[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Well let's put this one out in the open. I believe that anything that a teacher says in his or her classroom during the school day can be deemed as instruction based on their position of power with the students. As I see it, the distinction between "mention" and "instruction" is based on what the student does with the information that the teacher mentioned.

See response in next post.

But we are not talking about any of those things. Those things are not in the bill. I am not discussing anything global. I am talking about two teachers in the same school, talking to students in the same grade and in many cases using the same words. I would prefer to stay in this world.

Sure, I concede and understand its not 100% analogy. Where am I going to get something 100% comparable to your scenario unless I use your scenario itself? Therefore the best I can do is to show you jobs restrict what people can say and do - I've given you examples of this by sex, age and national origin.

I certainly think jobs have the right (and is normal) to restrict what a person can say while on the job. You believe this is discriminatory based on sexual preference, but it's not based on how the law is written ... and hence my constant acknowledgement there will be (and should be) legal challenges as situations come up.

I must say your constant acknowledgements to knowing that it is targeted to the LGBTQ+ community but it is written in a more neutral way is very troubling to me. My interpretation of this is an acknowledgement that the law is Jim Crow but for that community. I am not saying that is your intention, but that is my reading of it. That is why I am trying to keep away from the political intent of the bill. I think it is clear.

I've said I believe the political intent was primarily against LGBTQ and therefore bad. However, I support the substance of the law as its written ... it is written in a neutral manner meaning it applies to both gay & straight.

My understanding of Jim Crow laws that laws enforced racial segregation. As the law is written, there is no racial aka sexual preference segregation.

Again, you said that middle school was an appropriate time for these discussions. You objected to me saying my belief was the goal was to eliminate any discussion of this sort for all students. That is why I am not focused on anything middle school and above. I am solely focused on details of this law.

Yes, I do believe middle-school is age appropriate. I bring up middle school because (1) I found less-than-solid examples of curriculum for 3rd grades but did find curriculum for middle-school (2) help answer the question, if its not in the curriculum, why create a law? It's because DeSantis see this is evidence of wokeness and can use it as an example for support of his law.

Progressives wanted more, Conservatives wanted less. I posted what was approved. I will try to find one of the more conservative SAMPLE lesson plans that were on the resource page. The schools could have been compelled to choose that one as well. Either way, the accusation that you highlight was not true.

That article is from 2019. Here is the curriculum for third graders from last year.

3rd Grade Science YAG 2021 -22 - Google Docs

There certainly is that push-pull-give&take from different interested parties. It results of NJ may be appropriate now. That politico article shows there were obvious contesting on both sides. This falls back to the reason why if not in the curriculum, why create a law. I'm thinking DeSantis saw this, wants to use it for his political advantage (e.g. "see, this is what the activists want to put in their curriculum") and we now have the FL bill.

When you say it is not just fingernail polish, you are saying that the fingernail polish on a boy is an issue for you. That has nothing to do with the teacher defending the boy. That sounds like an issue you need to take up with the boy's parents.

I think finger polish on a boy is debatable for me. Taken in isolation and single event, probably not a big deal.

As far as the teacher's enthusiasm for breaking down gender stereotypes, I don't know what to do with that if the example is telling a boy whose parents allowed him to wear that it is okay for a boy to wear nail polish.

You are referring back to nail polish and per my statement above, I think taken in isolation, probably not a big deal. However, from the quote of "Preschool teacher says she “loves taking every opportunity” to break down gender stereotypes and discuss all the genders including nonbinary", it seems much more widespread than just fingernail polish.

It would be the same if she told a 4 year girl should could play football if the boys told her that girls should not be playing football. I would have an issue with her forcing boys to paint their nails in class against their will or forcing girls to play football against their will.

Yes, it could be that about playing re: football. However, seeing her excitement (? not sure if right description), I inferred more TBH.

Come on now Add in the rest.

Seems to infer the opposite.

I copied and pasted from the heading of the video and did not mean to leave that out. Regardless, if what I said was accurate below, even with your added phrase, it still belongs with the parents and not teacher for a 3rd grader.

My take on it is this is evidence of a activist teacher who is proudly proclaiming below. There is an inference that she is encouraging them (or asking them to explore) being "queer".

Now, can we both acknowledge the ridiculousness of discussing two random Tik Tok videos of "real" preschool and 4th grade teachers curated by an obviously bias social media account of unknown credibility as some sort of legitimate evidence in this discussion?

Let me summarize this "section" of our discussion.

I was asked for (1) 3rd grade curriculum that discussed sexual orientation or gender identity and (2) what discussions do you think teachers are having with the third graders that should be left to the parents?

I did not find FL samples but have provided samplings (I'm not going to say evidence) from other states.

I understand these samplings may not stand up to deep dives but there was enough out there for De Santis to manipulate the narrative. And we now have the FL bill.