Cleveland Public Schools Revising Sex Ed

CrimsonTide4 · #1 10-20-2006, 12:37 PM

I share this mainly because it could potentially be your school system next.

Cleveland schools revising sex ed
Program includes lessons on abstinence, contraception
Friday, October 20, 2006
Regina McEnery
Plain Dealer Reporter

Troubled by the city's high rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, Cleveland is backing both abstinence and contraception in a sweeping sex education curriculum change that appears to be unequaled in the state.

Cleveland schools already offer sex education to many of their middle and high school students. The schools are also required to teach HIV prevention. But the city wants to incorporate a program that will begin in kindergarten with age-appropriate lessons and continue through the high-risk high school years.

The effort, intended to reach all 58,000 students, is being financed by an $800,000 block grant from Cuyahoga County.

The classes, which begin soon, will address self-esteem and peer pressure as well as biology.

Children in grades K-3 will learn about how viruses work and appropriate and inappropriate touching.

Grades 4-6 will start learning about menstruation and other aspects of reproductive health.

In grades 7-12, the discussion shifts to interpersonal relationships, HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy and respect for sexual orientation. Condom demonstrations are not planned.

Abortion will be explained and defined but not promoted, said Lita Townsend, responsible sexual behavior coordinator for the district.

Participation is voluntary, although public health and school personnel hope parents support the effort.

"One-third of all the HIV/AIDS cases in Ohio are in Cleveland," said Townsend. "Really, the best weapon we have right now is education."

Continue reading article here: http://www.cleveland.com/education/p...l=2&thispage=1

Is a comprehensive sex education curriculum an answer to higher STD rates and teenage pregnancy? Is kindergarten too young?

Honeykiss1974 · #2 10-20-2006, 12:45 PM

Did it say kindergarden? See this is where I would have the problem. I would prefer that I be the one in control of what and how my child learns about sex and so forth. I may not believe that some of these things are age appropriate for my child (based on their maturity and such) and not to mention how it is being taught and the type of discussions that take place.

I do hope they offer an "opt-out" option for those parents that feel such as I do. Because if I lived in Cleveland, my child would not be apart of thiss.

Drolefille · #3 10-20-2006, 01:11 PM

That program looks very good and while I'd want to monitor what my child is learning, it appears age appropriate.

AlphaFrog · #4 10-20-2006, 01:17 PM

Would you rather your child be HEARING about age-inappropriate things or DOING age-inappropriate things?

mulattogyrl · #5 10-20-2006, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

That program looks very good and while I'd want to monitor what my child is learning, it appears age appropriate.

I agree. I think there should be an opt out option for parents, but I don't have a problem with it so far.

BlessedOne04 · #6 10-20-2006, 01:30 PM

I think that the program is great. The system should give parents a "trial run" before they actually inplement it in the schools especially to younger children. I actually think that telling children about touching and so forth at a young age is a good thing!! Pedifiles are praying on children and I would rather my child be informed by the two most important entities in their life..i.e. Parent's and School.

Drolefille · #7 10-20-2006, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulattogyrl

I agree. I think there should be an opt out option for parents, but I don't have a problem with it so far.

It does say participation is voluntary, so it may be more of an opt in than opt out.

jojapeach · #8 10-20-2006, 02:16 PM

It sounds like a good program actually. I wouldn't want my kindergartener (if I had one) hearing about viruses and inappropriate touch every single day because they NEED to learn how to read and write, but it is a good thing that they need to learn early on. Maybe these kids will be more apt to yell, "NO," or not believe a molester who claims I'll hurt your family if you don't do this. Plus, they need to understand early about the AIDS virus so they won't be ignorant like many of us were in the '80s and '90s. Whether some of you will admit it or not, some of our kids will attend classes with HIV positive kids, and they need to know they can exist together.

Like PhrozenGod01 said, some parents don't teach their children anything at all. My mom didn't attempt to talk to me about sex until I was 12. I wasn't doing anything, but I already had ideas in my head thanks to my older friends. Kids need the facts, not what their friends heard.

Good start, Cleveland!

PhrozenGod01 · #9 10-20-2006, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honeykiss1974

Did it say kindergarden? See this is where I would have the problem. I would prefer that I be the one in control of what and how my child learns about sex and so forth. I may not believe that some of these things are age appropriate for my child (based on their maturity and such) and not to mention how it is being taught and the type of discussions that take place.

I do hope they offer an "opt-out" option for those parents that feel such as I do. Because if I lived in Cleveland, my child would not be apart of thiss.

I think that what you are saying is valid, and I would not want my young children(when I get some) being taught something I don't believe in. However, there are probably some parents out there who don't care what their children learn at all. Those children can grow up with warped perceptions of what is healthy and appropriate. Cleveland's plan doesn't seem like it would be giving out "how to have sex" guides for elementary school children, but rather guiding them to be aware of the dangers out there. If I were a parent in that area, I would want a syllabus or copy of the curriculum so I know where my role would differ, if any, from that of the school district's.

sigtau305 · #10 10-20-2006, 04:52 PM

Kindergarden is way too young. you need to start at grade 7. that's the most effective way of getting the message through to the kids.

Drolefille · #11 10-20-2006, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigtau305

Kindergarden is way too young. you need to start at grade 7. that's the most effective way of getting the message through to the kids.

Yeah but they're not talking about just sex, it's basically a health class
K-3 is viruses and prevention of abuse
4-6 learns about puberty stuff
7 up learns about sex.

CrimsonTide4 · #12 10-20-2006, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigtau305

Kindergarden is way too young. you need to start at grade 7. that's the most effective way of getting the message through to the kids.

At Warrensville, we had sex education in 6th grade in Interpersonal Skills class. Our parents had to attend the curriculum meeting prior to the first class and sign off on what we would be learning. That was in 1987 before AIDS really registered with me, in the age of MY innocence. Then in 12th grade I took an elective, Family Living that did demonstrate how to put on a condom as well as showed us graphic images of various STDs on body parts. Not just don't have sex, you will get herpes but this is what herpes looks like on the penis or vagina.

If I was a parent now, I would start talking to my child about their bodies and no one being allowed to touch them around the age of 4 or 5 on a level they can handle.

Cleveland Public Schools is a huge district and I believe that is very much needed in a lot of our school districts today. A lot of kids only hear "Don't come home pregnant" as a form of sex ed. My mom talked to me and told me a lot even when I wasn't trying to hear it.

Kids are having sex before the 7th grade. Kids give blow jobs these days like most people give hugs.

A key component of any sex ed is respect of yourself, your body, and boundaries as well as self esteem. Too many people have their self esteem wrapped up in the size of their reproductive organs.

orighu · #13 10-21-2006, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrimsonTide4

If I was a parent now, I would start talking to my child about their bodies and no one being allowed to touch them around the age of 4 or 5 on a level they can handle.

I totally agree.... I have a 4 year old and I talk to her about people touching her ANYWHERE - even her family, friends or classmates.

At this point in time we cannont AFFORD not to have conversations earlier than we could imagine our parents having with us - kids today don't grow up like i did - we just are that way anymore.............

PerroLoco · #14 10-24-2006, 06:01 PM

I would review the syllabus and only have my child attend certain classes. They would not be attending a class to teach them respect for anyone's sexual proclivities or habits. That should not be a specified aspect of leducation. Children should be taught to show respect to people as a general principle.

As usual America is backwards when it comes to sociology and morality. Instead of respecting children enough to slow down the culture, we are rushing them to catch them up to it.

At one time, it was great to be a child and it wasn't that long ago.

Marie · #15 10-25-2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PerroLoco

They would not be attending a class to teach them respect for anyone's sexual proclivities or habits.

Perro Loco, Which portion of the syllabus are you refering to? I'm not sure if you are speaking about sexual orientation or general health awareness.

All, I think its a great idea. I agree that a lot of kids aren't getting anything at home, and its good that this will prevent them from slipping through the cracks. The info seems extremely age appropriate, so I say go for it. I voted for testimonials w.individuals living w/STDs or teenage pregnancy. The only reason I didn't include the item regarding pics of infected body parts, is that I don't want kids to think that a person can't be infected if they don't have visible signs.