Protecting the Few or Damning the Masses?

(NOTE: Not very many people read my blog, so this is a place for me to share my thoughts--hash them out, so to speak. I am choosing, however, to address it to the CSD as a whole because of the fact that I want to speak my thoughts as I would present them to the entire administration).

An Open Letter to the Camas School District Administration,

Last night I attended the listening post related to proposed updates to our health curriculum, specifically in 8th and 9/10th grades.  My desire to share some thoughts is NOT motivated by a crusade or cause for/against any particular issue.  Rather, my desire is to reach a balanced outcome that represents a win/win for EVERY student, parent and family in our community, regardless of their standing on the issues that were discussed.  I share the goal of creating safety and belonging for students--a welcoming place for everyone.  I don't think there was a parent there last night who would argue against that goal--we share that mission.

BACKGROUND
Prior to last night, I had been listening a lot as part of numerous conversations about this health curriculum and the WA State legislation related to it--I had attended board meetings where the issue was going to be discussed, talked with members of our community, met with and reached out to members of the administration, and consistently expressed my desire to be part of those discussions.  I was told that the listening post was the right place for that and made aware of the process, which I chose to trust.

My understanding is that the Student Wellness Advisory Committee tackled this initiative first.  That committee includes other health care professionals that can comment with a degree of authority on the topic and research. Data from our district, other school districts approaches, curriculum options, etc. were all considered as part of those discussions.  I assumed that would be a collaborative effort with a variety of viewpoints represented.

I understood that the next step was to get the input from the community to make sure that the curriculum shared with students represented the values of our families (the legislation leaves room for that in how it is stated). The "opt out" option also indemnifies the district from needing to "please" everyone.

LISTENING POST
I felt like the meeting was both a brave and appropriate step that would help build trust.  Sadly, I left feeling like we were being pacified and patronized.  When you approach a conversation with the intent to TRULY listen to someone, you have to be open to the idea that what you are presenting may or may not be the right thing--"no deal" has to be an option in any scenario where you are trying to reach a win/win.  If not, someone loses somewhere--someone has to give something up.  I felt as if we are way past the point where "no deal" is an option and that our input is nothing more than a formality which will be taken back to an already-influenced team (SWAC) where dissent was not welcomed (per members of that team) and discussion should have considered all sides.  I hope I am wrong and that this feedback will be appropriately weighted in the ensuing conversations. I would caution that the way our feedback is managed has the potential to erode trust.

I thought that Lisa did a great job of introducing the conversation and managing it. Dr. Amirta Stark's introductory story was very emotional, but felt persuasive (almost manipulative) vs. informative.  Out of the gate, I felt like there were assumptions made and only one perspective was being represented.  The data and statistics shared, both from CSD students and I assume, research, gave no context and felt anecdotal--for example, suicide-attempt rates of "typical" peers verses those struggling with issues related to gender was 14% compared to 50% and a statement was made that those rates "normalize" when that individual is accepted by their peers.  Other stats related to mental illness, anxiety, depression and other issues were mentioned earlier, but what was missing is the correlation between the two.

CONCERNS
According to a local psychologist, there is a large number (close to 80% in his experience) of those struggling with gender dysphoria who also have a mental illness.  When considering the safety of our students, we need to understand whether the struggles caused the mental illness or some of these issues are the fruit of coping with mental illness.  If we are willing to launch into discussions that lead people to the gender non-conformity trough, we could literally be fueling a fire of anxiety, depression and other issues that we have spent years working to address and to help students battle in this district. We do not have enough data or experience to support either a positive or negative potential outcome related to these interventions.

There was a statement that decisions regarding these topics related to a person's identity were usually made by middle or high school.  To the child who has accepted his penis as a "clue" related to his gender and never explored anything else, this could literally cause the identity crisis we are working to avoid through this content for those who are genuinely facing gender dysphoria. Encouraging kids to examine their sexuality and gender to give themselves a label doesn't legitimize their sexuality or gender.  We don't need to push them to step into a box--telling them they "should" know by now, which is what that statement implied.

To the goal of creating a sense of belonging, I feel so strongly that doing away with SOME stereotypes is a great way to start that....but our society has been trying to break ceilings and debunk stereotypes for years.  This is not a new conversation. In the curriculum, I appreciated the discussion about it and the objective of examining assumptions as a place to start (a very mature "ask" of these kids), but felt the scenarios were presumptive themselves (i.e. "Lonely's" Letter to the advice columnist) and very leading--that implicit in them was the assumption that stereotypes were prompting their reaction (i.e. Bruno's desire to be "tough" because he's a dude prompted his response vs. maybe just feeling like he didn't want to talk about it).  What about the woman who was saved from sexual assault by a man who protected her?  I guarantee she is grateful for the sense of chivalry associated with masculinity that some men have been taught because it literally saved her.  She is grateful that he didn't set aside that stereotype in the name of rejecting a label that society has placed on men and "soften" his approach to be more neutral.

Defining all of the terms was appropriate.  Kids need to know this.  What you understand becomes less scary and in that way, knowledge very literally is powerful. When you are trying to label everything and everyone with a "term" to give people a sense of belonging though, aren't you creating divisions which are the very barricades we were just trying to break down with the discussion about stereotypes?  In our attempt to create unity and belonging, I feel we are building walls with new names.

Questions we might consider that would help ensure we represent a more balanced view might include the following:
Are we catering to a small population in a way that will compromise the safety of the majority?
Are we going to cause additional issues because of the power of suggestion?
Are we presenting content in a way that is suggestive and might cause premature reflection on issues and perpetuate more than the "normal" teen identity crisis?
Are we making gender dysphoria "cool" and encouraging kids to claim it, if for nothing else than to find a place to land?
Are we taking care to present both sides of a delicate issue?
Are we worried about the need to be PC becoming a distraction to teachers trying to educate students?
Is there any intention on the part of the district to adopt additional curriculum for other (younger) grades?  Is this the beginning of a larger movement?
What policies will be impacted as we attempt to systemically reinforce the content of these discussions (i.e. restroom/lockeroom policies)?

RECOMMENDATIONS
In the spirit of transparency, could we see the content in its entirety?  Also, could we see a transcript of all of the data gathered from the listening post?  I would love to know what others felt, especially with opposing viewpoints. I am so aware that my perception is influenced by my personal experience, but I want to be open and educated. Also, it would be great to know that our feedback was captured as intended--that we were truly heard.

So much time, energy and so many resources, financial and otherwise, have gone into this conversation, but I firmly believe we are having the wrong conversation.  We should be talking about tolerance (mutual respect) and teaching skills related to it--PRACTICING listening, empathy, etc.  And what is the rush?  Until we have more data, let's not risk the safety of our students by opening up a discussion where we don't yet fully understand the consequences/implications.

The Demands of True Tolerance

SO this is not the kind of blog that I typically post here, but I feel very strongly about something and need a place to diagram my thoughts with words, if that makes any sense.  It works for me.

I need to offer context before I share what has been ruminating in my brain....

At the end of last school year, I went on a tour of a new project-based learning campus  in our school district that Liam would have the option of attending.  I was super impressed by the school and their learning philosophy as well as the amazing and dedicated people they have working there.  However, the experience left me unsettled--there was a showcase of some of the informational 8th grade research projects based on historically significant events that was presented tradshow style.  At a certain point, three of those groups did a live presentation, including Q&A, and the 5th graders were allowed to participate and coached how to ask appropriate questions about the presentations and their experience.

One of those was about marriage equality.  Because I was curious how that fit in with things like the Great Depression, the CA gold rush, WWI, WWII, MLK, etc., I chose to attend that one.  It did make sense as the girls doing the presentation highlighted significant court cases that led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States.  They did a very nice job of setting that up.  However, as the presentation progressed, they did a role-play that included a girl with same-sex attraction and she was being bullied.  The recommendation of her shoulder-angel is that she learn about other people who had stood up for the rights of a suppressed or otherwise persecuted group and become her own advocate.  Taking courage, the girl becomes a gay-rights advocate and, at the conclusion of the presentation, all four girls "came out" as lesbians and played the lyric "I kissed a girl and I liked it" by Katie Perry.  The Q&A included the admonition "whether you are 13 or 30, you need to decide if you are gay or not"....this encouraged by 8th graders to an audience of 5th graders who also were asking the question "what's a heterosexual?" as part of that same Q&A.

Feeling like they had overstepped the boundary between informational and persuasive, I had conversations with the principal and later the superintendent of the school district, encouraging them to inform parents that this presentation had taken place so that those parents could have conversations with their 5th graders about the topic.  I caught wind of friends and friends of friends whose kiddos came home and were asking things like "am I gay?  Do I need to figure it out?" which made very clear to me that the topic was premature and concerned that it was presented as factual by a trusted, educational source; therefore, the validity of the statement wasn't necessarily being questioned, but rather, what do I (as a 5th grader) need to do with this information.  The power of suggestion in some of the things that were said, though unintentional I'm sure, overstepped what even administrators deemed as appropriate and I believe it probably prompted some discussions among them (though none of that was actually shared with me, so that is speculative).

Liam now attends this school and is thriving.  However, this experience has been followed by others where a teachers sexuality (bisexual) was mentioned to students and where math problems have included statements about "identifying as female."  None of this is super alarming to me, but on the coat-tails of what happened earlier, it has caused some reflection about the place that these conversations have in our school system.

I was recently asked to participate in a committee focused on parent wellness in our district--we are charged with helping to make sure that parents are appropriately equipped/educated when it comes to the social and emotional health of their children/our students.  I LOVE that our district pays attention to that.  The focus on student wellness is admirable, but to realize the massive role that parents play in the social and emotional health of our children and be dedicated to providing them with resources as well is extra-mile effort.  The attention to this topic has led to some amazing experiences and offerings within our district and I'm proud to play a tiny role in making sure that continues...and that the right things are being offered and addressed.  I bring this up because in a recent meeting, some of these ruminating thoughts started to take shape when the issue of health education started to be discussed.

For some time, I have had concerns about the state of WA legislation and subsequent discussion about gender education starting in kindergarten.  That idea seems alarming, so I went to research exactly what that means and found a proposed timeline for what that might look like and was reassured that the discussions would be "age appropriate."  They aren't blasting K with ideas about gender identity....more just making kids aware of gender stereotypes and saying "boys can like pink and girls can like blue.  You don't have to tease them for that."  So don't freak out when you read that sentence.  As I dug deeper and the grade levels got higher, the proposed discussion got more unclear to me, though.  There is a statement in the states legislation that says something like this: how this (gender component of health education) is implemented is left to the discretion of the local community and should reflect the values of those that live there.  So it basically says that the decision of how this plays out will be made locally.

Our district plans to have discussions with a committee of local healthcare providers and others who are charged with advising the district on issues of student wellness.  They then plan to have listening posts with parents who will have the opportunity to express their opinions.  Following that, they will make a decision as to how they want to implement the gender education piece in the overall health curriculum which is already being taught in our district.  They are giving parents the chance to preview it, as is standard, and they always have the option to opt out.

OK.  That is the context.  All of this is swimming around in my head as well as thoughts about how I want to teach my children about these issues specifically--that of gender and sexuality.  They are issues that have moral implications, carry with them a lot of debate and strong feelings. These issues have led to depression and even suicide in those who face confusion or are making life-altering decisions about their own feelings.  I have the utmost compassion for how difficult those choices must be.

I'm sure I'm not phrasing this correctly and might offend someone with the words I use, but please choose to see beyond that to the message.  I will be clear--I believe that God made man and woman and our gender is not a choice we get to make--it is not flexible.  That opinion makes me unpopular in some circles and might offend the mother of a child who feels like they are trapped in a body with the wrong genitalia.  BUT...do not stop reading before you get to this point...I respect her and love her and her child.  I admire the courage with which she supports her child.  I encourage her unconditional love for him or her and support with everything in me that effort to embrace what she didn't choose as a struggle, for her or her kiddo.  THAT right there is the point.  Not the issue....the human.

In our efforts to save those who face these battles and to eliminate, in the states words, any "barriers to learning" (including emotional battles that come as a result ostracizing, bullying, etc), to protect them, the state is looking to education--knowledge is power.  Knowledge helps to, in a way, make less scary things that we might otherwise be afraid of.  It helps us to see with different eyes.  All of those things I support and agree with.  I need to do research to validate my feeling that there is also a "power of suggestion" that needs to be considered as we decide when that is appropriate.  That piece of the puzzle is something that I worry is given less weight than the desperation to protect by encouraging tolerance.

Tolerance.  Buzz word that I feel is so misunderstood.  Tolerance has a responsibility that comes with it--if you demand it, you also offer it. It should not be motivated by a desire to convince people that you are right.  That is persuasion.  A request for tolerance and advocacy for such requires reciprocation.  You should model what you are advocating--its almost a pre-requisite of making the request.

Instead of observing this reciprocation, I see hypocrisy.  I hear cries for tolerance that result in divisiveness--the very people making the plea refusing to acknowledge people who feel differently deserve the same respect and tolerance for that stance.  It is almost as if opposition is not allowed--that in order to be considered tolerant, you have to agree.  Rather, I believe that we should agree to disagree agreeably.  Diversity is magical and creates complimentary strengths, enhances any group in which is exists, and breeds beautiful, open-minded, respectful relationships.  Sameness might come with comfort, but it does not fuel education and personal growth in the same way that differences do.

Society is morally stretching, but not everyone who chooses NOT to compromise certain morals deserves to be labeled as close-minded, criticized or called intolerant.  In fact, I consider myself to be extremely tolerant and do my very best to offer the same genuine respect and love to ALL humans, regardless of their beliefs.  Just because I do not evolve with society in embracing the idea that gender is fluid does not mean that I shun or bash or am afraid of those that do.  The voice of the those who would be considered socially conservative is being silenced out of fear that we might offend someone whose beliefs differ from ours....and yet those who have different beliefs are granted the right to speak out without filter.

My point?  I believe that our focus as a community needs to be on this idea that mutual respect does NOT have boundaries and cannot have caveats--that it needs to include ALL students....like for real.  My morals might not be the norm any more, but my desire not to compromise them deserves the same tolerance that a person whose moral compass points them in a completely different direction, no matter how supported by government, education, society, etc.

We need to be teaching children less how to speak to advocate a cause and more how to listen to preserve or mend a relationship.  We need to preach REAL tolerance rather than "edgy" or popular tolerance.  We need to seek to understand more and work to convince less.  We need to take inventory of our own ability to do this, improve where necessary, and then model it for our children.

To the issue of health, gender and sex education, I suggest that we not "opt out" but rather "opt in" and have pre-emptive conversations with our children so that the only influence they hear is not that of their friends who did attend.  In those conversations with our children, we need to teach them not only what your family believes, but how to respond to those that feel differently.  Teach them that they have a responsibility to offer respect and kindness to EVERYONE; that there is NEVER an excuse to be unkind.

Stephen R. Covey has a quote that I have hung on my wall so my children see it every morning: "Be a light...not a judge.  Be a model...not a critic."  I believe that applies, regardless of how divisive the issue.  Our responsibility is to LOVE...not change those around us.  If we can instill a little bit more of this at home, the state and our schools will feel less desperate to develop programs to keep all students safe because we will do a better job of taking care of each other.

I get that my opinions might sometimes be unpopular, but please offer me the same courtesy that I have committed to offer you.  Everyday, I have to examine my intentions and make sure I am not getting off track, swayed by the drama of a world that is going in a direction that I morally abhor.  If I am "on-track," I won't fear the normalization of moral stretching or avoid people who think and feel differently than I do.  Rather, I'll throw myself into the middle of a community of friends I love and respect who are fighting their own emotional battles (and often bear the scars of those battles) and try to be a better friend to them, regardless of differences of opinion.