San Francisco schools consider costly gay support program

[DEDixon 39]

With everything from art classes, summer school and jobs on the chopping block this year, the San Francisco school board will decide this week whether to greatly expand school services, support and instruction on issues of sexual orientation.

The decision could cost the school district, which is facing a $113 million budget shortfall over the next two years, at least $120,000 a year - enough cash to cover the salaries of two classroom teachers.

The school board is expected to vote Tuesday on the fiscally controversial resolution calling for San Francisco Unified to add a new full-time staffer to manage "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning" youth issues in the district's Student Support Services Department.

It also would require the district to track harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation and distribute an educational packet to parents, encouraging them to discuss "the issues of sexuality, gender identity and safety" with their children.

That commitment probably would cost about $90,000 a year for the staffer and maybe another $30,000 for the rest.

San Francisco school officials have long backed education and support of gay and lesbian support services and recently created the nation's first school district Web site for gay youth.

That's in contrast to some other school districts. Last year in Alameda, for example, a torrent of controversy was unleashed over plans to introduce a 45-minute lesson on gay and lesbian issues. The lesson was eventually adopted by that school board over the objections of some parents who said it violated their rights to teach their children their opinion of such issues.

That's not the issue in San Francisco. Money is.

Current lesbian and gay services, including the Web site and sexual orientation curriculum, are funded by outside grants that aren't guaranteed year to year.

But it's not enough, said school board member Sandra Fewer, who wrote the resolution with help from the Student Advisory Council and the city's Human Rights Commission.

"It's not like we don't have any money," she said. "It means we have to prioritize our monies."

With the district's looming $113 million shortfall, few district programs or services will survive unscathed.

"There's not enough money in the general fund for the general purposes," board member Jill Wynns said. "Just add (this) to the $113 million deficit."

Having said that, Wynns said she doesn't know how she'll vote Tuesday.

"I don't want to vote against it," she said.

While San Francisco is considered generally a safe haven for gay and lesbians, harassment and bullying are still common in schools, according a district survey.

In 2007, 77 percent of the district's students said they heard other students making harassing remarks based on sexual orientations, and nearly half said they never heard staff respond to such remarks. Nearly 80 percent of fifth-graders said their peers use the phrases "**," "#######" or "that's so gay."

The resolution would commit funding to maintain the expanded programs no matter what but also require district officials to seek outside funding whenever possible.

"We should set aside and commit money," Fewer said. "If we can say that this is a budget priority during one of the biggest budget cuts of our time, we're really saying this is" important.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...;type=printable

******************

besides the total waste of money, a distraction from what schools are intended to teach? teachers as parents?

[Ban Hammer 14,299]

so much for priorities out there.

[Peikko 1,575]

With everything from art classes, summer school and jobs on the chopping block this year, the San Francisco school board will decide this week whether to greatly expand school services, support and instruction on issues of sexual orientation.

The decision could cost the school district, which is facing a $113 million budget shortfall over the next two years, at least $120,000 a year - enough cash to cover the salaries of two classroom teachers.

The school board is expected to vote Tuesday on the fiscally controversial resolution calling for San Francisco Unified to add a new full-time staffer to manage "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning" youth issues in the district's Student Support Services Department.

It also would require the district to track harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation and distribute an educational packet to parents, encouraging them to discuss "the issues of sexuality, gender identity and safety" with their children.

That commitment probably would cost about $90,000 a year for the staffer and maybe another $30,000 for the rest.

San Francisco school officials have long backed education and support of gay and lesbian support services and recently created the nation's first school district Web site for gay youth.

That's in contrast to some other school districts. Last year in Alameda, for example, a torrent of controversy was unleashed over plans to introduce a 45-minute lesson on gay and lesbian issues. The lesson was eventually adopted by that school board over the objections of some parents who said it violated their rights to teach their children their opinion of such issues.

That's not the issue in San Francisco. Money is.

Current lesbian and gay services, including the Web site and sexual orientation curriculum, are funded by outside grants that aren't guaranteed year to year.

But it's not enough, said school board member Sandra Fewer, who wrote the resolution with help from the Student Advisory Council and the city's Human Rights Commission.

"It's not like we don't have any money," she said. "It means we have to prioritize our monies."

With the district's looming $113 million shortfall, few district programs or services will survive unscathed.

"There's not enough money in the general fund for the general purposes," board member Jill Wynns said. "Just add (this) to the $113 million deficit."

Having said that, Wynns said she doesn't know how she'll vote Tuesday.

"I don't want to vote against it," she said.

While San Francisco is considered generally a safe haven for gay and lesbians, harassment and bullying are still common in schools, according a district survey.

In 2007, 77 percent of the district's students said they heard other students making harassing remarks based on sexual orientations, and nearly half said they never heard staff respond to such remarks. Nearly 80 percent of fifth-graders said their peers use the phrases "**," "#######" or "that's so gay."

The resolution would commit funding to maintain the expanded programs no matter what but also require district officials to seek outside funding whenever possible.

"We should set aside and commit money," Fewer said. "If we can say that this is a budget priority during one of the biggest budget cuts of our time, we're really saying this is" important.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...;type=printable

******************

besides the total waste of money, a distraction from what schools are intended to teach? teachers as parents?

Distraction? Hardly, if it were to achieve the intended aim, that is to ensure everyone has equal access to education without being harassed and bullied by their peers (which has a supremly detrimental effect on the ability to learn). However, I do question how effective such a policy is in counteracting such bullying. Sadly, I don't think that this is the answer.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[alienlovechild 75]

With everything from art classes, summer school and jobs on the chopping block this year, the San Francisco school board will decide this week whether to greatly expand school services, support and instruction on issues of sexual orientation.

The decision could cost the school district, which is facing a $113 million budget shortfall over the next two years, at least $120,000 a year - enough cash to cover the salaries of two classroom teachers.

The school board is expected to vote Tuesday on the fiscally controversial resolution calling for San Francisco Unified to add a new full-time staffer to manage "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning" youth issues in the district's Student Support Services Department.

In 2007, 77 percent of the district's students said they heard other students making harassing remarks based on sexual orientations, and nearly half said they never heard staff respond to such remarks. Nearly 80 percent of fifth-graders said their peers use the phrases "**," "#######" or "that's so gay."

You know if the gay community is too cheap to pay for the school program with high taxes in San Francisco, it's not worth it or simply has no impact on the kids. It's all political or they'd mention how fat, stupid, nerdy or ugly kids got special treatment as well.

"Questioning" youth was a new one to me. Rule of thumb on that to me is if you think you might be gay, you probably are. Any questions?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

You know if the gay community is too cheap to pay for the school program with high taxes in San Francisco, it's not worth it or simply has no impact on the kids. It's all political or they'd mention how fat, stupid, nerdy or ugly kids got special treatment as well.

"Questioning" youth was a new one to me. Rule of thumb on that to me is if you think you might be gay, you probably are. Any questions?

I'd say most gays and lesbians are liberals... and most liberals are cheap (with their own money). Do the math.

[Jenn! 918]

Yeah, don't think that's the best use of funds when the budget is tight.

[alienlovechild 75]

I'd say most gays and lesbians are liberals... and most liberals are cheap (with their own money). Do the math.

The more likely reason is gay and lesbian folks tend to have fewer kids enrolled in public schools. Why would they want to pay more out of self interest? The same is true around here as older people don't want to back higher taxes after they've already had their kids educated and screw everyone else.