Illinois Sex education

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Americanquest, Sep 23, 2008.

  1. I tried to find some of the ACTUAL education curriliculum on the web...does anyone have a link or know how to access it? I found the general guidlines but the specifics as were read on the media are not accesable that I can see...

    It is interesting that so many just decide to believe something without actually reading the facts...the bill Obama supported does not state the actual LESSON PLANS that were ascribed to....but general terms like 'age appropriate' and health accurate...

    So can anyone produce the actual curriculum and let's discuss THAT?
  2. Bills don't usually contain lesson plans and the like as that would be micromanagement. Those are written later, so there's no way that Obama would have supported them or been against any particular lesson plan.

    The bill in question was Senate Bill 99, introduced in the Senate in February 2003. Its broad purpose was to change and update portions of Illinois’s existing laws concerning sex education.

    According to the press release, Senate Bill 99 required that “if a public school teaches sex education, family life education, and comprehensive health education courses, all materials and instruction must be medically and factually accurate.” The bill’s main sponsor, Sen. Carol Ronen, was quoted saying, “It teaches students about the advantages of abstinence, while also giving them the realistic information they need about the prevention of an unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.” The release contained no mention of sexual predators or inappropriate touching.
  4. all materials and instruction must be medically and factually accurate.


    I asked my daughter a couple years ago what they taught in sex ed, she was in 11 or 12th grade. She gave me this example.

    They showed a slide (animated characters) of a peer group. The group had African American boys and girls a couple asians a few white people and a lesbian and a gay (I don't recall how these were denoted, but she knew they were).

    Next slide, an adult poses a question (I can't recall the question, maybe it was about condom use, it is really unimportant though).

    Next couple of slides, the peer group answers the questions. The only one who gets the answers right are the gay people.

    Gay people are right and so smart. The material was medically correct and factually accurate.
  5. This bill give parents a (choice) to have their kindergarten child be part of the class or not. Choice!
    And they would teach at age appropriate level. Abstinence is also talked about as a way to prevent pregnancy, but it is not the only way. I think this is a very good bill, and gives parents the choice to let their child be part of the class or not.
    Here is that bill from the article.

    What, specifically, was the bill designed to do? It appears to have had three major purposes:

    The first, as Ronen indicated, was to mandate that information presented in sex-ed classes be “factual,” “medically accurate,” and “objective.”

    The second purpose was to increase the number of children receiving sex education. Illinois’ existing law required the teaching of sex education and AIDS prevention in grades six through twelve. The old law read:
    Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS.

    Senate Bill 99 struck out grade six, changing it to kindergarten, in addition to making a few other changes in wording. It read:
    Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.

    The bill’s third purpose was to remove value-laden language in the old law. For example, the old law contained passages like this:

    Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.
    Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage…
    [Classes] shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy [and] sexually transmitted diseases…

    The proposed bill eliminated all those passages and replaced them with wording like this:
    Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
    Course material and instruction shall present the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception, including the success and failure rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV…

    The bill gave parents and guardians the right to take their children out of sex-ed classes by presenting written objections. The bill also specified that “all sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior…be age and developmentally appropriate.” And, after covering a number of other provisions, the bill addressed the issue of inappropriate advances:
    Course material and instruction shall teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment. The course material and instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and respect for others and shall also encourage youth to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance. Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful to touch an intimate part of another person as specified in the Criminal Code of 1961.

    The wording of that provision suggests lawmakers were at least as concerned with protecting children from each other as from adults, and it doesn’t seem directed toward the youngest children, as Obama maintained. But there is no doubt that the bill did address the question of inappropriate touching. On the other hand, there is also no doubt that, looking at the overall bill, the “touching” provision did not have the prominence that Team Obama has suggested it had, and it certainly wasn’t the bill’s main purpose.

    < Back 1 2 3 4 Next >

    NRO Sponsored Links - FOREX
    Trade Forex, Stocks and Futures with flexible leverage up to 1:500 in MT4, low spreads from 1.8 pips
    Holland America Line
    Request your free Alaska & Yukon vacation guide.
    Trusted Stock and Fund Insight from Morningstar
    Unlimited Stock and Fund Insight from Morningstar. Learn More.
    Buy a Link Now

    NRO Sponsored Links Trade FOREX like a Pro.$100 min to START
    ACCESS 3 trading platforms w/ one Acct: 70 currencies. 40 CFDs. Futures and Stocks. Metals. Win an Alaska cruise!
    Enter to win a cruise for two and request your free Alaska guide. Trusted Stock and Fund Insight from Morningstar
    Unlimited Stock and Fund Insight from Morningstar. Learn More.
    Buy a Link Now

    * * *

    NOT A SUBSCRIBER TO NATIONAL REVIEW? Sign up right now! It’s easy: You can subscribe to National Review here, or NR / Digital here. Or, you order a subscription as a gift: print or digital!

    © National Review Online 2008. All Rights Reserved.

    Home | Search | NR / Digital | Donate | Media Kit | Contact Us

    This page loaded in 0.006503 seconds.
  6. Interesting story.

    Are Gay people ever right or smart?
  7. Of course they are. I don't even have an objection to how the material was presented. I do not care. I teach my kids how to think for themselves. Schools can and will teach them whatever they want.
  8. Yes, the bill did give a choice...that does not alter the fact that Mr. Obama supported the bill.

    Shouldn't a person who is saying YEA to a bill have some idea what it actually Means? I suggest yes...

    Do you believe the material was sent home for parental review prior to the children seeing it or being exposed to it? Does anyone know factually how this was handled? YOU think it is 'age appropriate' to teach kindergarden children about 'master______?'

    And he did say that it was to teach the premise of 'good touch bad touch' but that program is already in place in most schools so that would be a duplicate message..And as pointed out by an earlier poster....this bill did not mention instruction against predators at all...
  9. Yes, I absolutely agree on them thinking for themselves...but exposure to too much information at a very young age USED to be inappropriate and viewed as dangerous...why? They are not emotionally developed enough to make right judgement on the information at hand...

    This was not age appropriate education...

    I had 'sex education' when I was in the 7th Health class and gave the facts and did not try to indoctrinate moral values at all...just the facts...

    This program taught objectionable moral issues... and was even instructional on HOW 5 year olds! Come on people!

    Can you honestly say that is not a problem? And that you would be fine if this was taught to your very young child?

    Puberty does not begin generally until around 12...So biologically that would be when education on the more indepth facts of pregnancy and sexuality should begin...not introdue them to sex before their bodies and physic are ready.

  10. What is instruction against predators? To me that is education about WHO is a predator. And for a kindergarten child they are not mature enough to understand when someone touches them in inappropriate places it is wrong, (Unless parent or school teaches them this) So if they are told it is wrong for someone to touch them in that way, and told to tell someone if that happens, then that is "instruction against predators"

    I am not sure what your mean to teach kindergarten child about materbation. And why do you only write half of the word "master____" in above quote of yours?
    The school is not going to teach a child how to masterbate. A child will explores their own body without anyone telling them to do so. That is normal.
    It is when someone else touches the childs body it becomes inappropriate. This is what they want to teach the young child who is innocent and does not know their rights. It is as simple as telling a child no one has the right to touch you in certain places. Yes, parents should tell their children these things at 3,4,5....years old. But some do not. So parents who do not want the school to say these things to their children, have the right to keep their child out of class.

    This bill did not get passed, and it was very general. So if it did pass, that is when the (specifics) of what is to be taught are debated. So the bill is the first step, and did not go any further.
    #10     Sep 24, 2008