Poll: Chicago schools will start to teach sex ed. in Kindergarten

[MajorTomServo]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/02/28/chicago-passes-sex-ed-for-kindergartners/

Spoiler: From ABC News

While most U.S. public schools start sex education in the fifth grade, sex education will be coming to Chicago kindergartners within two years as part of an overhaul of the Chicago public schools sexual health program.
The new policy, which the Chicago Board of Education passed Wednesday, mandates that a set amount of time be spent on sex education in every grade, beginning in kindergarten. Chicago has the third-largest public school system in the country, with 431,000 students.
?It is important that we provide students of all ages with accurate and appropriate information so they can make healthy choices in regards to their social interactions, behaviors and relationships,? Barbara Byrd-Bennett, the CEO of the Chicago Public School System, said in a statement. ?By implementing a new sexual health education policy, we will be helping them to build a foundation of knowledge that can guide them not just in the preadolescent and adolescent years, but throughout their lives.?
Under the new policy, the youngest students ? the kindergartners ? will learn the basics about anatomy, reproduction, healthy relationships and personal safety. Through the third grade, the sex-ed lessons will focus on the family, feelings and appropriate and inappropriate touching. In the fourth grade, students will start learning about puberty, and HIV. Discussions will emphasize that the virus cannot be transmitted through everyday contact such as shaking hands or sharing food.
From the fifth through the 12th grade, the emphasis will be on reproduction, the transmission and prevention of HIV/AIDS, and other sexually-transmitted diseases, bullying and contraception, including abstinence.
For the first time in Chicago, sex-ed instruction will cover sexual orientation and gender identity. Students will be introduced to terms and definitions associated with sexual identity, including those related to heterosexual and LGBT populations, in an effort to bring awareness, promote tolerance and prevent bullying, said the school board.
Parents or guardians of students can opt out of the sexual health education program if they so choose.
Developed by the Chicago Public Schools Office of Student Health and Wellness last year, the policy was designed to align the Chicago public school system with the standards in President Obama?s national HIV/AIDS strategy.

What do you think about this? Too young for such things, or is it best to start these things early?

 

[smearyllama]

As long as they keep it simple and stuff. I'm pretty sure they taught us "no-touch zones" or something starting around then, and that's been pretty helpful throughout my life. I don't think they're dumb enough to, I dunno, give them the grand ol' STD slideshow, so I think this could be a pretty good idea.

 

[JoJo]

Under the new policy, the youngest students - the kindergartners - will learn the basics about anatomy, reproduction, healthy relationships and personal safety.

Well, this is the key part. Can't say I see anything wrong here, they're only teaching the kindergarteners about the tamer stuff that any kid should know, they'll save the explicit parts for when they're older.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Why? Wouldn't it be best to start at puberty? Why does a six year old need to know how a vagina works when their's isn't even anywhere close to functioning yet? It just seems like a waste of time honestly. Especially when you only have half as much time to begin with, considering that kindergartens generally run for half the time of the rest of the school. Though I am fine with teaching kids that some kids have two dads or what a good or bad touch is, I just don't see the point of devoting time to other parts of the subject and then forcing them to relearn the same shit year after year. Sex-Ed was already a significant waste of time when I only had to learn it three times. Having kids go through it every year is ridiculous.

 

[SomeLameStuff]

I don't see a problem with this. Speaking from experience (my mom never hid this sort of information from young me) kids that age probably won't understand a thing about what is being taught anyway.

 

[MajorTomServo]

I don't see a problem with this. Speaking from experience (my mom never hid this sort of information from young me) kids that age probably won't understand a thing about what is being taught anyway.

I'm kinda with you there. I was never told about menstruation, or even where girls peed from. I had to deduce all that stuff myself when I was around 12.

I remember I was watching an episode of Malcolm in the Middle, and the joke was Malcolm's mom saying "Do you know what a period is?" Malcolm making a shocked face, and cutting to a commercial. I was like "NO! I DON'T! FUCKING TELL ME, TV SHOW! PLEASE! I WANT TO KNOW! ALL THE OTHER KIDS ARE LAUGHING AT ME AND WON'T TELL ME!"

 

[Colour Scientist]

Under the new policy, the youngest students - the kindergartners - will learn the basics about anatomy, reproduction, healthy relationships and personal safety.

Well, this is the key part. Can't say I see anything wrong here, they're only teaching the kindergarteners about the tamer stuff that any kid should know, they'll save the explicit parts for when they're older.

This, this.

It's not like they're explaining the ins and outs of sex to the kids in kindergarten or encouraging it. They're just making them aware of the biology of it. When they're a bit older they'll deal with contraception and STDs. It sounds like they're young but, as horrifying as it is, kids as young as nine are having sex. At least this way you're protecting them physically.

If they're aware of sex from a young age, hopefully they'll grow up with a healthy attitude towards sex and know that it's not something you should do until they're ready. Kids are going to find out about it anyway, at least hearing it from school will give them the facts.

 

[Xan Krieger]

Speaking as someone who never took a sex-ed course I don't think it's all that necessary, if you want to know about it for whatever reason google it. Besides, it's not hard to not have sex, I'm surprised so many kids have trouble with it.

 

[Neverhoodian]

Why does this need to be taught in kindergarten again? Kids are still well entrenched in the "cootie" phase at that point and will remain there until the fifth grade or so (most of them, anyway).

I can see sex ed starting to be taught in fourth or even third grade as a primer, but why go all the way back to kindergarten? Let the kids just have fun being kids without unduly worrying them about sex. Why stretch what is a relatively straightforward subject over such a long span of time?

Captcha: "baked in a pie"

...

I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.

 

[Thaluikhain]

No, kids shouldn't be taught anything about sex, because then they get to learn things wrong, and the hard way. Which is a good thing for some reason.

...

Seriously, why not? Better too early than too late for some things, and it's not like this is encouraging kindergartens to have gay muslim orgies and listen to satanic music, even though it will be accused of this.

 

[TheLion]

I was originally going to say, "too young", but considering the threat of child sex abuse I think it'd be best to encourage children to be open about such things instead of being left to suffer alone.

 

[smearyllama]

Seriously, why not? Better too early than too late for some things, and it's not like this is encouraging kindergartens to have gay muslim orgies and listen to satanic music, even though it will be accused of this.

But those "Beetle" boys and their rock and roll are out to destroy traditional American values! And that Louie Louie song has all those nasty hidden messages in it! We must do all we can to protect our youth!

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

I think it is a good thing. It's about time people grow up to realise that sex isn't a bad thing, it isn't something to throw off or delay for years later, or to fear. It's something to be embraced, when you feel ready for it. Teaching children about sex earlier can also go to leaps at making them understand it better. They will find out eventually, and who would you rather children learn sex from? Teachers and/or parents, or porn?

Teaching kinder students about it is fine, it isn't going to make them rush out trying to fuck the world. It will simply add to their education. Sex is a completely natural thing, one of the most natural things we can experience, so it makes no sense to withhold education of it. At least to me.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Seriously, why not? Better too early than too late for some things, and it's not like this is encouraging kindergartens to have gay muslim orgies and listen to satanic music, even though it will be accused of this.

But those "Beetle" boys and their rock and roll are out to destroy traditional American values! And that Louie Louie song has all those nasty hidden messages in it! We must do all we can to protect our youth!

If ever I get a time machine, I'm going to go back to when people were claiming pinball machines and milkbars will inevitably destroy society and laugh and laugh and laugh.

 

[game-lover]

I'll go with option 2. Depends on what they teach.

Based on what I'm reading in that portion of the article, I'd say it's fitting as for what they should learn and what they should not.

That's about the time kids start wondering where babies come from. And with that stupid Super Bowl commercial where a father lied blatantly about it and then hastily opted to distract his son, who I'm sure was at the most 7 years old with the song "Wheels on the Bus," parents oughta be relieved that someone else is willing to address it. After all, art imitates life and vice versa so that commercial had to be based on something. That gives the learning of reproduction a good place.

Anatomy is fitting too. Kindergarten age is around the time when you wanna start showing them differences between boys and girls. So there you go.

Healthy relationships and personal safety? I'm not sure how that will related to sexual education or what it'll mean but I see no problems with it based on first glance.

 

[Yabba]

I don't see a problem with this. Speaking from experience (my mom never hid this sort of information from young me) kids that age probably won't understand a thing about what is being taught anyway.

I'm kinda with you there. I was never told about menstruation, or even where girls peed from. I had to deduce all that stuff myself when I was around 12.

I remember I was watching an episode of Malcolm in the Middle, and the joke was Malcolm's mom saying "Do you know what a period is?" Malcolm making a shocked face, and cutting to a commercial. I was like "NO! I DON'T! FUCKING TELL ME, TV SHOW! PLEASE! I WANT TO KNOW! ALL THE OTHER KIDS ARE LAUGHING AT ME AND WON'T TELL ME!"

Jesus Christ I hated this, the kid in elementary would make sexual jokes and when I asked what a word was they would just laugh and not tell me, and when I finally gave up and looked at the definition on the interenet they would laugh at me for looking it up. I'm just like "WELL HOW THE HECK DO YOU FIGURE IT OUT ANYWAYS."

 

[TakeyB0y2]

Speaking as someone who never took a sex-ed course I don't think it's all that necessary, if you want to know about it for whatever reason google it. Besides, it's not hard to not have sex, I'm surprised so many kids have trouble with it.

Er... Do you really think 5-year-olds should be googling "sex"? Also it's not about teaching kids how to have sex... Actually it's not about that at all really.

OT: Well it's good they're starting with the basics, but I know there's gonna be at least a minor shitstorm, which makes me sad. When my high school starting doing sex ed courses, people somehow made it on the news crying how our school was going to teach kids how to do the "dirtiest and unholyest things people can do" and that they would be "taught how to do disgusting homosexual sex acts", complete with a pretty damn comprehensive list of things people can do with each-others butts for fun. And this made 5-o'clock news on a pretty damn neutral network. Oh the fun times those were.

 

[Zantos]

That seems like a fairly comprehensive education. Some people have misinterpreted this as teaching them the same thing year out, but it looks from the article that they're teaching relevant material based on what is suitable for their age. My lesson plans would go something like the following. Probably a good thing I'm not a teacher.

anatomy - Boys have wee-wee's, girls have something adorable sounding that means vagina. Could attempt to teach further about gender, but considering getting them all to sit down in the same place for 5 minutes is difficult I wouldn't hold your breath.

reproduction - Possible use of tadpoles and box of eggs. Try not to give children nightmares, make sure none of them eat the props.

healthy relationships - Charlie has two dads, there's nothing wrong with that because they're in love. Karl's mum is also his aunt, that's probably not so great.

personal safety - I'm not really sure how it works in this context, but I think running with scissors is more dangerous when naked.

 

[Batou667]

Sounds fine to me. I think the biggest hang-up people have with sex ed is the fact that it has the word "sex" in it, and sex and children are two separate bits of the Venn diagram which are only intersected by pedophiles. The truth is that sex education is as relevant for young children as any other kind of biology - because children do have sex[footnote]*sudden shocked intake of breath*[/footnote] - their sex is either male or female [footnote]*sigh of relief*[/footnote].

Basically, sex education is not sexual instruction (much to my bitter disappointment when my class watched "the video", I can tell you). Nobody is going to sexualise your kids.