15, 2007 10:49 AM

Cheri M.   

The training of our children in impulse control needs to begin long before the hormones are flowing.  They need to understand and be prepared for the moments when they must set aside their right-brianed "feeling" of wanting to do or have or be something, and go with their left-brained knowledge of what is right, as the best course of action.  They need to be coached in long-term thinking, sacrificing short-term desires.  This is true for success in personal finance, nurturing relationships (as opposed to using people), caring for toys, sports equipment & clothes, and it is true in sexual gratification. Rewarding children for positive behavior and imposing / allowing consequences for negative behavior aids in this process.  

Children benefit when they learn to distinguish between positive attention or recognition, and negative attention.  When children are not grounded in these concepts, and are seeking attention, they are more likely to act out, including premature sexual activity.  While some may say, "kids will be kids", the point they are missing is that we are here to mold them, to help the children build an internal motivation to do the right thing: to develop SELFdiscipline and SELFcontrol. Whether it is studying, cleaning their room, or keeping their bodies to themselves (which BTW is just a simple extension of the kindergarten lesson to keep hands and feet to one's self).   Kindergarteners are not told all the places their hands and feet are not to go, and I believe if 5 year olds can get the concept of keeping to one's self, then middleschoolers can get it too, without specific instruction in mechanics.  The needed information can be imparted while leaving barriers of modesty in place.  

I agree that teaching the formation and nurturing of healthy relationships is key.  However our society seems to value quantity over quality, including in numbers of friends. We do not often ask whether one is a better person in the company of the other. It becomes almost a contest to hold on to the largest number of acquaintences.  Combine that with most institutions running primarily on "relational aggression", akin to what some would call the "pecking order", and others might call "politics" or even "bullying".  Our children see that it's all about not getting caught, or manipulating the system if you do.

I believe Mr. Clinton did a great disservice to our nation in his sexual affairs, and in claiming as an educated adult, that he did not perceive his various physical encounters with that naiive girl to be "sex".

Lastly, I would suppose that some children might answer "NO" to sex research because after-the-fact they may have WISHED they didn't do what they did, did not feel they could stand by their original decision, and did not wish to indicate that others should do what they had done.  Kids are keenly aware that they are role-models.

September 15, 2007 11:23 AM

intewedm   

Cheri, I can't figure out if you're saying it is the parents responsibility or that of the education establishment to teach these principles and concepts to children.  If you are going to say "both", who do you feel has the major responsibility?

September 15, 2007 11:57 AM

Cheri M.   

Hi Intewedm, I'd say it's up to parents. I also acknowledge that some parents maintain an arm's-length distance in discipline and other important character-building.  Some parents hire out certain aspects of parenthood to nannies, day care centers, maids, babysitters, and the like, and some will prefer to have the schools address this.

At home we teach that God invented sex, wants us to be happy and wrote the rule book. As someone once said, "we cannot break God's laws, we can only break ourselves against God's laws".  

The State has a different approach.  Avoiding the mention of God or morals, the government has a "public health" approach to teaching the lifecycles strand of human growth and development.  The State has it's established guidelines (statutes) and federal money is involved.

When I look at the intersection of moral / religious values and public health, I find much in common which is appropriate for teaching in schools.  From the statutes, this would be diseases and avoidance (abstinence).  From Tine's comments, this would be healthy relationships.  From your comments, I would add victimization and peer pressure.  Teaching of the mechanics is not acceptable and counters the statutes which emphasize that no premarital sex is condoned.

Please read the Parent Information Letter, District website policy & practice statements 6142.3, and the statutes referenced in them: Wis Stats 115.35 and Wis Stats 118.019.  These are the established guidelines under which the curriculum must be developed.

September 15, 2007 3:01 PM

BrkfldDad   

Mick, you and I can agree on that one.  My sights on this, and the referendum, and a number of other 'failed' issues, point directly at Dr. Gibson.

September 15, 2007 6:11 PM

Leave a Comment

Please Sign In to post comment.

Posts

Tags

No tags have been created or used yet.

Search the Blogs