This is a call for action, something I don’t do on this blog very often. It’s mainly for Texans, but others may be interested in the issue, because this is going on all over.
Tomorrow, Tuesday, September 8, 2020, the State Board of Education is meeting to decide whether to adopt new standards for Health/TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills). This is the first time health education standards have been up for review since 1997. You can review the draft here.
 |
| In the new Health/TEKS, the undefined "committed relationship" is equated with marriage. |
It’s being used by those in opposition to civilization to
promote—without any local opt-out or dissent—their version of sex education. If
you think those who don’t want this to happen are just some old-fashioned
prudes, exaggerating any negatives, maybe you need to do some research.
So I’ll share some of that here, plus a sample of what you
can say to SBOE members.
We’re already too late for you to sign up to testify; that
deadline was this past Friday. But for several days following the meeting, SBOE
members will be accepting written statements on the issue. (I don’t know when
the actual vote takes place, so immediate is best.)
The abortion industry is behind the new Health/TEKS
standards; that can’t be good. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but ever since
they said student needed to be taught comprehensive sex education, so they
could make wise decisions to prevent out-of-wedlock births, teen pregnancy went
up and teen sexual activity went up. If you don’t think that’s intentional, you
may not have been paying attention. (Read here and here.)
Right now, the law leaves decisions about sex education to local districts, where parents can have input. If the new Health/TEKS standards are passed, all districts will be required to teach to the standards—at every grade level.
 |
| Fetal development is removed entirely; postpartum mood disorders are discussed at grade 7. |
Here’s my sample letter. Feel free to adapt from this for
your own, choosing what you feel is most important. Note also that an
individual letter will have more influence than a copied one, so for that
reason I do not recommend simply lifting my whole letter. (Where to send it is
below the letter.)
Dear [SBOE Member’s Name],
I ask that you do not adopt the new Health TEKS. While there are some changes that are acceptable, there are enough problems that simple edits will not do. According to Texas Administrative Code §74.1, any standards/TEKS that are approved must be taught, and cannot be deleted or omitted; this directly contradicts Texas law. Be aware that the SBOE has no authority to approve Sex Education Standards/TEKS; Texas Education Code 28.004 requires that the local community has the right to determine the if, what, and when of sex education in their local public schools. In addition, the Texas Family Code 151.001 makes clear that any new standards must not violate deeply held religious beliefs, along with parents’ natural rights to direct the moral and religious teachings of their children.
Among the changes that ring alarm bells are the following:
—Human fetal development has been removed—from the section
on human reproduction! This is not only a deletion of important scientific
information, it removes the concept that the baby in utero is a human being—something
very important to people who believe pre-born humans deserve protection. If
there were no other problems with the Health TEKS, this deletion is so
egregious that no parent should allow their child to be taught health at a
public school when the mindset of the program directors did this on purpose.
—The word “risk” is used, an abstract, in relation to
behavior that could lead to something as life-threatening as HIV, or to
something as life-changing as pregnancy. Instead of simply saying, “This
behavior is not appropriate for teens,” period, “and here’s why,” teens are
told to assess what amount of risk they’re willing to tolerate (with behaviors
they’ve never considered or imagined listed in detail for them)—in the same
program that has already talked about teenage brain development. So it’s not
like the curriculum developers don’t know this approach is inserting risk and
chaos into the lives of teens.
—In three places, the phrase “or committed relationships” is
added to “marriage,” meaning some relationship outside of marriage is equated
to marriage. One of the most settled concepts in the social sciences is that
outcomes for children are best when they are raised by their own married
parents[i].
This should be taught as the norm.
You have not defined “committed relationships,” but let me
simplify that for you: if there’s no ring, no public commitment announcement,
with signatures witnessed and filed (a marriage), it’s not yet a commitment; it’s
a hook-up or a shack-up.
You’re asking teens to define “commitment” that could
qualify for sexual activity as something as amorphous as “going steady,” or dating
just each other for the time being. This can and is confusing. For example, some
San Antonio school districts use a program called Draw the Line/Respect the
Line, which asks 13-year-olds to “List three important reasons for teens not to
have sex.” Possible answers include: “want to wait until married or in a
committed relationship.” This program’s version of “abstinence” is telling
13-year-olds it’s OK to have sex if you’re “going steady.” What happens to that
13-year-old when she gets pregnant, and the boyfriend is both unready and
uninterested in parenting their offspring? The program replaced the word “trauma”
with risk in this setting (p. 53 of the draft). Trauma is more accurate.
Maybe you should, instead, point out that there’s a formula
for getting out of poverty in America. Do these things in this order: graduate
from high school, get a steady job, get married, then have children. This is
practically a guarantee of moving into the middle class, with or without
college. But having sex when unmarried is the most common cause of generational
poverty; it almost guarantees it. And you’re teaching them it’s just a little
risky.
—Multiple times the term “parent or trusted adult” is used,
to encourage children to confide. This is used as early as kindergarten.
Children this young are not qualified to determine which adults can and cannot
be trusted; getting children to trust them is what grooming behavior of
pedophiles entails. Young children should be encouraged to talk to their
parents; only if a child has no parents, then the term “legal guardian”
could be added and explained.
—Additional information can be added to the Health/TEKS
without clearing the additions through the SBOE or even a local parent
committee. For example, where “consent” is the concept beginning at grade 6,
Planned Parenthood produced “Consent” video series, available online for no
cost (see, for example: here)
could be used as supplemental material. This could happen even when parents
across the state have been very clear that they want no Planned Parenthood
material, in any form, used in their schools.
—Material is often not age-appropriate. For example, gangs
are discussed in grade 3; sexual harassment, abuse, sexual assault, and sex
trafficking are discussed in grade 5 (10-year-olds); options for unmarried
pregnant teens, as well as post-partum issues, are discussed in grades 7-8, as
though these are normal concerns of 12-13-year-olds; HPV vaccine is pushed (pushing
any vaccine is inappropriate) in grades 7-8, even though the vaccine is
unnecessary for women who are not yet sexually active and it has been untested and
may be dangerous for girls under 20.
Let me say again, reject the new Health/TEKS standards. We Texas parents
absolutely do not want this material forced onto our children.
I would appreciate a response letting me know how you plan
to vote on these materials.
Thank you,
[My signature]
You can submit your comments to TEA at teks@tea.texas.gov and sboesupport@tea.texas.gov. Use "Health
Education TEKS Review Final Recommendations Feedback" in the subject line.
You can also send your comments directly to your own and all
the other SBOE members. Here’s their contact info:
|
District |
Member |
Party |
Email |
|
District 1 |
Georgina Perez |
Democrat |
|
|
District 2 |
Ruben Cortez, Jr. |
Democrat |
|
|
District 3 |
Marisa Perez-Diaz |
Democrat |
|
|
District 4 |
Lawrence Allen, Jr |
Democrat |
|
|
District 5 |
Ken Mercer |
Republican |
|
|
District 6 |
Donna Bahorich |
Republican |
|
|
District 7 |
Matt Robinson |
Republican |
|
|
District 8 |
Barbara Cargill |
Republican |
|
|
District 9 |
Keven Ellis |
Republican |
|
|
District 10 |
Tom Maynard |
Republican |
|
|
District 11 |
Patricia Hardy |
Republican |
|
|
District 12 |
Pam Little |
Republican |
|
|
District 13 |
Aicha Davis |
Democrat |
|
|
District 14 |
Sue Melton-Malone |
Republican |
|
|
District 15 |
Marty Rowley |
Republican |
[i] See
“Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social Sciences,” 2002,
along with citations listed in that publication. See also, e.g., Mark R. Rank
and Thomas A. Hirschi, 1999, “The Economic Risk of Childhood in America: Estimating the Probability of Poverty Across
the Formative Years,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61(4): 1058ff. [81 percent of children living in
non-married households will experience poverty during the course of their
childhood, but only 22 percent of children living with married parents will
experience poverty; 52 percent of children in non-married households will
experience dire poverty (income 50 percent or less of the official poverty
threshold), but only 10 percent of children in married households will
experience dire poverty.] Also, David
Blankenhorn, “The Marriage Problem,” American Experiment Quarterly,
Spring 2003, citing Suzanne M. Birch, Lekha Subaiya, and Joan R. Kahn, “The
Gender Gap in the Economic Well-Being of Nonresident Fathers and Custodial
Mothers,” Demography 35, no 2 (May 1999):195-203. “One of every three
divorces in the US resulting in the physical separation of a father from his
children plunges the mother and children into poverty. Father absence due to
marital failure is a primary cause of poverty in the US.”
No comments:
Post a Comment