The “existing process” is over 30 years old: appeal first to principal(s), thence to the superintendent (and committee he chooses), finally to the School Board if the complaint is still denied.

Supt. Malloy said he’d not convene a committee in this case. I can guess why: last summer, in the immediate aftermath of slandering the Cal High Stunt team, Malloy chose a committee to rule on 9 challenged K-5 read-aloud picture-story books with homosexual and transgender themes. His committee okayed them; the School Board adopted them.

Since then, without success, I’ve repeatedly requested committee names as a public record, to see if the majority was known activists who’d already pushed SRVUSD’s “queering the classroom” (their term) objective. Malloy is still hiding that information.

The District has reportedly never removed a book, no matter how depraved. The review process is a time-wasting deflection, designed to wear people down.

Those worried about “banning books,” however pornographic — including a juvenile East Bay Times reporter — have refused to publish words and illustrations to which 12 speakers at the Feb. 21 meeting objected, itself a 30-year hypocrisy.

Another one: SRVUSD Board Policy number 4119.21 (5) says that inappropriate EMPLOYEE conduct includes possessing or viewing any pornography on school grounds. But it’s evidently OK for high school libraries to make porn available for 14-year-olds.

See also related school-safety comments at Web Link .
“Trained professionals,” i.e. librarians? Of what does their training consist?

They cite the American Library Association among supposed validating authorities, though ALA opposes ANY restriction of library material based on age or content ( Web Link ). The other porn boosters these librarians quote are essentially libertine-librarian echo chambers.

Why should anyone believe John Malloy's lies about investigating the incident with the student being marked down for not reading this book? John Malloy is a known liar in regard to investigations. John Malloy lied about his investigation into the cosmetology hair style head at Cal High. If we had believed John Malloy's lies about his now suddenly nonexistent investigation into Nicholas Moseby, Moseby would be teaching 12 year olds biology at Diablo Vista Middle School instead of being on trial for seven counts of child molestation. These are only the two most egregious examples. He also lied about girls being sexually assaulted in the SRV locker room and lied about the handling of racism and countless other mis/half truths.

How many more times does John Malloy need to lie to the community before the school board takes action? Why should anyone believe anything John Malloy says ever again?

As a mother of two K-3 children I am deeply concerned about young children being overly exposed to adult gender identity issues at such a young age.

Promoting an advocacy and acceptance of LGBTQ lifestyles should not be a part of elementary school curriculum and in many instances, this advocacy can directly conflict with parental positions on the topic.

It is interesting to note that 5% of all younger Americans below the age of 25 now identify as transgender compared to 1% of previous generations.

Are the schools and libraries indirectly responsible for this phenomena or is it just a coincidence?

I am also against cross-dressers (aka drag queens) actively involved in children's reading sessions. What is the purpose and point of such a format?

It appears that the school district is ostensibly promoting a humanistic acceptance of all gender persuasions and presentations while under the guise of actually advocating for them.

@Mike Arata

John Malloy is not providing you the information about the public committee members because 1) you are right or 2) he’s lying about even having a committee or investigation like he’s lied about every other investigation he’s claimed to have conducted.

My bet is #2 as lying to the public matches his past behavior. What’s the point of having a superintendent that has lost so much public trust? Why would anyone in the public renew the parcel tax when Malloy has repeatedly antagonized and lied to the voters ?

My formal protest of the vile, pornographic teen-sex manual “Let’s Talk About It,” sent simultaneously to school principals whose school libraries have it, to Supt. Malloy, and to the SRVUSD School Board, has already been rejected. Here's what I said, in part:

If Cal High and Monte Vista H.S. principals, Mr. Malloy, and a School Board majority cannot see immediately, on their own, that the material below is grossly inappropriate, unsuitable, and dangerous to kids as young as 13 or 14 — thence to question what curricular objectives it allegedly supports (Policy 1312.2) — then these persons have already disqualified themselves as rational arbiters of school-library material.

Second-step assessor Mr. Malloy asserted an inapposite Ed Code segment last April in attempting to justify read-aloud picture-story books with homosexual and transgender themes for TK-5 children. After himself converting my request for explanation into a CPRA matter, he never responded to it, other than to agree that no document on hand supported his position.

Then in June, and in apparent service of his “Equity Liaisons” initiative, Mr. Malloy slandered the Cal High Stunt Team, in his “Cal High Racist Incident 5.23.22” letter. Before and after posting that cynically diversionary text, he ignored related elements of the District’s own Responding to Discrimination and Hate Handbook, in the form in which it appeared then.

No reasonable person should expect rational assessment now of the pornographic material (with dangerous advice) I summarized in my earlier message below, from either Mr. Malloy or the Board majority which supported both of those bad decisions, among so many others. The principals themselves seem essentially to be timid ciphers in the evaluative process.

I recall dancing SRVUSD’s three-step 30 years ago, to no avail, with a library book which had been recommended to a 4th grade child. Local print newspapers were also nearly as biased and infantile then as now.

To be fair, the vast majority of actual "book bans" have come from far-left progressives who have successfully banned books like Huckleberry Finn. The issue here is about double standards and blatant hypocrisy.

Continuing in my response to SRVUSD:

The Times printed only truncated versions of [the 4th grade library book’s] objectionable words. The Tri-Valley Herald excised the words altogether, then juxtaposed an editorial criticizing PARENTAL censorship — the customarily insane “banned books” hypocrisy that is still fashionable and politically correct today.

So continued retention and unrestricted use of that 1993 parent-protested book was characterized (as with other such books and R-rated films) as a "thoughtful, intelligent, rational, and totally defensible decision."

The Board’s own Policy 6916 back then required UPFRONT that instructional materials demonstrate "educational suitability, good taste, relevance, appropriateness to age and grade level” — a reasonable policy, in the hands of already unreasonable, indeed irrational people.

SRVUSD complaint policy guidelines now specify after-the-fact, effectively meaningless/worthless benchmarks for review of challenges, including “the educational philosophy of the district, the professional opinions of teachers of the subject and of other competent authorities, reviews of the materials by reputable bodies, the teacher's stated objectives in using the materials, community standards, and the objections of the complainant.”

“Community standards” and “objections of the complainant” are merely tails wagging the dog. As SRVUSD lawyer Namita Brown stated herself at the Feb. 21 Board meeting: removing instructional materials is far more difficult legally than adding them — roadblocks I believe, by the way, much to SRVUSD’s/SRVEA’s/PFLAG’s/GLSEN’s liking. (Meanwhile, AB 1078, introduced Feb. 15, would prevent any such removals unless the State Board of Education approved those removals.)

What I said 30 years ago remains true now: SRVUSD is on the move — from bad to worse. There is no perceptible reason now that I should again waste time on the District’s Potemkin policy and procedure for materials reassessment.

"...the vile, pornographic teen-sex manual “Let’s Talk About It,”

Though this particular book has been banned in Florida public schools, it has received many positive reviews on Amazon.

Many parents throughout the country have cited 'Let's Talk About It's as a valuable supplement to educating their children about 'the birds and the bees' and if this is the case, I see no reason to censor it for purely ideological issues.

Parents have a right to question the curriculum being taught to their children in public school but should not interfere with the chosen format purely on political or religious platforms.

I am going to order this particular book to see what all the hoopla is about. It is my understanding that it was created by two cartoonists as a means of teaching children that it's OK to be whoever they want to be.

Now what's so wrong with instilling a sense of individuality?

Even those depraved individuals who consider “Let’s Talk About It” and its explicit pornography (text and illustrations) to be somehow appropriate for high schoolers (including 14-year-olds) should be concerned with some of the book’s recommendations.

It advises, for example, that “A great place to research fantasies and kinks safely is on the internet!” SAFELY???

The same page encourages teens to “do your research! Look up interviews with your favorite porn performers, go the sites they recommend, and pay for your porn.”

Additionally, “sexting” is promoted as “a wanted saucy something from a partner” that “can be the highlight of your day. It’s thrilling, sexy, and fun,” and a “long-distance act of intimacy and trust.”

It's also illegal, for adults and teens, even in California.

It is well established that human brains undergo a “rewiring” process that is not complete until approximately the age of 25, and that adolescents are risk takers — often dangerously so — before they have the means to be accountable for results of their risky behaviors. See, e.g. Web Link .

Further, consumption of pornography during teen years can readily cause harmful personality changes. See, e.g. Web Link .

But carrying pornography in school libraries implies adult endorsement.

SRVUSD’s porn promoters say that “LGBTQ+” kids “need to see themselves” in books available at school. But the activities recommended here are dangerous. If this book’s contents represent how kids (“LGBTQ+” or otherwise) see themselves, the kids are already in deep trouble, now worsened by SRVUSD.

The prime directive in education should be the same as in medicine: First, do no harm. If parents want to pervert their own kids and harm their development, then let THEM present this dangerous drek to THEIR kids. But leave the rest of us — other taxpayers — out of that degenerate behavior.

In some ways, having this kind of information available to teens better prepares them for the various scenarios they will encounter as adults.

That said, the activities in question should not be promoted, advocated or mis-labeled as OK. This position appears to be the crux of the controversy.

The LGBTQ lifestyle is here to stay and it is not unrealistic to assume that some of our children will eventually gravitate towards that community.

And all things considered, the books in question might also have an opposite effect by turning some kids off to the idea of alternative lifestyles and deviant behavior.

Superintendent Malloy and the SRVSD are apparently taking a more progressive approach to public education and this particular direction is obviously irking some of the more conservative residents in the community.

I also suspect that this vociferous dissention against current SRVSD literary policy represents only a minority of individuals, some of whom may not even be parents of young school-aged children.

Speaking as a former/retired grade school teacher from Wyoming, it is very important to keep an open mind when dealing with these kinds of controversies and any dissent should not be clouded by any religious or politically based opinions.

Looking back, many books and movies that were once considered obscene, graphic, or blasphemous are now on the shelves of both municipal and public school libraries throughout the country with the possible exceptions of Florida and other Bible Belt states.

This is California.

Given the recent controversies, I purchased this book from Amazon and gave it a look.

'Lets Talk About It' is a series of cartoons and might even be construed as a satire of sorts.

After thumbing through it, I passed the book along to my teenaged grandchildren and they thought it was a hoot...more comedic than propaganda.

In some ways I wish we had this publication available when I was a teen back in the late 60s. It would have cleared-up a lot of curiosities and misunderstandings relegated to word of mouth explanations

I’m a former teacher too (for 20 years). As mentioned, “Let’s Talk About It” advises teens that “A great place to research fantasies and kinks safely is on the internet!” SAFELY? Are the authors insane?

The same page encourages teens to “do your research! Look up interviews with your favorite porn performers, go to the sites they recommend, and pay for your porn.”

Additionally, “sexting,” though also unsafe — and illegal — is promoted as “a wanted saucy something from a partner” that “can be the highlight of your day. It’s thrilling, sexy, and fun,” and a “long-distance act of intimacy and trust.”

Beyond those problems, “Let’s Talk About It” features a text-and-illustration sexcapade.

Rational adults recognize that those who promote such books have something seriously, perhaps dangerously wrong with them. Are the sex and kiddie-porn promoters ignorant of child psychology and the tense, depressive, hurried child situation kids face these days? Or are they evil individuals who regard children as playTHINGS to be groomed and exploited?

In 1953, the same year “Playboy Magazine” began publication, teen-sex huckster Dr. Lena Levine told fellow Planned Parenthood activists to “help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage. By sanctioning sex before marriage, we will prevent fear and guilt. We must also relieve those who have them of their fears and guilt feelings, and we must be ready to provide young boys and girls with the best contraception measures available so they will have the means to achieve sexual satisfaction without having to risk possible pregnancy. We owe this to them.”

“Let’s Talk About It” authors are inheritors of that pernicious outlook. They received Planned Parenthood funding beginning in 2017 for their “Oh Joy Sex Toy” comic-book series.

As for SRVUSD parents? In a District “thought exchange” conducted last fall, 62% of parental respondents said that their schools “should focus on academics, not ‘woke’ social issues.”

@ Mike Arata:

FYI...most people have experienced sex prior to marriage and Dr. Lena Levine's advisory is simply saying that premarital sexual activities should not be guilt-ridden or a cause for shame.

BTW...in college I read the Communist Manefesto and Mein Kampf but I did not become a Communist or a Nazi.

Book burnings and extreme censorship measures are signs of a repressive society and people who are afraid of their own shadows.

What are you fearing...that kids will all become promiscuous or card-carrying members of the LGBTQ community?

I'd be far more concerned (as a parent) if these books in question were advocating & promoting illicit drug use.

This uproar is being generated by a minority of outraged individuals & while they are entitled to their opinions, perhaps best not to push it onto others who do not see any immediate threat.

Maybe this protest is a clandestine effort to promote book sales.

Dr. Malloy is merely taking the SRVUSD curriculum into the new Millennium...don't kill the messenger.

Times have changed and many people and parents are far more open about these kinds of topics.

They are not repressed or clinging to past societal taboos.

I have read both books and it provided me with a better understanding of those whose personal preferences may differ from that of my own.

Maybe these books should be subject to a restricted reading area and checked-out from the reference section of the library.

For RATIONAL adults who care about children’s mental and physical health and safety — and in the context of a school district which says (falsely) that safety is its #1 objective — “Let’s Talk About It” should be among school-library books disqualified in any objective assessment. That book includes these dangerous recommendations:

1. utilizing the internet as “a great place to research [sexual] fantasies and kinks [allegedly] safely”;

2. looking up and paying for commercial porn, porn performers, and their recommended websites;

3. participation in “sexting,” another unsafe behavior, which in this case is also illegal; and

4. graphic endorsement of teen-sex activity — manual, vaginal, oral, anal, and multiple-person naked romps for bad measure.

Unfortunately, gender benders and other “LGBTQ” activists effectively run SRVUSD schools. They ignore or defy parents and other taxpayers who believe that the teaching and learning of beneficial knowledge and skills are the tasks delegated to schools, not indoctrination.

They claim that no child is forced to read a book which the child and/or his/her parents decline(s) to read. But my understanding is that for starters, teachers and at least one principal are not permitting very young kids to be exempted by their parents from “LGBTQ”-themed picture-book read-alouds by those same activist school personnel.

Five years ago, SRVUSD projected 2022-23 enrollment at 36,635 students. It’s now about 28,000. Remaining families with sufficient means should bail out their kids now.

Meanwhile, those who credulously support school-library porn will hopefully someday recognize the extent to which they’ve been successfully manipulated via such leftwing playbooks as 1987’s “The Overhauling of Straight America” ( Web Link ). See also Web Link and Web Link .

> "...gender benders and other “LGBTQ” activists effectively run SRVUSD schools."

^ A blanket statement such as this is unfounded and extremely biased.

This issue should not be a right VS left debate but rather a discussion on how to diseminate an educational topic in a manner which promotes a better understanding of society and the impacts (both positive and adverse) of making certain personal decisions.

The books in question address these issues but are perhaps too graphic in content for the more conservative gatekeepers of morality.

A simple solution...avoid these books if they offend you but don't lecture others on what is or what isn't acceptable according to your standards.

"Leave the kids alone" - Pink Floyd

Actually, it’s “Hey — teacher! Leave them kids alone!” If only….

SRVUSD’s radical “LGBTQ” indoctrinators don’t leave the kids alone, you see. That would let kids be kids.

Instead, the teachers impose homosexual and gender-bender ideology in captive-audience classrooms of even kindergarteners, ignoring or defying parental expectations — because here, age is just a number.

And now, it’s LGBTQ pornography in SRVUSD high school libraries. What began years ago as a plea for LGBTQ tolerance has become a demand for LGBTQ porn. It’s made available to high schoolers by adult librarians, backed by administrators and a majority of SRVUSD Board “trustees.”

In their view, overt promotion of underage, multi-orifice sexual activity via obscene text and illustrations is needed so that LGBTQ teens “can see themselves.”

Before joining SRVUSD (July 2020), Supt. Malloy wrote of continuing to “push the envelope” on LGBTQ issues. By Nov. 2020, Country Club Elementary Principal Christy Glaser and Instructional Coach Korby Saunders (pronouns they/them) were describing their “experiences of queering the classroom” to the National Council of Teachers of English,

Meanwhile, 4th/5th grade “PRISM Clubs” (LGBTQ+ Clubs) were being organized. Saunders and First Grade teacher Blaire Wyatt recommended them to other CTA activists in their own Feb. 2021 “Affirming LGBTQ+ Identities in Elementary School” seminar.

Therein they spoke of ending parental permission-slip requirements for PRISM Club participation, envious of the no-permission-needed policy for middle and high school “Gender-Sexuality Alliances” (GSAs).

They spoke also of concealing club meetings from parents by holding them at lunchtime. Both schemes were then quietly implemented, with administrator approval.

Along with SRVUSD assaults on childhood innocence in elementary schools and middle schools — and other forms of LGBTQ activism in high schools: library pornography, all in all, is just another brick in the wall.

Outside of SRVUSD parents adamantly protesting this progressive LGBTQ curriculum, what are the other options available to remedy the situation?

While most parochial schools do not promote or advocate such deviant practices, a K-12 education combined with conservative religious dogma is not our ideal cup of tea either.

Perhaps home schooling is the only option remaining provided parents and outside tutors are capable of such a task.

I concur with Mr. Arata that things are getting out of hand but we cannot keep blinders on our children as they will eventually encounter the LGBTQ universe on their own as they get older.

The issue is preparedness for adulthood and how to best go about it.

@Lucille,

You said-eth: “Book burnings and extreme censorship measures are signs of a repressive society and people who are afraid of their own shadows.” Afraid of their own shadows? No, it’s called protecting children. What’s extreme to you, Lucille?

Look no farther than the current state of lawlessness in our country as a comparison. How’s that no cash bail system working out for the general public? Not well. Better yet, take a stroll through Portland and Seattle, and see how safe you feel from the false protection of your shadow. Rules don’t apply to thugs, Lucille. Thugs are opportunistic, just like pedophiles. You may want to do a little research to see who authors these books you apparently think are so great..

Please clarify...is this an educational program or an indoctrination?

If educational, no problema...on the other hand, if it encouraging our children to actively pursue an LGBTQ lifestyle then I have a serious problem with it.

Indoctrination? Yes indeed, in a 14-year program extending from transition kindergarten (TK, 4 and 5-year-olds) through grade 12. The youngest kids — before they can read, often before they can tie their shoes — hear homosexual and transgender-themed read-aloud stories.

Examples: “Doctor” (EdD) Christy Glaser, Country Club’s “queering the classroom” principal (see above), has listed her March school-wide readings, including “Jacob’s New Dress” for TK-K (a kindergarten boy prefers girls’ dresses in his school’s “dress-up room,” and insists he’s a princess). The grades 1&2 selection is “Stella Brings the Family” — i.e., her two dads — to her school’s Mothers’ Day party.

Grade 3 to 5’s book is “Pride, the Story of Harvey Milk and the Rainbow Flag.” Milk biographer Randy Shilts (known for “And the Band Played On”) observed that “Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance-abuse problems”; i.e., he was a pederast.

Grade 4&5 kids can join PRISM (LGBTQ+) Clubs. Parental permission has resumed, but only in OPT-OUT form. Internal SRVUSD emails show teachers collaborating to ignore parental opposition to both read-aloud activism and PRISM involvement.

These programs promote LGBTQ behaviors to vulnerably impressionable young children, disregarding Ed Psyche 101: children do not think like adults. See Web Link .

Things regress further through middle school (grades 6-8) to include promotion of “Gender-Sexuality Alliances” and “Banned Books” (See, e.g., Web Link .

By high school, SRVUSD kids are targeted with overtly rude, crude, and lewd material, including such library books as “This Book Is Gay” and “Let’s Talk About It,” with advocacy of internet porn searches and illegal “sexting.” See Web Link .

The ultimate fix for “professional” educationists’ malfeasance = tax dollars following kids and parents to schools they choose.

It’s interesting that some of the commentators do not have children, let alone students in the SRVUSD. There is incorrect speculation about what is actually taught in SRVUSD classrooms. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but it needs to be based on reality. It also needs to take into account that there are multiple viewpoints on these issues.

Mr. Arata...I had absolutely no idea that this particular subject matter spans all the way from kindergarten through high school.

Why couldn't the school district cover the topic in one high school level class such as Health? Instead it appears to have infiltrated all subjects and grade levels. IMO, this is oversaturation.

From a more practical level, I would rather my child have 12 continuous years of something far more productive like a foreign language, music, art, classic & modern literature, sports etc.

Wokeness at SRVUSD has apparently become hibernation from practical realities and a normal grade school education.

It is time for concerned parents to intervene on Dr. Malloy's sweeping progressive vision for our children.

The only problem...if we complain, we will be accused of being homophobic bigots.

An immature East Bay Times reporter falsely attributed Feb. 21 SRVUSD Board-meeting outbursts to those opposing pornography in District high school libraries. Catcallers and downshouters were instead some of the porn promoters, as the reporter could readily see.

It took my demanding a restoration of order for Board president Rachel Hurd to quiet the noisemakers.

The EBT reporter herself later argued “Reader’s” commentators-without-children-or-SRVUSD-students deflection with me.

As I replied: that’s another inversion. Taxpayers so situated help fund benefits for others’ kids, i.e. free public education. So a majority pays for a numeric minority's benefit. Yet that minority and District employees, the latter expected to serve all, instead demand ever more exclusive control. Taxpayers are supposed to sit down and shut up.

Many school parents, meanwhile, believe their students will suffer consequences for any criticism of SRVUSD’s routine nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance.

But when parent comments are anonymized, as in last fall’s SRVUSD “Thought Exchange,” they do speak up. 62% of parental respondents said their schools “should focus on academics, not ‘woke’ social issues.”

Another double-standard hypocrisy in the library-porn controversy is SRVUSD Policy 4119.21(5), which says that inappropriate EMPLOYEE conduct includes “possessing or viewing any pornography on school grounds” — while high school libraries make porn available for 14-year-olds.

SRVUSD’s current gender-bender activism, whether unwittingly or deliberately, follows the script spelled out for homosexuals in “The Overhauling of Straight America” ( Web Link ) and ( Web Link ): “The first order of business is desensitization of the American public,” via saturation. “First let the camel get his nose inside the tent — only later his unsightly derriere!”

@Reader

It's hypocritical to suggest that taxpayers should have no say in public education while at the same time demanding that taxpayers fund a parcel tax to finance it. Roundly rejecting taxation without representation was literally why this country was created.

As a mother of two young boys enrolled in SRVUSD elementary schools, I am deeply concerned & a bit worried about this pro-LGBTQ curriculum development.

If it is indeed an indoctrination or advocacy of the LGBTQ lifestyle, this program must be terminated to ensure that our young children are not being swayed into accepting a deviant way of life.

Mr. Arata....what can we do? Is a class-action suit against the school district feasible?

Thanks, “H,” for reducing “Reader’s” claim — i.e., that taxpayers without children presently in what many identify as SRVUSD’s CRT/LGBTQ/DEI propaganda mills should have no District voice — to simplest dimensions: TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

DEI (“Diversity, Equity, Inclusion”), BTW, in reality = Division, Exclusion, Incitement.

Meanwhile, ponder AB1078 ( Web Link ). It would prevent California’s local school boards from removing books, materials, or curricula without State Board approval. I await seeing supporter/opponent lists.

Thanks to you, Felicia, for courage on behalf of your kids. I’ve also reached out to you via back channels. If only more parents would step forward as you have, staying ready to expose any hint of negative consequence for their children. Were such response the rule rather than exception, school-based insanity could be stopped.

What can we do? For starters:

1. Support GOOD teachers — those who emphasize teaching/learning of knowledge and skills, and who omit DEI subversion as much as possible.

2. Get friends prepared, via any and all messaging channels available, to oppose SRVUSD’s next parcel-tax campaign, likely in next year’s primary election. In 2018, SRVUSD projected 36,635 students for 2022-23. They’re below that by about 8,000 students; some significant portion of the families involved have already voted with their feet.

3. Study and expose cultural Marxism incursions in schools, from teacher-union radicalism, to race racketeering, to what SRVUSD personnel call “queering the classroom,” to library porn. See related pages at https://www.srvexpositor.com . Teacher unions have been leaders of the PACs: “Who dares take on religion, free enterprise, patriotism, and motherhood? We do — and we must!” (CTA, 1984).

4. Work for good charter schools, homeschooling support, and full school choice, e.g. https://www.californiaschoolchoice.org .

It sickens me to learn that the SRVUSD District continues on this path to self-destruction and the corruption of the minds of children as young as pre-K/K. As the most recent example, "Doctor" Chrissy Glaser of Country Club Elementary School, in South San Ramon, has taken it upon herself to engage in read-a-louds to each of the respective classrooms at her school.

The month of March samplings include the following gems:

Pre-K/K: "Jacob's New Dress" - a story about a little boy that likes to wear dresses. Glaser advises her teachers to ask her students what the boy feels like when he wears the dress.

3rd to 5th Grade: "Pride" - the history of the rainbow flag.

"Doctor" Glaser advertises these read-a-louds as "suggested reading" in her monthly spam newsletter (that presumably every parent, save a few, deletes). Within the news letter, the "read-a-louds" are ALWAYS buried at the end. Then, she provides no explanation as to what the "read-a-louds" are - any reasonable person would not expect her to be reading a book about a cross-dressing boy to preK/K students. Until asked about what "suggested reading" means, a parent is led to believe it is simply that - suggested reading. In reality, the suggested reading is code for "Doctor" Glaser going to each of the class rooms and reading these books to your children whether you like it or not.

Several parents have expressed their disgust to Glaser and demanded that she tell them when the "read-a-louds" are scheduled and she flatly tells the parents she is not obligated to disclose the dates and times to the parents because this is NOT OPTIONAL. "Doctor" Glaser essentially holds the parents hostage and tells them that this is part of the approved SRVUSD curriculum and is again, not optional.

This disgusting behavior has gone on year after year and several parents have called her on it year after year. However, most parents have no idea it is going on and, if they do, are too scared to act. Cont...

Cont....

What can be done? Expose this disgusting behavior - the corruption and HYPER SEXUALIZATION of 4 and 5 year olds is simply unacceptable. Make your voice heard by way of posting on social media, pulling your children from school when the egregious behavior of the "Doctor" Glaser's of the world is on display, go to school board meetings, start a recall petition, file law suits, and make fellow parents aware? There is strength in numbers and the reality is that the "Doctor" Glaser's of the world rule by fear and intimidation as they espouse their radical ideologies.

Props to Mike Arata for standing up to the morally corrupt SRVUSD.

Also, I was of the understanding Jesse Van Zee was elected to stand for parents? We upheld our end of the bargain and elected you. You now owe us your voice as a parent, a man, and a good human being. We don't care if you lose 4 to 1 every time, the opposition needs to know they are out of line and do not represent the will of the people. It is time parents stand up and boot these morally corrupt empty suits out of office.

(By the way, what is with all these fake "doctors" touting their overpriced degrees - it does not make you any more credible, it only makes you appear insecure.)

My great-grandchildren reside and attend school in the aforementioned district.

As a former elementary school teacher in Iowa, I can assure you that this controversial curriculum would never have been accepted or promoted by parents and school administrators during the 1950s.

Young children (K-3) should not be exposed to adult sexuality topics at such an early age and the subject matter is even questionable for older students.

Promoting homosexuality and transgender themes in the classroom along with body mutilation is irresponsible and morally reprehensible.

Thank goodness there are some concerned residents and parents in the SRVUSD who are not encouraging such practices.

Well folks, look no farther than the Disaster in Chief’s Assistant Secretary for Health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Rachel Levine. She/he promised that medically changing kids’ genders will soon be normalized.

The lurch to the left starts from the top. And the Democrat FOOL in the White House is leading the way. Hope you’re happy, America.

"Rachel Levine. She/he promised that medically changing kids’ genders will soon be normalized."

Encouraging minors to alter their gender identities via surgery is not a good idea.

Perhaps the key is not to promote this agenda in school but for families and churches to promote the unilateral acceptance of the LGBTQ community.

I concur that this curriculum should not be force-fed upon children in the classroom but rather during after school programs with parental permission.

An "Open Minded Parent’s" comment is in part identical to that of “LP” at Web Link .

Both speak of “promoting a unilateral acceptance of the LGBTQ community.” I believe the intended term may be “UNIVERSAL acceptance”; unilateral, often secretive imposition of LGBTQ ideology is in fact already SRVUSD’s standard policy and practice, from pre-K through high school, without regard to parental authority.

“Promoting diversity and inclusion” used to mean “live and let live,” not (a) pushing age-inappropriate homosexual and transgender-themed read-aloud picture-story books at 5-year-olds (rubber-stamp approved by Mr. Malloy’s 15-person committee, names concealed); (b) ditching a parental OPT-IN permission requirement for 4th and 5th-grade PRISM (“LGBTQ+”) Clubs; and (c) insisting that high schoolers must be able to “see themselves” in grossly pornographic library books.

Homosexual math teacher Bob Allen’s mention of 23% of SRVUSD students identifying as “not straight” (2% as “trans”) illustrates a problem noticed even by Bill Maher: “When things change this much, this fast, people are allowed to ask, “What’s up with that?” See Web Link

One answer: intensive school-based indoctrination. See Web Link .

A homosexual member of my own extended family is horrified by SRVUSD’s systematic intrusion upon parental rights, including the District’s “Gender Support Plans,” administered by unlicensed, amateur psychotherapists — i.e., “Doctor” (EdD) Hong Nguyen and her team of principals and counselors ( Web Link ).

Gays Against Groomers themselves “oppose the recent trend of indoctrinating, sexualizing, and medicalizing children under the guise of ‘LGBTQIA+’” ( Web Link ).