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.