The first reason to have SB 48 to wait until ninth grade to integrate factual information about social movements, current events and history of people with disabilities and LGBT people into existing studies lessons is because this is a moral issue.
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, morality can be used to:
Descriptively refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or
Some other group, such as a religion or
Accepted by an individual for his/her own behavior or
Normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be out forward by all rational persons
I deem this a “moral” issue in the simple fact that no institution should be allowed to implement material that challenges an individuals religious affiliation or beliefs. California is a state full of individuals that fall on a very large spectrum of cultural, ethical, religious, personal beliefs. It is too simple, and controversial, to include material that may contest a families set of beliefs: our society is too diverse.
I do not have a problem whatsoever with learning abut LGBT issues, but do have a problem when it comes to incorporating these issues when parents are focused on preparing their children for adulthood themselves with their own specific way to do so. The line of authority (between parents and school) becomes too blurred when very personal, sensitive material is being introduced at such a young age.
The reality is that many parents will not want their children learning about lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered issues at such a young age. But, on the other hand, many parents will not have a problem with it. Because there is no single, universal “code” regarding this issue, it should be kept out of schools and taught about in the home at the parents will.
As a society it is safe to say that our “moral code” is to accept everyone for who they are, whether they chose to be straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, etc. It is also safe to say that as a society our “moral code” is also to not impose, or force, people to learn material that contradicts their religious, or ethical, understanding.
And what about the teachers? Teachers expected to start implementing these issues into their coursework are also faced with a dilemma. How are teachers expected to teach their students about LBGT issues and history if they themselves aren’t comfortable teaching it? They may also find their students to be too young to comprehend the material, not emotionally or mentally ready to comprehend it, or it may conflict with their own beliefs.
It may seem like an easy fix for parents that don’t agree with the FAIR Act to just take their kids out of public schooling and enroll them in private school, where this wouldn’t be an issue. The problem with this “solution” is that many families cannot afford a private school education. Families should not be forced to completely change their children’s school for the sole purpose of integrating new material into the coursework.
Morals: Parent vs. Teacher
Ethics. Source: MichaelTeaching.com
The first reason to have SB 48 to wait until ninth grade to integrate factual information about social movements, current events and history of people with disabilities and LGBT people into existing studies lessons is because this is a moral issue.
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, morality can be used to:
I deem this a “moral” issue in the simple fact that no institution should be allowed to implement material that challenges an individuals religious affiliation or beliefs. California is a state full of individuals that fall on a very large spectrum of cultural, ethical, religious, personal beliefs. It is too simple, and controversial, to include material that may contest a families set of beliefs: our society is too diverse.
I do not have a problem whatsoever with learning abut LGBT issues, but do have a problem when it comes to incorporating these issues when parents are focused on preparing their children for adulthood themselves with their own specific way to do so. The line of authority (between parents and school) becomes too blurred when very personal, sensitive material is being introduced at such a young age.
The reality is that many parents will not want their children learning about lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered issues at such a young age. But, on the other hand, many parents will not have a problem with it. Because there is no single, universal “code” regarding this issue, it should be kept out of schools and taught about in the home at the parents will.
As a society it is safe to say that our “moral code” is to accept everyone for who they are, whether they chose to be straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, etc. It is also safe to say that as a society our “moral code” is also to not impose, or force, people to learn material that contradicts their religious, or ethical, understanding.
Teacher and Students. Source: Guardian
And what about the teachers? Teachers expected to start implementing these issues into their coursework are also faced with a dilemma. How are teachers expected to teach their students about LBGT issues and history if they themselves aren’t comfortable teaching it? They may also find their students to be too young to comprehend the material, not emotionally or mentally ready to comprehend it, or it may conflict with their own beliefs.
It may seem like an easy fix for parents that don’t agree with the FAIR Act to just take their kids out of public schooling and enroll them in private school, where this wouldn’t be an issue. The problem with this “solution” is that many families cannot afford a private school education. Families should not be forced to completely change their children’s school for the sole purpose of integrating new material into the coursework.