« Oh.God.No. | Main | A difference with little distinction »

April 28, 2006

Don't get mad...

... get vouchers. Boston

Two families filed a lawsuit on Thursday against a Massachusetts town and its public school system after a teacher read a gay-themed fairy tale to children without notifying them first.

The suit against Lexington, about 12 miles west of Boston, seeks unspecified damages after the book "King & King" was read to a classroom of about 20 mostly 7 years olds. It is believed the first of its kind, the families' lawyers said. [...]

It also charges that Lexington broke a 1996 Massachusetts law requiring that parents be notified of sex-education lessons. It names Lexington Superintendent of Schools Paul Ash and several other school and town officials.

Ash said the school was under no legal obligation to inform parents the book would be read. "This school district is committed to a welcoming environment for all kids. We embrace the diverse nature of the community," he told Reuters.

"King & King" tells the story of a crown prince who rejects a bevy of beautiful princesses, rebuffing each suitor until falling in love with a prince. The two marry, sealing the union with a kiss, and live happily ever after.

Ash has said reading the book was not intended as sex education but as a way to educate children about the world in which they live, especially in Massachusetts, the only U.S. state where gays and lesbians can legally wed.

Why, yes. Fairy Tales are used all the time to "educate" about "the world we live in."

From Snow White we learn that step-parents are out to kill you if you're prettier than them and living with a group of strange men is rewarding if you can cook and clean.

From Cinderella we again learn about evil step-parents added with evil step-siblings who only married into the family to get the money and enslave you. Never fear though, a fairy godparent can rescue you and you can have birds peck out the eyes of your foes.

From Goldilocks we learn that Breaking & Entering is ok as long as it isn't the home of "real" people.

From The Little Mermaid we learn its foolish ever to try and be anything different then our class.

Hansel and Gretel is about attempted post-birth abortion and cannibalism.

Why yes, fairy tales do educate about "real life" and who do such foolish parents think they are to ever have any say in what a clearly superior teacher reads in class to seven year olds?

Technorati: ,

Posted by Darleen at April 28, 2006 06:10 AM

Comments

I don't think I understand your problem with this? The fact that a fairy tale was used to make a complex issue palatable to children (the horror!) or that a school dared to acknowledge the existence of Teh Gay?

Posted by: verbify at April 28, 2006 12:36 PM

I have no problem with the book per se. My annoyance is two-fold, that the school is pretending it's no "big deal" and with the head-thumping schtick that "fairy tales teach us about real life."

Mix in the usual Public School attitude towards parents of "You are TOO STUPID to have any say on what we SUPERIOR beings deem worthy of teaching your spawn" and I don't care whether or not the parents were over-reacting (which they were)..but that we have got to break the government monopoly on education.

Parents who don't want their kids to read Harry Potter are whacko's, but they are whacko's who have the right to make sure the school does not go behind their back and requires the child to read it.

Home schooling or vouchers. Now. Please.

Posted by: Darleen at April 28, 2006 01:10 PM

"It also charges that Lexington broke a 1996 Massachusetts law requiring that parents be notified of sex-education lessons. It names Lexington Superintendent of Schools Paul Ash and several other school and town officials.

"...Ash said the school was under no legal obligation to inform parents the book would be read.

- Clearly both statements cannot be correct. Either the good Mr Ash is unaware of his own states school statutes, or the lawyers for the plaintifs are blowing air up someones butt. The truth is pretty obvious. the Lawyers couldn't site a statute if it didn't exist.

- We see this all the time in Cal Darleen. Efforts to give the impression that parents have little or no say in the education choices of their learning units. The problem always comes down to perceptions. The truth is that in every single instance the moment an irate parent shows some spine the truth turns out to be quite the opposit. The parents actually have ALL the power, which the school officials naturally resent and try very hard in every way to ignore.

- The problem comes from moments when one of the progressive weasels try to slip something by, and from the fact that many parents, unaware of their position, succumb to intimidating behavior. We actually have a local "Parents awareness" group that unhappy parents have access too, which can do wonderous things to the Liberal educational indoctrination agenda.

- I wish we could go to vouchers, but you're never going to get it through legislation, because practically speaking it would be virtually the end of public education. There are just too many "power agenda groups" with turf to protect that will fight it to the political death.

- It doesn't matter that in all to many locations its already a corpse. All those Liberal paychecks are what count.

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 28, 2006 05:22 PM

Last time I looked, most school boards are popularly elected.

Parents who don't like the local school board's policies, can vote the rascals out next election time.

***

No doubt this story will make the rounds with the Fox News set. You'll hear statements from that jackass Hannity telling everyone we have to "get control" over "our" schools, as if Hannity and his friends had some proprietary rights to the local school district.

And I want to know:

Why is it that outsiders think they are better qualified to run a school district that those who are actually living in that district, voting in it and paying local taxes?

Makes no sense....

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at April 29, 2006 10:40 AM

Carl

Sure, parents can vote school board members off...

however, parents who actually have kids in school are only a subset of voters AND usually members tend to be whoever has kissed enough local Teacher Union ass to get the big bucks to run.

Case in point... the abortion known as the modern LAUSD.

Posted by: Darleen at April 29, 2006 11:11 AM

- Goss, I'm not sure I usderstand most of the points of your comments. Yes it is possible to work to get more balanced thinkers on the board roles, but what does that have to do with the day to day battle we parents face, trying on the one hand to deal with all the stupid federal statutes the "progressives" actual use to cover their manueverings, and just plain poor judgement on the part of administrators. That doesn't even take into account the out of control situation in some schools. It almost takes all out war at times to make these people do their jobs. In one case we had to literily shut down the school for a week, bring in thr police, and then and only then would the redulent "District" fix the problem. Anectdotal hominee's are off the point, which you'd know if you were a parent, and if you are you should know. Other than that I agree that outsiders have far too much say in the whole process.

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 29, 2006 03:18 PM

"Why is it that outsiders think they are better qualified to run a school district that those who are actually living in that district, voting in it and paying local taxes?"

Wrong question, Carl. The real issue here is the matter of minority rights: the right of people to have their values respected by the state rather than trampled by a majority (or worse, an activist minority, as is the case in most school districts.)

Further, by your logic the nation at large couldn't enjoy a hearty belly laugh when some school district Oakland proposes teaching in Ebonics. Nor would anybody outside a district have any complaint over their election to teach intelligent design.

What's most laughable is the school's bald-faced assertion that this propaganda was intended to teach anything about "the world in which they live". Can you name any nation ruled by two kings, or even one homosexual king?

There are a plethora of superb books for young readers that teach about the world in which we live and its history. "King & King" ain't one of them, it takes time away from useful books.

Posted by: RES at April 29, 2006 04:40 PM

"...to make a complex issue palatable to children..." --Verbify

Hmmm. Interesting choice of words there. "Palatable" instead of "understandable", eh?

Whatever happened to stories like Aesop's tale of The Little Red Hen? Oh, I forgot, such ideas are dangerously subversive to the Pinko-crat social change agenda and must be replaced with homosexual kiss-kiss stories to make that pinko agenda "palatable" to the poorly educated and easily led products of politician-run schools. Got it.

Posted by: michael I at May 2, 2006 02:16 AM