If the purpose of schools is to undo the instillment of parents' values (or lack of them), we should at least be honest about it. That's the assumption behind most debates of this type.

If the purpose of schools is to teach specialized skills that most parents don't have, then we should cut the crap so that kids can learn them.

If the purpose of schools is to babysit kids so that their parents can be used as human batteries for Nestle and Kroger, then God help us.

Which means that having a law that says teaching human sexuality can't happen is impossible to do without turning the teachers into uncaring robot like beings.

They could have banned the teaching of sexually explicate material but they chose not to.

How archetypally liberal to define the difference between humans and “uncaring robot like beings” in terms of being able to talk about “human sexuality.” It’s really an obsession isn’t it.

http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=sexuali...

We are, after all, talking about a law and a legal system where definitions are somewhat important.

> Definition of sexuality : the quality or state of being sexual:

> a : the condition of having sex

> b : sexual activity

> c : expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive

I don’t think I’m being a prude in saying that third graders shouldn’t be learning about any of this.

But that's exactly the problem. Parents want to insulate their young children from discussions of "human sexuality." We have strong social conventions to be able to talk about things kids are exposed to--weddings, etc.--without expressly talking about sexuality. Many parents, however, no longer trust teachers to adhere to these social conventions.

That isn't how the law is written. They could have, perhaps, actually written it that way but they didn't. I will leave it to the reader to infer their true intentions.