>

Well, of course they do. Which I think is kind of the whole point here.
And before I go further, I'm assuming you're a Democrat (or sympathic to Democrats broadly) like myself.
If a die hard Republican majority took control of our local school board and started teaching in history class that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, what would you and I think? We'd think they were crazy! And rightfully so. But the school board would firmly and truthfully believe that they are teaching real history and we are the crazy ones. Now, you're responding to my comment right now going "but we are right, Trump lost! How can there be a dispute here?" 
But, and this is my main point, the actual truth doesn't matter in this situation. Of course our truth is the actual truth. But in this scenario the guys teaching the lie control the levers of state power. So the lie will be taught as truth and the truth will be taught as a lie.
What this comes down to is a matter of state power and how it's exercised. And we always need to remember that the other side can and will exercise state power at some point in a highly competitive Democracy, such as we have here.
Which is why I think this question is so complicated. Parents need real levers of control over their children's education, because at some point many of us will need to use those levers to defend our kids from fucking nut jobs who happen to be running the state that day. 
This is a Democracy. We need to be mindful we don't build a state empowered to wreck our own and our children's lives because an idiot won an election.
I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing
When I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide
Similarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content
None of this is new >


None of this is new

What's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing. >

Teachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. 
I think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. 
I think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce. >

I am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. 
The only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.
Also if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t…. >

I think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is "age appropriate" is the same thing as "censorship".
Certainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever.  However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors.  
For example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book "Gender Queer" because it depicts graphic pornography.  Is that tantamount to censorship?  It's a tough question for sure.  
Having this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot. >

I cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. 
With the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment.  
My argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. 
It makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.
Also, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it. >

Idk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. 
Also, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.
It's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility. >

"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented."
You proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. 
Do you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever? >

I proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.
It's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.
So too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay. >

"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented".
These are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. 
For what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game.  I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating. >

An inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless. >

If Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it? >

As a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child. >


However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life.

And you shouldn't - not in either case.  You shouldn't just blindly trust a mechanic and you shouldn't just blindly trust a teacher.  That blind trust is the exact abdication of responsibility that has let things get this bad. >

What has gotten so bad exactly? >

The divergence between what parents thought was being taught and what is and the resulting conflict as parents try to drag schools back into line and the schools actively fight against it.  Had parents been being more attentive over the years they would've been able to stop things earlier and keep everything humming smoothly along. >

So what are these conflicts exactly? I’ve always known what my daughter is being taught in school. What is being taught that shouldn’t be in the curriculum in yours or your kid’s school? >

Have you been living under a rock?  This stuff has been headline news for two years now - it literally flipped the VA governorship.  It's mostly centered around the cultural content - for example the racist and America-hating modern narrative on America's history.  Seriously, this stuff has been dominating the headlines and political discussions for quite some time now, if you aren't fully up to date on it then I don't get why you're so comfortable making strong statements on the subject. >

Seems like you are having difficulty answering my question. Should I phrase it a different way for you? What in the curriculum is racist and American-hating? You’re being very vague. >

I am ignoring your bad-faith JAQing off because I know that you're just derailing the discussion with bad-faith bullshit because you know that your positions are simply not considered tolerable by the majority.  You are using well-known bad-faith argumentation techniques and I'm not taking your bait. >

Everything boils down to informed uncoerced competent consent.
My children (at their current ages) are not competent enough at their current ages / mental maturity to do a great many things (play with matches, get tattoos, buy a house, examples ad hyperbole etc)
Until they are able to 1. Be fully (as possible) informed or provided with the appropriate information to make a decision, 2. Are under no duress for the decision (i.e. someone is threatening them. Etc) 3. Are mentally competent enough to understand the ramifications of their decisions,  and 4. Willingly want to do something after all factors are weighed.
It is my job as a parent to take those decisions on. 
This will be interpreted different in many households. But the parents should be the ones ultimately responsible for their children's well being.
That being said, as the child matures they gain more autonomy. How much is difficult based on the individual. My daughter for instance is extremely independent. Not distant or removed, but she definitely makes a large amount of her own decisions, whereas my younger son cannot.
This is an area with so much Grey that making universal rules is almost impossible. Which is why, I think, society defaults to "until they're an adult the parents rule ". >

This ignores the role of schools though. Parents cede some of that responsibility to teachers, much like they cede some responsibility to doctors, coaches, and other people with positions of authority and teaching wrt ones child. Each of these people will be slightly different from the parents, will have different values and incentives, and will be responsible for more than just one set of parents' children. 
Each of these people are functionally agents of the parent, the parent is entitled to some assurances from the agent, but cannot command specific conduct in every facet of the agent's job, (not least of all because that would be impossible). So the question inherently becomes, how do we ensure that all parents are assured that their parents are not being abused and that each parent's responsibility for child rearing is being discharged within reason. 
It's just not feasible to say "let the parents handle it" unless a parent wants to take back responsibility for every part of their child's life >

I don't disagree with this. This would be in the massive amounts of Grey areas. There's so much nuance to this. >

Generally the issue is that young kids cannot possibly be fully responsible for themselves so some other adult needs to make decisions for them, including deciding which "influences" they are exposed to.
Historically it has been seen that government, church, councils, doctors or schools aren't perfect in this role as they don't have a singular focus on the needs of any specific child.  In general a "good parent" will care a lot more, know a lot more and do a lot to help their kid than any state employee.  On the other hand, there are also clearly "bad parents" that do all sorts of harm so they need to be monitored, mitigated and sometimes policed. 
The general idea is to resist the temptation to forever expand the role of teachers, doctors and so on as the moment parents view the teachers as part of the problem, all sorts of barriers go up and any "progress" will be limited at best.  Only when there is an immediate and serious problem should the state overrule the views of parents.
The current battleground seems to be about the move away from "teaching" heteronormativity, many parents want that presented to their kids as "normal", "proper" and "natural".  But frankly I'm not surprised at all by that as we live in a world where things like the theory of evolution, abortion rights or vaccine effectiveness are still contested. >


The current battleground seems to be about the move away from "teaching" heteronormativity, many parents want that presented to their kids as "normal", "proper" and "natural". 

Mainly because it is.  When the hell did we shift from "being not normal is perfectly fine and doesn't devalue a person" to "everything must be presented as normal no matter how much of an outlier it is"? >

We didn't.
Similar to CRT, they need to create an imaginary boogeyman. 
Remember the fake outrage of the "litter boxes" for "children who identified as a cat"?
Just like CRT brainwashing it was simply made up. >

The biggest issue is the people that complain about this are taking the actions of a couple of sparse teachers around the country and acting as if every teacher in the US is just radicalizing their kids, when in reality most teachers do not care. 
It’s angry boomers and Gen Xer’s mad that social conservatism is no longer popular in the public sphere who want to bully teachers and librarians into enforcing the hierarchy they want, but also want to be seen as beleaguered victims of globalization, who have to defend their right to an identity made of conspicuous consumerism.
They have to do this because their lives are so devoid of intrigue and purpose, that without it, they’d have nothing to do beyond spending time consuming the same things over and over again.
Sorry for the rant, but it really f***ing annoys me when people harass teachers, who are already overworked and underpaid. >

> "It's not happening"
> gets shown examples
> "They don't count, they're just one-offs"
This kind of bad-faith shit is exactly why discourse has broken down.  Instead of accepting that you're wrong your side continuously just moves the goalposts around as if they were on fucking wheels.  There's no discourse possible with people who engage in such flagrant bad faith. >

It's not bad faith at all. There are over 3,000,000 public school teachers in the US. Pretending there's some widespread CRT child grooming push is bad faith.
Meanwhile "your side" elected someone who actually married someone who sexually assaulted children and elected someone who covered for child rapists. Yet....no outcry there. Much larger percentage of Republican elected officials engaging in this stuff yet....silence.
You have no evidence to support your argument so instead you're attacking some random redditor. >

Parents scream "indoctrination" at schools.....all the while indoctrinating the shit out of their own kids.  When students project crazy attitudes at school, it's 99% learned from their parents.  Signed, An exhausted teacher >

They want their own brand of indoctrination. But they dont consider their ignorance and bigotry indoctrination, they consider it the "truth".