Finding Hope in Anoka-Hennepin



Also, this statement is a

Submitted by Brett Johnson on 3 February 2011 - 10:08am.

Also, this statement is a fabrication on the part of the author: "even as it might pertain to bullying." Anoka-Hennepin teachers have been provided explicit direction from the superintendent that they have a responsibility to intervene and call out any anti-GLBT harassment.

Brett, you are correct that

Submitted by Sean Price on 3 February 2011 - 12:53pm.

Brett, you are correct that one sentence in the original post overstated the problems in Anoka-Hennepin. It read:

"Meanwhile, officials refuse to change the district’s policies that prohibit teachers from talking about sexual orientation, even as it might pertain to bullying."

This has been removed and replaced with more accurate statements. Having said that, we stand by our assertion that Anoka-Hennepin has been slow to understand that the best way to defend LGBT students is to value them openly.

Correction to your post: The

Submitted by Brett Johnson on 3 February 2011 - 9:54am.

Correction to your post: The Anoka-Hennepin policy does allow teachers to talk about sexual orientation. A classroom conversation or lesson about sexual orientation must be age-appropriate, fact-based and connected to the district. Read the policy for yourself:

Correction to your post Brett

Submitted by Robin Mavis on 12 August 2011 - 4:19am.

Correction to your post Brett - the policy DOES NOT ALLOW TEACHERS TO TALK ABOUT GLBT ANYTHING - especially if it is related to curriculum...because the POLICY ITSELF states that Sexual Orientation is not part of the adopted curriculum of the district. It is a circular arguement. The policy itself prevents curriculum from including anything about sexual orientation, therefore how could teachers talk about it relating to curriculum, if there is no curriculum to relate it to?

Brett you know darned well

Submitted by RK on 25 May 2011 - 9:35am.

Brett you know darned well the 'training' teachers received on the SOCP caused more confusion and was inadequate at best. If the policy is so clear and understandable, why does it take a four page document to explain it, and STILL have teachers confused. The bullying training they received was basically a power point presentation that was not mandatory for teachers to view. Don't even try to bring up the *training video* which was designed for students not staff, AND had less than 5 minutes on screen relating to LGBT bullying. On top of ALL OF THAT, the SOCP says that discussion of sexual orientation can only be taught within the approved curriculum. But the approved curriculum excludes any topics related to sexual orientation. So kind of a catch 22 there isn't it. The curriculum committee is comprised of some community members that have been on that *committee* for years and are not reflective of Anoka Hennepin's now diverse community and values. Maybe the district should think about changing how they select curriculum and how they can diversify the curriculum committee and get some fresh faces in there that bring a variety of viewpoints about diversity - and having one african-american person on the committee still does not make it a diverse committee.

Actually the implication of

Submitted by Mitch Beales on 9 February 2011 - 11:40am.

Actually the implication of the referenced policy is that unscientific, ill-supported beliefs about sexual orientation must be respected. I wonder if the district applies a similar standard to evolution. Do social studies teachers in the district maintain a "neutral" stance on communism in order to respect the views of families that may have communist ideas? Must teachers maintain a "neutral stance" on white supremacy and anti-semitism? Why are religious fanatics accorded "special rights?"