Parents' Rights Now!

Washington REF 90, PART 1: PARENTS CHALLENGE MEDIA to TELL TRUTH!

August 06, 2020 Suzanne Gallagher Season 1 Episode 18
Parents' Rights Now!
Washington REF 90, PART 1: PARENTS CHALLENGE MEDIA to TELL TRUTH!
Chapters
Parents' Rights Now!
Washington REF 90, PART 1: PARENTS CHALLENGE MEDIA to TELL TRUTH!
Aug 06, 2020 Season 1 Episode 18
Suzanne Gallagher

The Spokesman Review So-Called “Truth Tester” About the New Sex Ed Law, Is Far from the Truth.

By Dawn Seaver and Jennifer Heine-Withee
SW Washington Parents’ Rights in Education

(Spokesman Review article: Truth-tester: No, sex ed will not be taught to kindergartners)

The Spokesman Review has joined the Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) misinformation campaign following in supporters’ footsteps by providing information they want the public to have while ignoring inconvenient facts.  While most parents want sex education for their children, they don’t want CSE, and they are not synonymous.  According to the framework of The International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF), who authored at least one curriculum on OSPI’s list, “Our approach includes an emphasis on sexual expression, sexual fulfillment and pleasure.  This represents a shift away from methodologies that focus exclusively on the reproductive aspects of adolescent sexuality.”

OSPI’s Sexual Health Education Program Supervisor, Laurie Dils, stated that the optimal future of sex ed would be CSE that begins in kindergarten, is provided every year, and includes intensive instruction over a matter of weeks, if not the full year, weaving it into all sorts of content areas.  While districts are not required to teach CSE to kindergartners, they can.  The 3 Rs, the only K-3 curriculum on OSPI’s list, tells 5-year-olds about a “very sensitive area called the clitoris” and also gives teachers discretion to teach them about the sex act.

The controversial book on the 4th grade book list is still part of the curriculum.  OSPI could have included instructions to remove that page when they updated their list in May, but they chose not to.

Your claim that districts are not allowed to include sex ed in other subjects is false. The bill stated it wasn’t the legislature’s intent to require sex ed be taught in other subjects, but it wasn’t prohibited either.  In fact, an amendment that would have prevented it was rejected. The FLASH curriculum includes suggestions at the end of most lessons for integrating the information into other subjects....

And can we dispense with the notion that OSPI doesn’t “approve” curricula?  What exactly do you call it when they issue a requirement to choose a curriculum on their reviewed list or one nearly identical?  No other subject in the state is held to this standard.

Instead of repeating the tired claims that the curricula are age appropriate and medically accurate, share actual examples and let parents make a fully informed decision on whether they want their children to receive this type of instruction.

Support the show (https://www.parentsrightsined.com/support-the-cause.html)

Show Notes

The Spokesman Review So-Called “Truth Tester” About the New Sex Ed Law, Is Far from the Truth.

By Dawn Seaver and Jennifer Heine-Withee
SW Washington Parents’ Rights in Education

(Spokesman Review article: Truth-tester: No, sex ed will not be taught to kindergartners)

The Spokesman Review has joined the Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) misinformation campaign following in supporters’ footsteps by providing information they want the public to have while ignoring inconvenient facts.  While most parents want sex education for their children, they don’t want CSE, and they are not synonymous.  According to the framework of The International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF), who authored at least one curriculum on OSPI’s list, “Our approach includes an emphasis on sexual expression, sexual fulfillment and pleasure.  This represents a shift away from methodologies that focus exclusively on the reproductive aspects of adolescent sexuality.”

OSPI’s Sexual Health Education Program Supervisor, Laurie Dils, stated that the optimal future of sex ed would be CSE that begins in kindergarten, is provided every year, and includes intensive instruction over a matter of weeks, if not the full year, weaving it into all sorts of content areas.  While districts are not required to teach CSE to kindergartners, they can.  The 3 Rs, the only K-3 curriculum on OSPI’s list, tells 5-year-olds about a “very sensitive area called the clitoris” and also gives teachers discretion to teach them about the sex act.

The controversial book on the 4th grade book list is still part of the curriculum.  OSPI could have included instructions to remove that page when they updated their list in May, but they chose not to.

Your claim that districts are not allowed to include sex ed in other subjects is false. The bill stated it wasn’t the legislature’s intent to require sex ed be taught in other subjects, but it wasn’t prohibited either.  In fact, an amendment that would have prevented it was rejected. The FLASH curriculum includes suggestions at the end of most lessons for integrating the information into other subjects....

And can we dispense with the notion that OSPI doesn’t “approve” curricula?  What exactly do you call it when they issue a requirement to choose a curriculum on their reviewed list or one nearly identical?  No other subject in the state is held to this standard.

Instead of repeating the tired claims that the curricula are age appropriate and medically accurate, share actual examples and let parents make a fully informed decision on whether they want their children to receive this type of instruction.

Support the show (https://www.parentsrightsined.com/support-the-cause.html)