Always Wear Sunscreen

Stories like this one make me want to strangle someone.  What we have here is a couple of kids who were at school and they went on a field trip.  They were outside for five hours, but the children were not allowed to put on sunscreen.  Why not?  Because according to either the "school policy" or the "statewide law" (it's a little unclear as to which means of asshattery was involved her) "...teachers are not allowed to apply sunscreen to students and students can only apply it to themselves if they have a doctor's note."  What the actual eff is going on over there? 

According to the Huffington Post, a one Jesse Michener of Washington had two of her children come home from a school field day with sunburns that were so bad that they "hurt to look at".  After seeing pictures of the kids, I'm going to have to agree with that assessment.  Behold!

.

The kid on the left looks just miserable.  Not that the kid on the right has fared any better.  But holy canoli, is that a bright red sunburn she's got there.  Ms. Michener has documented this incident on her blog, "Life. Photographed." She says that after contacting the principal and asking why her children were not provided with sunscreen for the outing, the response "...centered around the the school inability to administer what they considered a prescription/medication (sunscreen) for liability reasons."  And this is where my head starts to explode.  See, if you buy something in the store and you don't need a (wait for it) prescription in order to purchase it, then it is by definition NOT a "prescription".  And since when is sunscreen considered to be a "medication"?!  It's sunscreen, for cryin' out loud!  But wait!  There's more! 

 

In the telling of this tale of administrative idiocy, she mentions that during said field trip, "...their teacher used sunscreen in her presence and that it was 'just for her'."  Oh, so the teacher knew enough to put sunscreen on herself, but wouldn't put any on the children for fear of some sort of liability repercussion?!  You have got to be kidding me?  How much of a sheeple is that teacher?  Good Lord.  Follow the policy to the letter of the law or else!  Never mind whether or not it's an asinine rule that will do more harm that good!  That's what it says, so God forbid if you actually do some thinking on your own and do something about it!  Nope, just let those kids get massive sunburns and then you can sleep well at night knowing that you followed the ridiculous rule because that's what you are supposed to do!  Good job, moron.

Now, maybe you're sitting over there and I haven't quite incensed you just enough yet.  Maybe you're sitting there thinking, "Well, if they couldn't wear sunscreen, they should at least have worn a hat to keep the sun off of their faces."  You'd think that, wouldn't you?  But guess what?  No, really.  Go ahead and guess!  I'll wait.  Did you guess?  OK, if you guessed that hats are not allowed at school even on field trip days, step forward and claim your prize!  That's right.  They don't allow hats and they don't allow kids to use sunscreen unless they have a prescription and put it on themselves.  (Have you ever seen a little kid put on sunscreen?  Let's just say that they're not very good at it.  You know why?  Because they're little kids!  They're not good at much!  They haven't been around very long!)

As you can imagine, this received quite a bit of attention, mostly from Ms. Michener being angry as hell that she had stupid people in charge of her children during the day.  She actually received a call from the Director of Elementary Education in Tacoma Public Schools. According to her blog, "...a new law – just on the books since June 7 – allowed for districts to make their own distinctions about what is and isn’t allowed at school with regard to sunscreen and other over-the-counter medications."  And while all of that is fine and good, let's just back up a little bit.  At some point, I'm guessing that more than one person came up with the previous policy.  And more than one person had to have said, "Yeah, I think that's a good idea.  I think it's good that the kids need a prescription from a doctor in order to put on over the counter sunscreen.  And if they're out in the sun for an extended period of time and they don't have a prescription, I think it's a fabulous idea that they not be allowed to use any.  I completely agree with this policy.  Let's implement it immediately!"  And they DID.  Who ARE those people?  They need to be removed from their jobs because they are so concerned with "liability" that they can't DO their jobs effectively.  What sort of liability could their be with sunscreen?  Is the kid going to be too slippery for a little while?  I don't get it. 

People that are in positions of authority and decision making who only go by the rules in the book should not be in those positions.  It goes without saying that if something is going to be run by the rules in a book, then why bother having the person there in the first place?  Just follow the rules and things will be fine.  There's no need for personal intervention.  It's all right there in the book.  We are fast becoming an over-regulated society which is void of people who are able to think for themselves and on their own.  Couple that with a bunch of morons who make non-sensical rules and regulations in the first place and it's a recipe for the sort of disaster that Ms. Michener's small children got to experience first hand.  Doomed, I tell you.  We're doomed. 

Sphere: Related Content

Discomfort On St. Patrick's Day

From the files of "You have got to be effing kidding me", Subsection "We're doomed" we have this little gem from FOX News about an elementary school principal in Massachusetts who decided to rename St. Patrick's Day by calling it "O'Green Day". No, I'm not kidding.

It would seem that over at the Soule Road School located in Wilbraham, MA, the principal, a one Lisa Curtin, has completely lost her mind. I say that because she is the one responsible for all of the name changing. When asked about this asinine action, she said that she "...decided to change the name to ease discomfort that some students might have in celebrating St. Patrick's Day". Wait a minute? Discomfort? For elementary school students? I understand discomfort in adults. (Have you ever drank your way through multiple twelve packs and washed them down with various fifths of several different kinds of liquor whilst being unable to make your way to an restroom due to being crammed like a sardine against other drunken revelers at your neighborhood watering hole/dive bar? Now that's discomfort.)

What sort of "discomfort" could their possibly be from "celebrating" St. Patrick's Day when you're in elementary school? Or in any other school for that matter? Then again, this same woman changed the name of Valentine's Day to "Caring and Kindness Day," according to parents with children in the school." Caring and Kindness Day?! What the hell is that?! That's not the name of it! She doesn't just get to go around changing the name of a day for whatever reason? Is nothing sacred? What if she was worried about the kids who might feel "discomfort" on particular days of the week? Is she going to change those too? Is Monday going to end up being "Happy Week Start Cotton Candy Butterfly, Unicorn and Puppy Day"? I don't get this at all.

Fortunately, I'm not the only one. Parents think that it's ridiculous as well. Just to quote a few "I think it's ridiculous" and "It's really stupid." And yet it still happens. So freaking ridiculous. Tell me, did this all-enlightened principal think that it might be offensive to those who are Irish to change the name of the holiday? Of course not. One, because I doubt that would ever happen. And two, because people like this principal don't think like that. They just want everything to be neutral and have zero meaning behind it. I really wish that people had taken some time off from protesting against people that don't want women to have birth control and protested this for a little while. At least this would have been entertaining.

And that gets me to the real point of this whole thing. If you're soooooooo upset by the freaking name of something, why bother celebrating it at all? Isn't that offensive? Or wrong? (I'm really kind of grasping at straws here because I don't understand it at all. I could be missing an adjective.) Are people really that worried that someone might be offended by the name of a holiday? It's not even a very good holiday! Once you're out of the beer drinking stage and before you're in it, do you know what St. Patrick's Day looks like? Whatever day it's on! What is there to feel "discomfort" about on St. Patrick's Day?! How did that woman get to be principal?! So many questions. So few answers. Just doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Male, Female, Neither Or Both

Hoo-boy. I have a full head of steam today. Let me tell you what. Good Lord. People have gone off the rails when it comes to trying to build their utopia where everything is just perfect for everything and every environment is perfectly welcoming and comfortable. And do you know which topic just makes those self-righteous morons feel really good about themselves? Gender issues and gender roles. (Mmm...gender rolls.) God, they just love those. But I think that Roosevelt Elementary School in San Leandro, California has gone a little too far. No, I take that back. They've gone completely over the edge.

Apparently, there was a letter that was send home with kids at some point. Here is a link to said letter which is entitled "Strategies for Re-Thinking and Discussing Gender Issues". Remember, this was sent home by the school. This is how the school thinks that gender issues should be dealt with. The school, presumably where children are, thinks these steps are a good idea. Keep that in mind because you're going to think that a radical crazy person in need of medication came up with these guidelines. Let's begin...

The first thing on the list is this: Be proactive in your conversations, bring up topics of gender and gender identity; don’t wait for your child to bring it up or for an experience or incident to talk about." Now, I don't know what sort of an "experience" or "incident" they're referring to here. They make it sound absolutely terrible. (And by the way, the word "don't" was bolded in their letter. They are apparently very serious about your not waiting. Boldly serious.) But what I think sounds even more terrible is the idea of just out of blue bringing up gender identity to your, say, six-year old. I think that when I was six, if my parents had started a conversation with me like "You know, you're a girl on the outside, but that doesn't mean that you're a girl on the inside. It's perfectly OK if you want to be a boy." I think I would have been really confused. (I also think I would have thought my parents were lunatics because, at six, girls ARE girls and boys ARE boys and that's just how it is.)

Here's another one: "When someone says something gender-biased (e.g. He is all boy! Look at all the energy he has!), take the opportunity to mention counter examples (e.g. One of the girls he plays with has even more energy than he does!). Seriously, what is the point of all of this? Is someone really afraid that people are going to think that ONLY boys are high energy? For God's sake. If someone ever said something like that to me, I think I'd have to politely ask them to never speak to me again. What are you people so afraid of? Who cares?! The thing is that no one comes away from a conversation which includes "He's all boy! Look at all his energy!" and thinks that only boy can have a lot of energy! NO ONE! No one thinks that, so stop with idiotic guidelines that are clearly only for scared, utopia building softheads.

Moving right along..."Question and explore your own biases. For example, how do you feel about boys wearing long hair? Girls who “dress like boys?” Girls playing football or boys wearing earrings or fingernail polish? What messages are you giving your child(ren) about how they and others express themselves?" Wait a minute. I said WAIT! Are they actually playing the long hair card in the year 2012?! And guys with earrings?! Are they really trying to get us to believe that people are simply befuddled by these developments? Are they saying that children are confused as to whether a guy with long hair is a boy or a girl? I don't think that they are! I really don't. Whose grandfather came up with this one?!

Next up: "Watch TV shows and ads and discuss with your child(ren): 1) How gender roles are portrayed; and 2) what messages are being sent. Is the mom always making cookies or dinner with the daughter and serving the boys? Are only boys playing with the Tonka trucks or Hot Wheels?" See, I just don't understand the premise of this. Are the children in question only watching Leave it to Beaver? Serving the boys?! Are you dry shaving me?!

This one might be my favorite: Mix up gender language when reading stories to your kids – especially with typically male dominated characters. For example, if the story is about a “boy” animal, mix it up and make the lion a girl. Consider adopting this strategy for the people in a story, too." These people do not read a lot of children's books. I know that because there are a lot of pictures in children's books. And male lions look very different from female lions. (Perhaps the lion community could benefit from these little guidelines because I certainly don't see how these are going to help people.) So now you're going to confuse your kid to where he can't identify a male lion. He'll see a lion with a big bushy mane and he'll say "That can be either a boy lion OR a girl lion." And someone will have to tell him, "No. You're an idiot. That's a boy." Do we really want future generations not being able to easily identify large cats in the wild?! Because that's what's going to happen!

But here's my most favorite. Seriously, I laughed out loud at this one: "Consider asking the adults around you what, if any, pronoun they would like you to use. Ask politely; it is not rude, but rather respectful. Try asking that of everyone you know as a way to bring the topic up in conversation. Start with people you would feel comfortable having the conversation with. You might explain that you are working to create a more gender inclusive environment for all people. This is particularly supportive for people who are questioning their gender or in the early stages of transition."

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Ummm...what now? Ask adults...what...pronoun (pronoun, right?) I should use? Sooooo...like, "Hey, Bob. Nice to meet you. Listen, Bob....in the future, when I talk to other people about you, would you like me to refer to you as a he or a she or neither or both?" HOW is that "respectful"? It might not be "rude", but do you know what it is? Effing weird, that is correct! And I can only imagine that Bob would answer such an inquiry with, "It doesn't matter. We'll never speak again after a question like that." That's how I would be answering a question like that. And "Start with people you would feel comfortable having the conversation with."?! I don't think I'd EVER be comfortable asking someone what pronoun I should use when I meet them. Sure, I could explain that I am "working to create a more gender inclusive environment for all people", but that would likely lead to them responding that they are working to create a more lunatic excluded environment for all people. Wow.

These people who came up with these "guidelines" seem to be actively looking for something to be wrong when there really isn't a problem. It's like they want to have a world with all of these problems so that they can feel so danged good about themselves for "fixing" them. I got news for these yo-yos. These problems don't exist! They certainly don't exist on a massive, global scale as they would like you to believe. And I swear, I can't be held responsible for my actions if I meet someone and they ask me if I want to be referred to as he, she, it, all of the above or none of the above. We are so doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

More Ughs

The other day, I let you know of the ridiculous Ugg boot ban at Pottstown Middle school in Pennsylvania. The long and the short of this is that despite a ban on cell phones in the classroom, middle school students are still sneaking their phones into class and (apparently) using them during class time. Naturally, the solution to that is to ban Uggs. Wait. What?

Yes. Like I described the other day, they have banned Uggs. They have also gone into great detail as to what will happen if one wears Uggs. (They will get detention after the first offense. I'm not sure what happens with subsequent offenses. Firing squad maybe?) But while people keep talking about this, the one thing that no one talks about is what happens if you bring your cell phone to class! Isn't that the problem?! Why is everyone still talking about these stupid boots when it's the phones that are the problem?!

I'll tell you why. If the couple of people who are interviewed in the clip below (courtesy of the fine folks over yonder at Newsy) are any indication of the typical parent in that area or at that school, then that is why. Paste eating, mouth breathing morons is how they come across. And again, NO ONE TALKS ABOUT THE PHONES! The one guy says "Kids can't learn if their cell phones keep going off during the day." Right. So you're going them from wearing BOOTS?! And the other person interviewed in this clip says, "They wear school uniforms. They should just go as far as just having...shoes." What does that even mean!? Is this a joke? Why is no one talking to administrators who made this idiotic decision?! Seriously. You got me. I give! Please tell me that everyone is kidding? What's that? They're not? OK, then. Good Lord. We're so doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

That's Not Going To Help

In one of the more ridiculous rules that I've heard implemented in a school, the NY Daily News tells us about a rule that was implemented in order to curb the usage of cell phones during class. Apparently, the administration was completed stumped as to what to do with kids when they are on their cell phones in class. So they did the only thing that they could think of. That's right. They banned Uggs. Wait.

That's right. The fuzzy footwear worn by famous metrosexuals such as Tom Brady has been banned at Pottstown Middle School in Pottstown, PA after more than one student was caught hiding a cell phone in this particular sort of footwear. According to a letter that was sent home with the students, something called The Mercury tells us that the principal, a one Gail Cooper, wrote that “...we have been experiencing problems with some students wearing open top boots and carrying items in their boots that are prohibited in school.” And she also wrote that "...following several problems with these items, I have banned the outdoor, open top boots from our classrooms". Good Lord.

What I can't figure out here is how Ms. Cooper was able to work her way up to the position of middle school principal without knowing about pockets! Granted, I'm totally assuming that she doesn't know about pockets (and that most pants are bepocketed), but I can't think of any other explanation for what seems like an idiotic ban on something that won't even address the problem. Not to mention that there are plenty of other places on a person's person where one could conceal a cell phone if they wanted to. But Ms. Cooper doesn't seem to know about those either, hence her attacking the Uggs.

What is this woman going to ban next when she realizes that there are other ways to sneak one's cell phone into class? Clearly, bras will be out. As will socks and, really, any kind of footwear. As far as their pants go, I guess the kids will all have to wear Speedos or mankinis. Boys won't be allowed to wear shirts and the girls will just have to have on some sort of leotard like gymasts wear. Look forward to a school full of pre-pubescent boys clad in Speedos wearing flip-flops! That'll do it! Sure, they'll get chilly during the winter months, but it's clearly the ONLY way to stop kids from bringing their cell phones into class. Right?

Wrong. I'm still confused as to why this has come down to this. It seems very simple. If the rule is that you don't use a cell phone in class, then you just take the cell phones of those who break the rule. The first time, they can have the phone back at the end of class. The second time, they can have the phone back at the end of the day. And the third time, they can have the phone back at the end of the school year. Problem solved. And you can do all of that AND wear Uggs at the same time! It's like a footwear miracle!

Sphere: Related Content

Bad Example

No one likes homework. And you know what people like even less than homework? Homework where the word problems use slaves and slavery as an example. For reals.

Let's go down to Norcross, Georgia and head on over to Beaver Ridge Elementary School. It is there that we learn from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about the math worksheet that some third graders received. Apparently, some dimwit teacher down there decided that it would be a good idea to use slavery as the basis for some of the word problems. That's right. Slavery. Now, I don't know how anyone could think that would be a good idea to begin with. It's not as if there aren't a gazillion appropriate topics to choose from in the first place. But that someone would actually knowingly go with the slavery reference is really a head scratcher. Nothing else sounded good, eh? Puppies? Flowers? Trucks? Decided to go with slaves, huh? All right then. Interesting choice. And just what were some of the questions. Well...

"Each tree had 56 oranges. If 8 slaves pick them equally, then how much would each slave pick?"

And...

"Frederick had 6 baskets filled with cotton. If each basket held 5 pounds, how many pounds did he have all together?"

And...

"If Frederick got two beatings per day, how many beatings did he get in 1 week?"

Let's see, two beating per day...is this your standard 5-day work week? What's that? Oh, right. Slaves. Yeah, so seven days. Time two beatings per day. That comes out to be the most ridiculous example that a particular educator could have chosen for a third grade math problem. For cryin' out loud, what is wrong with people?

And it's not just the person who put that on the worksheet whose sanity I'm questioning right about now. I'm also wondering about the mental status of the district spokeswoman, a one Sloan Roach, as she said, “Clearly, they did not do as good of a job as they should have done." Well. That seems like a pretty dumbed down understatement if there ever was one. Oh, wait. No, I was wrong. This Roach person added, "It was just a poorly written question.” Really?! I don't know, I think that this involved something just a little bit more than just poor writing. Someone had to think of it first! That involves poor thinking! I love how this woman is just trying to blow this off as if someone forgot the "I before E except after C" rule.

(I do want to just interject here and say that I'm glad that none of the articles that I read about this referenced the race of anyone. I'm so glad that this didn't turn into a story about racism when it is clearly a story about stupidity. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on.)

But it would seem that this sort of asinine thinking is common in that particular school district. I say that because, in regard to what is going to be done about this, "...district officials said the elementary school's principal will "work with teachers to come up with more appropriate lessons." Work with the teachers?! Are you kidding me?! I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that if the teacher can't figure out on their own that it is inappropriate (at the very least) to include slavery references in math problems, then I don't think that they can be helped. Seriously, that seems like the most basic of all basic common sense things that you would have to noodle through at some point as a teacher. I don't know that they have enough gray matter to work with. Give them some severance pay and send them on their way. Perhaps direct them to a nice community college. Or a store that sells helmets. But you can't teach a pig to sing. It frustrates you and annoys the pig.

Sphere: Related Content

The School Knows Better Than You Do

Goodbye, sweet America. Can't figure out what to feed your own child? Are you addled brained of a parent that you're going to need someone else to decide what you child should and should not eat? Well, if you answered yes to those two questions AND if you have a child and they are currently attending (or going to attend) Little Village Academy in Chicago, then you are in luck! That's right. That's because the Little Village Academy in Chicago has decided that you have no idea how to feed your kid properly and therefore they have banned "...students from bringing lunches from home altogether."

That's right. It doesn't matter if you want to pack your kid's lunch. If your child attends Little Village Academy, you can't. According to the Chicago Tribune, "...students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria." NOT ALLOWED to pack lunches from home. In the land of the free. All right then. How...how...why is this? Well, because the school knows better than you, silly.

The principal, a one Elsa Carmona, explained that "...her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices." By telling folks how to parent. By telling them that they CANNOT choose what their own child eats. By taking away their freedom to raise their child how they see fit. All right then. This is asinine. Oh, and in case you were wondering what sort of meal they will be providing the children with for their own protection, please see the photo below. It is alleged that it is some sort of "an enchilada dish". Behold!

Oh, man. Kid, I feel for ya. Ms. Carmona claims that she created this policy six years ago. The reasoning? She saw students bringing "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips for lunch. Oh, no! Flaming hot chips! Soda?! The madness! She goes on to say that "Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school." Right. Because parents are completely incapable of packing a nutritious lunch for their children to eat. Those poor dumb, dumb parents. She also says that "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception." Wait. She what?

She would make an exception for kids with allergies or some sort of medical issue? You mean, the school doesn't know how to handle things like that better than the parents do? Why not? They seem to know what's best for every other kid out there when it comes to feeding them. Why can't they execute that same sort of care for the ones that really need some help? If you answered because this is an asinine policy to begin with, please come forward and claim your prize.

And in case you were wondering who pays for all of this, let us go to the part of the article that really aggravates me. It explains that "Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch." I see. Soooo...let me get this straight. By doing this, someone actually makes money. By taking away the freedom to choose, someone is profiting off of it. Huh. And the money that someone makes comes from where again? The federal government, was it? Yeah, OK. And that money comes from where again? OH. That's right. ME!

How many times do I have to point out to morons that this stuff happens ALL THE TIME. This isn't a "free" program. It's paid for by the taxpayers! Federal taxpayers! When did it become everyone else's job to feed someone else's kid?! I didn't sign up for that! I can think of about a hundred different ways that I would like my federal tax dollars to be used and not one of them involves feeding school children in Chicago! (And most of them don't include the many, many ways our tax dollars are already being pissed away, but I digress.)

Fortunately, there are some voices of reason with this issue. A one J. Justin Wilson, who is a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Consumer Freedom, which is partially funded by the food industry, said "This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility." Do you think?! Oh, sorry about that. He seems to be on my side. Never mind. I meant, yeah! It's an infringement. (I'm going to have to remember that phrase. Fundamental infringement. It sounds a little more responsible than "moronic" or "asinine".) He also asks the sadly rhetorical question of "Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal?" Hard to say, being as how they've banned lunches from home altogether, but I'd still like to know their answer.

Another voice of reason on this topic seems to come from a one Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach who is an "education policy professor" (whatever that is). She commented on the issue of the cost of requiring students to eat a school lunch at the cost of $2.25 a day. "We don't spend anywhere close to that on my son's daily intake of a sandwich (lovingly cut into the shape of a Star Wars ship), Goldfish crackers and milk". That lady is awesome. How cool of a mom is she? I want to know what Star Wars ship. I'm guessing the Millennium Falcon. Her son probably doesn't like crusts, so she cuts them off in a cutesy way. I like her. She's fun, she's reasonable and she's right. $2.25 a day for a school lunch? You can definitely bring a lunch from home for considerably less.

And while not all schools in the Chicago area have implemented this policy that you and I pay for (funny, I don't feel like I live in Chicago), others have come up with their own equally ridiculous policies. Take the Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side. Over there you can bring a lunch to school, but the school "officials" will "...confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.)" Right. That makes perfect sense. Because the kid won't eat it after school. Noooo. If you're not eating it at school, it takes all of the fun out of it! But do you know why they do it? If you ask Principal Rebecca Stinson she'll tell you that "...most parents expect that the school will look out for their children."

If that last quote doesn't horrify you to your bones, then I can't help you here. Sure, I expect schools to "look out" for children when the children are there. But when I think of being "looked out" for, I think of the school keeping the children safe...and not safe from a Cheeto! Next thing you know, they're going to want to tell the kids what to wear, what doctor to go to, etc. And what, exactly, happens on the weekends when the school isn't around to guide these completely soft-headed parents in raising their children? What are they going to do? How will they know what to choose? Where is the school when we need it?! Holy crap. I think I made myself sick typing these last few lines. Goodbye, sweet America. With policies like the ones described here, we are not only doomed, we are screwed. We are so scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Survey Says? Inappropriate!

Look, I'm not sure what a "sex survey" that is given to middle school children should consist of, but I'm not really all that comfortable with the first question on such a "survey" being "What is your gender?" and having there be four choices. As I'm sure you can imagine, not all of the parents were thrilled either.

Over there at Hardy Middle School in Washington, DC, a 7th grade health/physical education class was given a "sex survey", the purpose of which is a little fuzzy to me. From what I can tell from reading the article over there at something called The Georgetown Dish, there's some sort of a non profit called Metro TeenAIDS which educates children about HIV and AIDS. It appears that in 2009, the Washington, DC Public Schools (DCPS) gave Metro TeenAIDS "...a $15,000 consulting contract and $80,000 contract...to provide programming in the schools". Supposedly, "This program has been selected by DCPS for instruction to meet [health learning standards] for the middle school grades and is used in 7th and 8th health classes (sic) throughout DCPS." Um, OK. How does this turn out to be some sort of survey given to 12-year olds and asking them about their gender while providing them with four choices?

That part isn't overly clear to me. But it does say that not only does Metro TeenAIDS (which is a ridiculous name, if you're asking me) provide some sort of an educational component, they also use their time in public schools to do research. I'm guessing that this little survey was more along the lines of the research end of things. Though, from what I can tell, a whole lot of kids learn a whole lot of new things that day. And I'm guessing that a lot of them were more than they ever wanted to know. At least, I'm hoping so.

Let's look at some of the questions and see how appropriate they are for middle school kids, shall we? Let's also see if we can figure out what in the world people were thinking when they decided that this would be a good idea, OK? Here we go...first question:

"What is your gender?"

Well, that seems pretty straight forward. Let's look at the choices.

A) Male B) Female C) Transgender (M to F) D) Transgender (F to M)

Wait. For 12-year olds? Transgender?! I'd be looking for "E) WTF". I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that choices C and D are completely unnecessary. 100% not needed. What is wrong with you people?

It only gets worse.

One series of questions read:

"How sure are you that you.......

Can name all four body fluids that can transmit HIV?

Know the difference between oral, vaginal, and anal sex?

Can correctly put a condom on yourself or your partner?

Will avoid getting yourself or your partner pregnant if you have sex?

Can convince a reluctant partner to use barrier protection (i.e. condoms, dental dams) during sex?"

For 12-year olds. First of all, dental dams? Really? You expect a 12-year old to have any sort of knowledge about that? Do you want your 12-year old to have knowledge of that? And seriously, who has ever used one of those? Honestly. Sure, they probably sound OK in theory (but not really), but I don't think that they're in high demand. Where do you get them? Other than at the dentist's office when you're having something done in your mouth. Are they next to the condoms? I have no idea and neither should 12-year olds.

By the way, when the kids didn't understand what certain things were and inquired about them, "...the facilitator...brought in on a DCPS contract...started to define "anal sex" and "oral sex." Are you kidding me?! Anal sex shouldn't even be explained to adults, let alone small children!

The questions on the survey continued along those ludicrous lines and included things like "During your life, with how many peopled have you had sex (oral, vaginal, anal)?" and "In the past 30 days on how many days did you......

Have 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row, or within a couple of hours?

Use marijuana?

Use other non-injecting drugs (like cocaine, PCP, ecstasy)?

Inject drugs with a needle like heroin)?

Have sex?

Have sex after drinking alcohol or getting high?"

Hey, you people getting the almost $100k grant to do this sort of thing! Yeah, you. Question: Don't you think that you should tone things down a bit? Seriously. Are you trying to traumatize these kids? I'd be interested to know if EVER during the time that you've been taking this survey even ONE 12-year old answered "Yes" to having 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row or within a couple of hours. I'm guessing you have not. And what does that have to do with HIV and AIDS?

Now, of course, parents were outraged. Not just so much at the content of the survey, but more so at the fact that they had not been notified ahead of time, given a copy of the survey or given a chance to have their kid opt out of this insanity. Huh. And they're angry, eh? In what way?

I'm sure that some sort of an apology is forthcoming. That I don't doubt. But I'm sick of apologies. Here's what I want: I want someone to explain to everyone how they came to the decision to distribute this survey to the middle schoolers. I want someone to explain the logic that they were using that allowed them to come to the conclusion that this sort of thing was appropriate. That's what I want. I want a detailed description of the thinking process that goes into something that is so obviously not OK. I also want to know if anyone, anyone even ventured to say anything along the lines of, 'Uh, are we sure this is a good idea? Because this seems awfully advanced for 12-year olds." Anything along those lines? Anything? Anyone? That's what I want to know. Keep your apologies and instead explain why you're so stupid. Inquiring minds want to know.

If you'd like to see more of this absurd survey, it can be found here. And I can be found banging my head against a wall. What is wrong with people?

Sphere: Related Content