Sex-Ed in Montana

A proposed sex-ed curriculum for public schools in Helena, Montana has caused a huge stir. The story is pretty unbelievable, but it is true. Michael Foust has the report, and I’m just going to let you read a snippet for yourself.

‘Among the more controversial elements, the proposal says kindergarteners would learn the “basic reproductive body parts (penis, vagina, breast, nipples, testicles, scrotum, uterus)” and first-graders would learn “human beings can love people of the same gender & people of another gender.” Fifth-graders would learn that “sexual intercourse includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration” and seventh-graders would learn about Supreme Court opinions on abortion and “reproductive health.”‘

I don’t know how any sane person can read this report and not be astonished. It is utter nonsense to be introducing sex ed to kindergarteners. Moreover, it is not the job of the public school system to indoctrinate first graders with radical leftist gender-theory. How could any rational person see this as appropriate material for first graders? Is there a parent on the planet that wants his fifth-grader hearing from his public school teacher about varying modes of sexual intercourse? This is crazy talk. I can’t believe it’s actually a point of debate. Here is a list of other problematic elements in the curriculum:

— Kindergarteners would learn “a baby grows in a woman’s uterus.”
— Third-graders would learn “the ovary produces eggs and the testicles produce sperm.”
— Fifth-graders would learn that “sexual orientation refers to a person’s physical and/or romantic attraction to an individual of the same and/or different gender, and is one part of one’s personality.”
— Sixth-graders would learn that “the penis, fingers, tongue or objects” can be used in sex. They would also learn that “gender identity is different from sexual orientation.”
— Beginning with seventh-graders, students would discuss Supreme Court decisions that have given people “the right to make personal decisions concerning sexuality & reproductive health matters, such as abortion, sterilization, and contraception.”
— Ninth-graders would begin learning that “erotic images in art reflect society’s views about sexuality & help people understand sexuality.”

Read the rest from Michael Foust here. Read the Associated Press coverage here. Read CNN’s report here. Read the actual curriculum here.

6 Responses to Sex-Ed in Montana

  1. Donald Johnson July 16, 2010 at 11:36 pm #

    I agree the later stuff is problematical, but we taught our kids when they were young the correct terms for body parts.

  2. Markus July 16, 2010 at 11:46 pm #

    While much is problematic, in particular the latteraterial, telling a kindergartner that boys and girls have different parts, and what they are called, and that babies don’t come from a stork is no problem for me.. The problem is it takes the choice away from the parents.

    I look at it this way: no part of God’s word is unfit for children as it comes from Him, and the Bible deals with some subjects that make me blush. We don’t get to tell God which parts he has given to us are appropriate. In reading consecutively with my children, I won’t skip over certain sections.

  3. Jordan July 17, 2010 at 12:06 am #

    I agree that correct terminology is just fine, Mr. Johnson … but this curriculum goes too far. Thank you, Dr. Burt for reason 17,205 why I plan to homeschool any children with whom the Lord ever blesses me. (Ok, that figure is a slight exaggeration … and no, I was not homeschooled myself.)

  4. Joel July 17, 2010 at 12:21 pm #

    In a public school setting, the parents of the child have every right to decide what that child sees and hears. It is a bigger problem when the parents aren’t being informed by the school of what their child is learning. Sex-Ed should only be taught to a child at an appropriate age, and when the parent feels that their child has reached an age where they can understand what they are being taught.

  5. Derrick July 17, 2010 at 10:30 pm #

    I also see nothing wrong with teaching kindergarteners correct anatomical terms. Nor do I find anything wrong with teaching third graders the physiology of sexual reproduction.

    One read through the first five books of the bible will provoke much more challenging questions than these, even for the most ambitious parents.

    However, I would say that much of the curriculum mentioned above is progressive cultural indoctrination. Even more disappointing is the fact that the source of information is the school board, not the parent.

  6. Derrick July 17, 2010 at 10:48 pm #

    I also see nothing wrong with teaching kindergarteners correct anatomical terms. Nor do I find anything wrong with teaching third graders the physiology of sexual reproduction.

    One read through the first five books of the bible will provoke much more challenging questions than these, even for the most ambitious parents.

    However Denny, you are right on, the majority of the curriculum mentioned above is progressive cultural indoctrination. Even more disappointing is the fact that the source of information is the school board, not the parent.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes