And what about the teacher in that particular class and/or the school board of that particular school?
So you're granting that there may be times when a particular child could benefit from delaying sex-ed?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It's just a table of the amount of teenage pregnancies. What I'm saying is, in the UK, Holland is seen as how good sex ed should be, because they start at an early age, and are very open with children about it. What I'm wondering is, why traditional Catholic countries like Spain and Italy have such low rates of teen pregnancy, despite not being nearly so open about sex, generally.
If all their sex-ed is equal, which is generally the case, the question you have to ask is why some have lower pregnancy rates than others. While you seem to be focusing on Italy and Spain having low number, and inferring that this is because of a Catholic tradition, how does that explain the Dutch being the lowest?
And what about the teacher in that particular class and/or the school board of that particular school?
So you're granting that there may be times when a particular child could benefit from delaying sex-ed?
I'm saying that such an argument does not necessitate the withdrawal of a particular child from sex-ed. Unless the parents are using it as cover of reasonableness for absolutely no sex-ed getting taught to their child, rather than a delay. And considering what actually gets taught in sex-ed, there isn't a great deal of maturity required.
At least, in Illinois. I don't know about you kinky Californians or what the fuck they do in the frozen North, but my sex-ed classes were all about STD's and biology.
If you are so concerned about what the school is teaching, and want to impart your own wisdom and beliefs on your child, perhaps you should....oh I don't know.....actually talk to your fucking kid! It's the funny thing called being a parent, and it's part of the job you took on when you conceived junior. Your responsibilities didn't end when your wife or you shot the little bugger out from your loins. If your kid rejects your beliefs or challenges them or ignores them altogether, guess what, that's what kids do. They aren't just blank slates or little drones that'll be exactly like you. Get over it.
Why not? We have truancy laws. What makes public interest convincing in that case and unconvincing in the case of sex ed?
Because the hit to public interest from having a child grow up without ever receiving an education at all is far greater than that from having a kid not know how to slap a condom on the ol banana?
The first consequence of missing the banana is a drastic increase in the chance you'll never finish high school. The second, equally alarming consequence is that your kid will probably never finish high school.
Someone has already used this argument, but it's a good one and bears repeating. Taking for granted that "sex ed" means "recommending blowjobs as safe sex in kindergarten," what the hell does withholding your child from that class accomplish if they return to the same class the very next day? The child will hear a garbled repetition from their peers ("if you put your mouth on the peepee, no babies come out!" "Yeah! babies are going to come out of your peepee unless someone puts their mouth on it!" ) instead of the original crap from Mr. Garrison.
It serves neither the public, the parents, nor their children to make sex ed optional in the worst case scenario.
Well, yes. And one could argue that there's a risk of having a child attend any class at all, because that one weird kid might show up at recess and tell everyone about the time mommy and daddy were wrestling naked on the bed. But you have to draw reasonable lines in the sand somewhere. Are you asserting, then, that the parent should have no right at all to determine how their child is educated? What about private schools, where the curriculum overall may differ slightly from that in public schools?
Private schools have to meet national standards. If sex ed isn't one of those standards, it ought to be.
You could argue that the public school curriculum is set up that way for a good reason, and the parent should have no right to deviate from it even slightly by pursuing a private school. You could further argue that a parent should never be allowed to pull their child from school to go on vacation, because he might miss valuable lessons.
I could, hell, maybe I would, but I'm not. Much as I'd love to go all Brave New World on this thread and hand all parental authority over to the state, we're talking about a policy in Alberta that might force teachers to get a signature before mentioning homosexuality, evolution, or sex.
If you grant that the parent should have at least limited say in how the kid is educated, at least to the point where the parent can determine when the kid can afford to miss a few days of school and go on vacation, then it's not too far a leap to letting them adjust the timing of a particular, very sensitive lesson.
There's also the fact that even if we don't explicitly offer parents the chance to yank their kid for a day, they can almost certainly find out when that lesson will be taught, and then have Jimmy conveniently on vacation for that day.
I wouldn't dare argue to censure parents who are proactive enough to do that. But I think they're making a poor decision, and would prefer not to enshrine their right to do so in legislation that makes it the educator's responsibility to notify them. That piece, I think, is the extent of our disagreement if we even have one. I think it should be on the idiotic parents to find out when to yoink their kids, Alberta thinks it should be on the school to notify the idiotic parents when to yoink their kids.
It's just a table of the amount of teenage pregnancies. What I'm saying is, in the UK, Holland is seen as how good sex ed should be, because they start at an early age, and are very open with children about it. What I'm wondering is, why traditional Catholic countries like Spain and Italy have such low rates of teen pregnancy, despite not being nearly so open about sex, generally.
If all their sex-ed is equal, which is generally the case, the question you have to ask is why some have lower pregnancy rates than others. While you seem to be focusing on Italy and Spain having low number, and inferring that this is because of a Catholic tradition, how does that explain the Dutch being the lowest?
Well it doesn't. But what I'm saying is, if the reason why British, and I guess American teen pregnancy is so high is that parents aren't open with their kids about sex, or consider it a sin, (open, liberal Holland's rates support this viewpoint), then why does not talking about sex and being old fashioned not cause them to have high numbers of teen pregnancy in Italy?
Part of the problem here is that the School Act already enshrined a parent's right to opt their kid out of certain classes or discussions. If there was a sex discussion they weren't informed of, they could complain to the principal, superintendent of the district, etc.
But by moving this shit into the human rights act you open a big can of worms. Lots of things, like evolution, could potential offend someone's religious beliefs, and if they decide to raise a fuss they could haul the teacher in front of a human rights tribunal, which is a far more serious act than whining to the principal.
I dunno, the Canadian Human Rights Act states that: Canadians have the right to equality, equal opportunity, fair treatment, and an environment free of discrimination. The tribunals only applies these principles.
I suppose you could make a case on the "fair treatment" part of the act, but I think thats a stretch.
No, see, there's an Alberta Human Rights Act, and they're moving this parental right to pull your kids out of anything that touches on religion or sex into it. That's the real story here, because by moving that right from the School Act (where it has been for years) to the Human Rights Act, you're creating the potential for a chilling effect on educators throughout the province.
Part of the problem here is that the School Act already enshrined a parent's right to opt their kid out of certain classes or discussions. If there was a sex discussion they weren't informed of, they could complain to the principal, superintendent of the district, etc.
But by moving this shit into the human rights act you open a big can of worms. Lots of things, like evolution, could potential offend someone's religious beliefs, and if they decide to raise a fuss they could haul the teacher in front of a human rights tribunal, which is a far more serious act than whining to the principal.
I dunno, the Canadian Human Rights Act states that: Canadians have the right to equality, equal opportunity, fair treatment, and an environment free of discrimination. The tribunals only applies these principles.
I suppose you could make a case on the "fair treatment" part of the act, but I think thats a stretch.
Most of the human rights tribunal issues deal with standard things like pay equity or discrimination at a particular company or some such things. Senj was referring to some of the other territory that the HRC has been wading into and he does have a valid concern in my opinion. This is probably a more important issue than the sex-ed classes which are entirely unaffected by this law.
As for all the Alberta hurr hurr comments, I wouldn't be surprised if a parent can pull a child out of sex ed or any other class in every province in Canada for any particular reason.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
It's just a table of the amount of teenage pregnancies. What I'm saying is, in the UK, Holland is seen as how good sex ed should be, because they start at an early age, and are very open with children about it. What I'm wondering is, why traditional Catholic countries like Spain and Italy have such low rates of teen pregnancy, despite not being nearly so open about sex, generally.
If all their sex-ed is equal, which is generally the case, the question you have to ask is why some have lower pregnancy rates than others. While you seem to be focusing on Italy and Spain having low number, and inferring that this is because of a Catholic tradition, how does that explain the Dutch being the lowest?
Well it doesn't. But what I'm saying is, if the reason why British, and I guess American teen pregnancy is so high is that parents aren't open with their kids about sex, or consider it a sin, (open, liberal Holland's rates support this viewpoint), then why does not talking about sex and being old fashioned not cause them to have high numbers of teen pregnancy in Italy?
I'm kind of thinking you don't understand Italy and Spain. While they may have a tradition of Catholicism, the reality is that they are very liberal when it comes to sex and social issues, just as the Dutch are. The UK are perhaps less so, and there are socio-economic reasons for the high instance of teen pregnancy there.
As far as I remember we did need a consent form to take sex ed. That was some 15 or so years ago, I don't know whats changed since then though. I do remember there were a few kids that didn't participate, I don't remember what they did during the sex ed time though.
Well it doesn't. But what I'm saying is, if the reason why British, and I guess American teen pregnancy is so high is that parents aren't open with their kids about sex, or consider it a sin, (open, liberal Holland's rates support this viewpoint), then why does not talking about sex and being old fashioned not cause them to have high numbers of teen pregnancy in Italy?
Good sex education combined with a social stigma attached to teenage sexual activity seems like it would have that effect. Stigmatising teenage sexual activity is distinctly not the same thing as not talking about it. I have a feeling you're conflating social conservatism with abstinence only sex education.
I wouldn't dare argue to censure parents who are proactive enough to do that. But I think they're making a poor decision, and would prefer not to enshrine their right to do so in legislation that makes it the educator's responsibility to notify them. That piece, I think, is the extent of our disagreement if we even have one. I think it should be on the idiotic parents to find out when to yoink their kids, Alberta thinks it should be on the school to notify the idiotic parents when to yoink their kids.
That's a fair point (and other tangents aside, I think you're right in that it's our only major disagreement). My thinking is that if you've decided that it's okay, in principle, if the parent wants to pull their kid from this particular lesson, then it's not a terrible onus on the school to photocopy a couple dozen flyers giving the parents a heads-up. It's a simple matter of consideration, and will likely defuse a lot of argle-bargle about Evil Liberal Schools Brain-Washing Our Chilluns.
As regards evolution and homosexuality, though, fuck those parents. Also fuck those who assert that it's impossible to mention homosexuality without infusing sexuality into the conversation. Hey, you know how your mommy loves your daddy? Well, sometimes mommies like other mommies instead. There, bam, done, let's go have a fuckin beer.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Maybe there should be religion classes that cover all major religions in the education system. Make it fair. Learn about evolution in the morning, learn about the Virgin Mary in the afternoon. Make up your mind on what you believe in using what is taught to you from both sides of the spectrum. Maybe it's just too crazy to work.
Maybe there should be religion classes that cover all major religions in the education system. Make it fair. Learn about evolution in the morning, learn about the Virgin Mary in the afternoon. Make up your mind on what you believe in using what is taught to you from both sides of the spectrum. Maybe it's just too crazy to work.
Not entirely sure about how Canada works, but provided you restrict religious teachings to philosophy, religion, or mythological courses and keep it out of Science class I don't think there's an issue.
Hold on, are you saying to teach evolution as a religion, or on the same level of religion?
o_O
No he's saying that
09:00 - 09:55 | Science Class (Evolution Test Today)
10:00 - 10:55 | Gym
11:00 - 11:55 | Lunch / Study Hall
12:00 - 12:55 | Religion and Myth (What would Jesus study?)
&c.
I had a 'Religion and Myth' class in HS just for fun. Greek mythos.
Hold on, are you saying to teach evolution as a religion, or on the same level of religion?
o_O
Where the fuck did you get that out of what I said? I said there should be a general relgion course at either the 20 or 30 level. That's it.
Evolution is going to come up in the Biology 20/30 stream which most kids take or in the General Science 20/30 steam. For kids with an interest in religion, there should be a Religious Studies 20/30 stream.
One could hope that our education system doesn't cater to their whims and keeps in mind that not every student who attends public schools here in Alberta is a W.A.S.P.
One could hope that our education system doesn't cater to their whims and keeps in mind that not every student who attends public schools here in Alberta is a W.A.S.P.
No, but if the idea is to teach about Christianity in conjunction with other religions as a sop to the fundies, it ain't gonna work. Those folks really won't be happy until you're teaching science directly from the Bible, and so trying to meet them halfway is sort of pointless.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
If you are so concerned about what the school is teaching, and want to impart your own wisdom and beliefs on your child, perhaps you should....oh I don't know.....actually talk to your fucking kid! It's the funny thing called being a parent, and it's part of the job you took on when you conceived junior. Your responsibilities didn't end when your wife or you shot the little bugger out from your loins. If your kid rejects your beliefs or challenges them or ignores them altogether, guess what, that's what kids do. They aren't just blank slates or little drones that'll be exactly like you. Get over it.
/rant
Kids 12 and under are blank slates. They don't usually figure out how to disagree until they've had a taste of independence.
So it's the public school's job to teach our kids about sex? If I prefer to do that myself without some stranger teaching them God-knows-what I'm wrong?
Is there some magical rule I don't know about that prevents parents from presenting their own take on things taught at school?
No, it's not the same at all.
Religion : Don't ask questions, just believe what WE tell you to be true.
Science : Seek the truth, ask questions, have facts to back up your claim.
There's a big difference between preventing your children from learning how to be a sheep and preventing your kid from learning how to think for himself.
Again, that's opinion speaking.
I'll dumb it down for you guys, since the mere mention of religion causes you to turn your brains off (which is strangely ironic):
You have a kid that goes to a certain school. Certain school is going to teach something (I'm not going to say what) in their curriculum that you are vehemently against. Should you have the right to decide to exclude your child from that class/lesson?
No. There should be a standardised education that everyone is required to complete. No individual choice of content, there's no other way to handle a massive system of schools. If that standardized system exclusively teaches religion instead of evolution then your society has degraded to the point where you have become Iran, congrats.
Which was my original example (Iran or a similar type country), that for some reason was very hard for people to understand. So if something "wrong" (and I use that term vaguely on purpose) is being taught to our kids, we should just look the other way because, hey, it's a standardized curriculum, who am I to argue?
There's a lot of wishy-washiness in this forum with regards to public education. Apparently it is both perfect and inherently flawed.
You use what's being taught at school to start a discussion with your kid about your take on it, and if what's being taught is really that bad, you advocate for curriculum change.
So I've done enough lurking to figure out the dynamics of this forum.
One of you says conservatives are fucking stupid, then the rest of you start jerking each other off, repeat 20x the next day.
Is that about right?
Welcome to D&D.
Let the first AGM of the D&D Martyr's Brigade come to order. You in the back, quit flagellating yourself and sit down. We need to vote on who is oppressing us the most in this voluntary-membership public discussion space.
So I've done enough lurking to figure out the dynamics of this forum.
One of you says conservatives are fucking stupid, then the rest of you start jerking each other off, repeat 20x the next day.
Is that about right?
Welcome to D&D.
This post is hilarious because it's true.
Are we conflation religious nutjobs (because lets face it, these are going to be the only people to pull their kids out of evolution classes) with conservatism? Because I find that kind of offensive.
I find it kind of offensive that you mob are conflating bad parenting with "liberalism" and that you're defining "liberalism" here as 'a basic willingness to allow a school to do its job'. You don't even make any damn sense when you're intimating that we're incipient child neglectors!
One of us is trying to tell the other what he can and can't do, and one of us isn't.
So why not homeschool if you're that concerned?
To be fair, homeschooling isn't a reasonable alternative for everyone, even if you grant that the person is competent enough to pull it off.
It would also be kind of silly to homeschool for 12 years because this one day of discussion when the kid hits 12 sort of turns you off.
Just sayin'.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I was having a conversation with a Hispanic person today about sex education, and she said that the levels of teen pregnancy in countries like Spain and Italy were very low. These countries are pretty Catholic and old-fashioned; family values and the like, so is this why there are such few teen pregancies? They don't have Holland style sex-ed.
Fun fact: Italy has one of the highest rates of contraceptive pill use in the world.
One of us is trying to tell the other what he can and can't do, and one of us isn't.
So why not homeschool if you're that concerned?
To be fair, homeschooling isn't a reasonable alternative for everyone, even if you grant that the person is competent enough to pull it off.
It would also be kind of silly to homeschool for 12 years because this one day of discussion when the kid hits 12 sort of turns you off.
Just sayin'.
he just seems so worried! I just want him to be happy!
Here is a picture of both a puppy and a kitten to cheer him up.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It's just a table of the amount of teenage pregnancies. What I'm saying is, in the UK, Holland is seen as how good sex ed should be, because they start at an early age, and are very open with children about it. What I'm wondering is, why traditional Catholic countries like Spain and Italy have such low rates of teen pregnancy, despite not being nearly so open about sex, generally.
If all their sex-ed is equal, which is generally the case, the question you have to ask is why some have lower pregnancy rates than others. While you seem to be focusing on Italy and Spain having low number, and inferring that this is because of a Catholic tradition, how does that explain the Dutch being the lowest?
Well it doesn't. But what I'm saying is, if the reason why British, and I guess American teen pregnancy is so high is that parents aren't open with their kids about sex, or consider it a sin, (open, liberal Holland's rates support this viewpoint), then why does not talking about sex and being old fashioned not cause them to have high numbers of teen pregnancy in Italy?
Contraceptive availability, largely. You still haven't stated clearly what you're arguing (what, catholicism = less kids? ahahahahhahaha), but I will say that you absolutely can't argue it based on the crappy numbers you've presented (seriously, grouping births and abortions together, wtf?) and the uncited claims about sex ed across Europe that you've made.
One of my co-workers, who's a pretty religious and conservative fellow, just dealt with this with his 13 year old daughter.
Indianapolis Public Schools send a letter home with kids letting the parents know that they are going to be presenting Sex-Ed in the near future, it covers X-Y-Z, and if you really want to you can opt-out of having your child attend these classes. Apparently his spouse's first idea was to opt their daughter out ("evil librulz" is a mantra of hers, they both listen to Rush daily), but after having talked about it he convinced her that the best thing to do would be to allow their daughter to attend the classes. So the weekend before the classes were to start he and his wife sat their daughter down and went through what they wanted to tell her with regard to sex-ed, and told her that if she was confused by what she was told at school that she should tell them so they can clear things up. So she went through the classes, had a couple questions for her parents that they answered (well, IMO) and all is well.
I don't understand why people have such a problem doing something like this. If your child learns something at school that you think is "wrong", then why can you not address with your child what you think is wrong and move forward? Do you have such a bad relationship with your kid that you cannot talk to them? If so, perhaps there's a larger issue at play than "you liberals taught my baby things I dont like, and my idea cant stand up to scrutiny so what am I going to do now, huh?"
I don't understand why people have such a problem doing something like this. If your child learns something at school that you think is "wrong", then why can you not address with your child what you think is wrong and move forward? Do you have such a bad relationship with your kid that you cannot talk to them? If so, perhaps there's a larger issue at play than "you liberals taught my baby things I dont like, and my idea cant stand up to scrutiny so what am I going to do now, huh?"
Can parents have discussions about evolution? I know for sure I had this discussion with my mom about common descent and genetic drift and filling niches back in high school. Nothing fancy but she didn't know enough about evolution to counter it; to her, it's as simple as we 'grew' from monkeys. We just stopped talking about it altogether after two or three of these discussions.
Posts
So you're granting that there may be times when a particular child could benefit from delaying sex-ed?
If all their sex-ed is equal, which is generally the case, the question you have to ask is why some have lower pregnancy rates than others. While you seem to be focusing on Italy and Spain having low number, and inferring that this is because of a Catholic tradition, how does that explain the Dutch being the lowest?
I'm saying that such an argument does not necessitate the withdrawal of a particular child from sex-ed. Unless the parents are using it as cover of reasonableness for absolutely no sex-ed getting taught to their child, rather than a delay. And considering what actually gets taught in sex-ed, there isn't a great deal of maturity required.
At least, in Illinois. I don't know about you kinky Californians or what the fuck they do in the frozen North, but my sex-ed classes were all about STD's and biology.
/rant
I never finish anyth
I wouldn't dare argue to censure parents who are proactive enough to do that. But I think they're making a poor decision, and would prefer not to enshrine their right to do so in legislation that makes it the educator's responsibility to notify them. That piece, I think, is the extent of our disagreement if we even have one. I think it should be on the idiotic parents to find out when to yoink their kids, Alberta thinks it should be on the school to notify the idiotic parents when to yoink their kids.
Well it doesn't. But what I'm saying is, if the reason why British, and I guess American teen pregnancy is so high is that parents aren't open with their kids about sex, or consider it a sin, (open, liberal Holland's rates support this viewpoint), then why does not talking about sex and being old fashioned not cause them to have high numbers of teen pregnancy in Italy?
No, see, there's an Alberta Human Rights Act, and they're moving this parental right to pull your kids out of anything that touches on religion or sex into it. That's the real story here, because by moving that right from the School Act (where it has been for years) to the Human Rights Act, you're creating the potential for a chilling effect on educators throughout the province.
Comic faces human rights hearing in B.C. after lesbian jokes
Most of the human rights tribunal issues deal with standard things like pay equity or discrimination at a particular company or some such things. Senj was referring to some of the other territory that the HRC has been wading into and he does have a valid concern in my opinion. This is probably a more important issue than the sex-ed classes which are entirely unaffected by this law.
As for all the Alberta hurr hurr comments, I wouldn't be surprised if a parent can pull a child out of sex ed or any other class in every province in Canada for any particular reason.
Edit: Damnit Senj, post slower.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I'm kind of thinking you don't understand Italy and Spain. While they may have a tradition of Catholicism, the reality is that they are very liberal when it comes to sex and social issues, just as the Dutch are. The UK are perhaps less so, and there are socio-economic reasons for the high instance of teen pregnancy there.
Good sex education combined with a social stigma attached to teenage sexual activity seems like it would have that effect. Stigmatising teenage sexual activity is distinctly not the same thing as not talking about it. I have a feeling you're conflating social conservatism with abstinence only sex education.
That's a fair point (and other tangents aside, I think you're right in that it's our only major disagreement). My thinking is that if you've decided that it's okay, in principle, if the parent wants to pull their kid from this particular lesson, then it's not a terrible onus on the school to photocopy a couple dozen flyers giving the parents a heads-up. It's a simple matter of consideration, and will likely defuse a lot of argle-bargle about Evil Liberal Schools Brain-Washing Our Chilluns.
As regards evolution and homosexuality, though, fuck those parents. Also fuck those who assert that it's impossible to mention homosexuality without infusing sexuality into the conversation. Hey, you know how your mommy loves your daddy? Well, sometimes mommies like other mommies instead. There, bam, done, let's go have a fuckin beer.
Not entirely sure about how Canada works, but provided you restrict religious teachings to philosophy, religion, or mythological courses and keep it out of Science class I don't think there's an issue.
o_O
This exists in the UK. Or at least, I had a Religious Education class that covered this kind of material and my experience doesn't seem to be unusual.
I take it this is absent from other education systems?
It's kind of irrelevant, though. The issue is religious instruction interfering with other subject areas.
No he's saying that
09:00 - 09:55 | Science Class (Evolution Test Today)
10:00 - 10:55 | Gym
11:00 - 11:55 | Lunch / Study Hall
12:00 - 12:55 | Religion and Myth (What would Jesus study?)
&c.
I had a 'Religion and Myth' class in HS just for fun.
Where the fuck did you get that out of what I said? I said there should be a general relgion course at either the 20 or 30 level. That's it.
Evolution is going to come up in the Biology 20/30 stream which most kids take or in the General Science 20/30 steam. For kids with an interest in religion, there should be a Religious Studies 20/30 stream.
No, but if the idea is to teach about Christianity in conjunction with other religions as a sop to the fundies, it ain't gonna work. Those folks really won't be happy until you're teaching science directly from the Bible, and so trying to meet them halfway is sort of pointless.
Kids 12 and under are blank slates. They don't usually figure out how to disagree until they've had a taste of independence.
The Catholic Public School Curriculum, at least in the Toronto area, includes mandatory classes on other major world religions.
We did Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and a few of the other branches of Christianity.
Really, you just sound incredibly lazy here.
To be fair, homeschooling isn't a reasonable alternative for everyone, even if you grant that the person is competent enough to pull it off.
It would also be kind of silly to homeschool for 12 years because this one day of discussion when the kid hits 12 sort of turns you off.
Just sayin'.
he just seems so worried! I just want him to be happy!
Here is a picture of both a puppy and a kitten to cheer him up.
That cat is totally about to have safe-pre-marital sex with that puppy.
And then teach it about Evolution.
Indianapolis Public Schools send a letter home with kids letting the parents know that they are going to be presenting Sex-Ed in the near future, it covers X-Y-Z, and if you really want to you can opt-out of having your child attend these classes. Apparently his spouse's first idea was to opt their daughter out ("evil librulz" is a mantra of hers, they both listen to Rush daily), but after having talked about it he convinced her that the best thing to do would be to allow their daughter to attend the classes. So the weekend before the classes were to start he and his wife sat their daughter down and went through what they wanted to tell her with regard to sex-ed, and told her that if she was confused by what she was told at school that she should tell them so they can clear things up. So she went through the classes, had a couple questions for her parents that they answered (well, IMO) and all is well.
I don't understand why people have such a problem doing something like this. If your child learns something at school that you think is "wrong", then why can you not address with your child what you think is wrong and move forward? Do you have such a bad relationship with your kid that you cannot talk to them? If so, perhaps there's a larger issue at play than "you liberals taught my baby things I dont like, and my idea cant stand up to scrutiny so what am I going to do now, huh?"
Can parents have discussions about evolution? I know for sure I had this discussion with my mom about common descent and genetic drift and filling niches back in high school. Nothing fancy but she didn't know enough about evolution to counter it; to her, it's as simple as we 'grew' from monkeys. We just stopped talking about it altogether after two or three of these discussions.