Longmeadow Public Schools Uses Free Sex Ed Resources that Cost Kids their Innocence
We get it, LPS. COVID pushed everyone into using online resources, and money doesn't grow on trees. But now it's time for a courageous conversation.
Do you live in Longmeadow, have kids in Longmeadow Public Schools, or have friends that do? If so, pull up a chair. Let’s talk.
*Clears throat*
I have some good news, and I have some bad news.
The good news is, MFI has analyzed the Sex Ed curriculum being used in your district as part of their Sex Ed Map Project, and it could definitely be worse. Thankfully, it’s not as currently extreme as what’s being used in towns like Uxbridge and Dover-Sherborn.
You can (and should) check out the whole analysis HERE.
Your district’s curriculum isn’t extreme, but it still sexualizes kids. It teaches kids not legally old enough to consent to sex how to use birth control (somebody, please make it make sense!). It reinforces the idea that “consent is everything” when it comes to sex, which puts sexual desire at the top of the moral hierarchy and faith and family values at the bottom. It gives a lot of details about STIs and birth control methods, some of which is super gross (see below) and all of which may be TMI for your average high school freshman. But, we like to give credit where credit is due. There are some bright spots that you can be happy about. It DOES, at least for now, still talk about “males” and “females” as distinct biological categories. It DOES NOT go off the rails on the gender ideology crazy train. And, it EVEN includes some information about prenatal fetal development that demonstrates the humanity of our youngest fellow humans - a welcome change in a world that more often refers to unborn babies as “products of conception” or “the pregnancy”.
While admittedly the bar for decency in the world of MA sex ed is very, VERY low, it’s nice to see a district not completely going out of its way to use sex ed curriculum as a vehicle to turn kids into gender-confused, hyper-sexual, reproductive-justice-warriors and Pride activists.
But, as you may recall, there is also some bad news.
Longmeadow, like many districts, likes to create their own units and implement free resources they find on the internet. And while some of these resources are relatively benign, others fall more into the category of problematic or pornographic propaganda that has no business in the classroom. Here are two examples in the second category, both of which show up in the 11th grade curriculum.
First up: Five Big Myths About Consent from onelove
This article, used as part of a lesson on consent, wants you to think it’s just about healthy boundaries. The aforementioned “five big myths” are:
“Boundaries aren’t essential.”
“Consent is only about sex.”
“Silence means ‘yes’.”
“No take-backs.”
“All’s fair when you’re drunk.”
And these are indeed myths, because of course parents want their kids to know that boundaries are important, they have a say in what happens to their bodies in more areas than just intercourse, not saying ‘no’ to something isn’t necessarily the same thing as saying ‘yes,’ it’s okay to change your mind, and just because someone is drunk doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want to their body. Ok, fine. But the problem with this article isn’t the myths themselves. It’s the other stuff that gets smuggled in.
First, notice how in the very first paragraph, students are directed to keep an eye on Advocates for Youth’s social media accounts? What what would kids see if they followed this instruction?
If kids followed this instruction, they would see Advocates for Youth showing their true colors: sexualizing young people, pushing a progressive political agenda, and promoting and celebrating abortion. There is literally a picture of a cake celebrating abortion. I mean, come on. What does this have to do with consent?!
But even if kids don’t take the recommendation to check out AfY’s socials and they just read the article as presented, they will still be subject to the drumbeat of LGBTQ ideology and the warped perception of human sexuality that it brings.
There are only two pictures of couples in this article, and both of them are same-sex couples. The first one has a “they/them” thrown in for bonus woke points.
The second one is just two guys-who-identify-as-guys, which we can tell since in this one they remember to say “he” instead of “they.”
So, why is this a problem? Some teens experience same-sex attraction. Shouldn’t they “see themselves” in an article like this?
The problem is, the image choices in this article distort reality. 2 out of 2 couples depicted are squarely under the LGBTQ umbrella. Kids are just trying to learn about consent, and they get yet another example of media pushing the subliminal message to kids that being “cis” is boring and that alternate sexualities and gender identities represent a larger percentage of the population than they actually do. Moral views on human sexuality aside, the push toward non-heterosexual pairings is not good for the future of the human race because as it turns out, the existence of the next generation depends on boring ol’ cis-males and cis-females coming together to procreate.
Is everything on the onelove website bad? No. Could this article be worse? Absolutely. But we think the bar for curricular resource selection should be higher than “I guess it could be worse.” And in this case, the inclusion of activist agendas is completely unnecessary. And any literate adult with a basic knowledge of human relationships could type up a lesson with information about consent, or present similar ideas without linking kids to a website that has its own, questionable agenda (not to mention a link to a free chat line, which can open a whole ‘nother can of worms).
But onelove isn’t the worst website Longmeadow sends its students off to visit. The worst one is Teen Health Source.
In the 11th grade lesson on STI/STDs, students are sent off to Teen Health Source to take a 10 question quiz. The quiz itself is fairly scientific in nature and probably wouldn’t raise many eyebrows, especially for students in this age group. But what happens when kids are done with the quiz? That’s the real problem.
As soon as kids finish the quiz, they are informed that they can:
“…contact Teen Health Source to talk to a trained teen volunteer! We provide information in a non-judgmental, sex-positive, youth-positive, pro-choice and inclusive manner. We are available 5 days a week via text, chat, phone and email.”
My oh my, how quickly that went south. One minute kids are answering questions like “You can tell a person has an STI by looking at them: true or false” and the next minute they are being invited to talk to an anonymous, “sex-positive” stranger. It doesn’t take a crystal ball to predict that this anonymous “volunteer” might direct them toward Planned Parenthood, since PP is mentioned more than once on this page alone.
It should go without saying that invitations to online chats with sex-positive strangers have no business in the classroom. But maybe it needs to be said anyway. Because here we are.
And what happens if the student decides to poke around on this site once the quiz is done? What else might they find?
How about articles on “DIY Sex Toys” and “Fingering and Fisting?”
And that’s just a start. There are also articles on “Rimming”, “Anal Play,” and many, MANY other topics that, if an adult tried to discuss with kids in any other context, someone would call the police.
And what happens if a teacher walks by when a student is poking around this website, or if the student visits it at home and a parent is near? The curious lad or lass can simply click the “Quick Hide” button at the top of the screen, and those prying adult eyes will never know that they were reading an article about how to lick their sexual partner’s anus without getting poo in their mouth.
The grooming on this website, which I remind you is MADE EXPRESSLY FOR MINORS, is off the charts.
But that being said, I don’t think that the Longmeadow Public Schools is using this website because they want students to learn the finer points of anal play and then be set loose to chat with sex-obsessed strangers on the internet. I prefer to give educators the benefit of the doubt. I think they are using it because at some point some stressed-out teacher was trying to pull together a lesson using resources that they could get for free, and with minimal hassle. They googled “free STI quiz for teens,” this link came up, and the rest is history.
But regardless of how we got here, we are now in a place and time where public school teachers are sending kids to websites with links to activist groups and articles about fisting. And this means that the adults in charge need to raise the bar. Because while it’s easy to see how tempting it is for a district to avail itself of free online resources, it’s also pretty obvious that any literate adult with a basic knowledge of STIs and access to google docs could type up a 10 question quiz in about 15 minutes that would satisfy the learning standards. There’s no need for an outside link to a gross website. There are dozens of ways this material could be presented, with little additional effort, without sending kids to poo-scented, sketchy corners of the internet.
Longmeadow parents, contact your school district and bring these links to their attention. Tell them to make some changes. It would be EASY for them to fix this problem. If they don't? Ask why. Because OBVIOUSLY using resources like these is NOT necessary to accomplish their stated curricular goals.
(And don’t forget to read the full Longmeadow Analysis of Sex Ed Resources, HERE.)
Not in Longmeadow? Your district might use stuff like this too. We are seeing a major change in how districts purchase and implement curricular resources. Gone are the days of students being given kids one thoughtfully-approved and tax-dollar-purchased textbook for each class. Now it’s far more likely that teachers are pulling individual freebie “instructional resources” off the internet, and district policies rarely (if ever) require School Committee approval for these resources. The links from Longmeadow are a good example of this, but it can happen anywhere.
Online-resource-apologists will explain this trend away, pointing to the fact that COVID (or more accurately, COVID-related educational policies) pushed districts into using more web-based resources like these. And they would be correct. We get it. But now the plexiglass barriers have all come down, and the biggest “pandemic” our kids are fighting is the pandemic of too much screentime and its corresponding exposure to nasty stuff online. This pandemic needs to end, too. There is no good reason for schools to use lazy resources that expose kids to explicit or biased materials that bring inappropriate or non-curricular issues into the classroom (or onto district-issued chromebooks). We can, and must, demand better.
#equippingparents
#protectingkids
Did you love this post? Do you know people who would like to receive this type of in-depth analysis in their inbox, once a week (or whenever we post it)? If so, share Massachusetts Informed Parents Substack with your friends now!
Hear, hear! Clap 👏