Consider the books some people want to put in the hands of students at an elementary school near you: “Heather Has Two Mommies” and “Gloria Goes to Gay Pride.” The school chancellor of School District 24 in Queens, New York City, already tried to introduce these books?part of the “Children of the Rainbow” curriculum?almost 10 years ago.

Books like those about Heather and Gloria are examples of study plans being pushed into schools by Big Mother, who is trying to teach schoolchildren what is right and wrong. She is the National Education Association. And while she fights for students and teachers in many meaningful ways, she should remember that the teaching of some things, including issues surrounding homosexuality, is better accomplished by real parents at home.

In fairness, the NEA works tirelessly to improve education in America’s public schools. Only days ago, the U.S. Senate passed a bill that will compensate cash-strapped teachers for out-of-pocket money they spend on students. The NEA also awards $2,000 Innovation Grants to teachers who propose inventive teaching projects, three of which went to Utah educators last year. The list of admirable NEA projects could continue.

Last summer, however, the NEA proposed a resolution encouraging the promotion of homosexuality in classrooms. Supporters of the resolution say it will “protect homosexuals in schools by implementing pro-homosexual curriculum, instructional materials, programs and by hiring homosexual educators.” These programs, which could be taught to students as young as preschoolers, would not require parental consent.

To some people, this sort of instruction might seem fine. But in recent years, teaching anything with a moral or ethical element has raised red flags. Take, for example, so called “character training” programs now in some schools. The Wall Street Journal highlighted “Character First!” ?one such program?in 1999.

While Character First! received rave reviews from most educators, opponents expressed uneasiness with the program’s loose ties with Christian groups. Cathy Kass, an education professor from Oklahoma City, expressed concern with a quasi-religious organization teaching character in schools. “A lot of people look at [character training] as a way for certain viewpoints to get into school,” Kass said. “I’m Jewish?and I know what it’s like to have religion that’s not mine pushed on me.”

Kass conveys a valid point. People who don’t want pro homosexual curriculum taught in schools can echo Kass’s same feelings. The NEA’s proposed curriculum certainly seems like “a way for certain viewpoints to get into school.” Likewise, supporters of traditional families would certainly feel such education would be having a political agenda that’s not theirs “pushed on” them.

And make no mistake about it?the NEA has a defined political agenda. The organization blithely mixes educational lobbying with other left-leaning lobbying. In June 2000, The Associated Press reported that the NEA regularly uses the dues of its 2.5 million members on political spending. According to the report, internal documents show the NEA budgeted almost $5 million for the 2000 election.

So who is receiving the NEA’s cash? An analysis by Focus on the Family showed that while the NEA’s membership is only 49 percent Democratic, about 97 percent of the group’s soft money contributions in the 1998 election landed in the hands of Democrats. In the same year, Democrats received 93 percent of $2.2 million in NEA congressional contributions.

The most bizarre aspect of the NEA’s political activities is its support of issues that have absolutely nothing to do with education. According to the same Focus on the Family report, the NEA openly supports abortion, as well as “a nuclear freeze, reparation of Native American remains, a world court and blocking telemarketing.”

With such a left-wing bias, perhaps people can excuse conservatives for doubting NEA motives in connection with teaching homosexuality.

The NEA’s pro-homosexuality campaign is also misguided because it does not teach tolerance and understanding of differences?it teaches students to acceptance of a lifestyle many think is unacceptable, and to embrace what many feel is not morally right.

Surely somebody will misconstrue such a statement as “hate” or “intolerance.” But the real misunderstanding is that tolerance, understanding or even friendship and love do not necessarily mean acceptance. And not accepting another person’s actions does not necessarily mean intolerance.

For an example, turn the tables of the debate. The NEA openly opposes Christian and pro-family groups like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, which it calls the Religious Right. For NEA advocates to be tolerant of such “fundamentalists,” as it is apt to call them, would they have to agree with Focus on the Family? Would they have to accept the Family Research Council’s take on school vouchers or abortion? Of course not?doing so would go against the NEA’s core values. Supporters of traditional families should have the same privilege to respectfully disagree.

Finally, the NEA should leave such teaching to parents, who best know the students and who can guide students as they feel is right. The NEA even agrees on this point. The NEA’s Web site tells parents, “You are your child’s first and most important teacher.” That is good advice for teachers, administrators and parents, and especially good advice for surrogate parents?like Big Mother.

Michael welcomes feedback at: [email protected] or send letters to the editor to: [email protected].