> Yes, I don't think the law bars that discussion, especially if the child initiates it. I would hope it wouldn't. Of course it will be up to the courts to interpret what classroom instruction means.

That might be the disconnect for us; I think it will end up being pretty broadly defined. The term doesn't seem to be legally defined (in this context), so the closest I can find is Florida's legal definition of a teacher:

"(a) Classroom teachers.—Classroom teachers are staff members assigned the professional activity of instructing students in courses in classroom situations, including basic instruction, exceptional student education, career education, and adult education, including substitute teachers."

Given that it doesn't separate out discussion, I would guess that effectively anything that happens in the classroom is "instruction".

Only time will tell, I could totally be wrong.

> I think on Pride Day, they should teach colors and math and reading just like every day to K-3 kids. Why introduce this to the curriculum?

Kids at that age are learning what normal is, and by the end of it are starting to judge things as not normal. You can see it in those stupid Children React videos; those kids already have an idea of normal and not. Or if you were to offer an American 3rd grader some kind of cultural delicacy. They'll say it's gross and weird, meaning it doesn't fit into their definition of normal. Kindergarteners will happily eat it, because they don't have a sense of normal just yet.

The purpose is to help them realize it's a normal thing. We still teach them what pigs and cows are, even though most people will interact with far more gay people than pigs or cows. If pigs and cows are taught as normal in an urban area, why would it be so weird to introduce the idea of gay people? It's certainly more pertinent.

> Why introduce the concept that some kid's parents are drug addicts?

I probably should have gated that with "loving and healthy parents". The goal is to teach children that there are other normal family arrangements, not to drag 2nd graders into a discussion about the nature of evil.

> Also consider the kid who's parents are gay could certainly feel that this whole discussion is singling them out and not like having the teacher bring it up. Just because a teacher intends the discussion to make someone feel inclusive doesn't mean it won't have the opposite affect in a child's mind. Kids can also be cruel, imagine during the discussion some kid says, "Ha ha, Jimmy has two mommies!" followed by snickers and laughs. That's certainly not the outcome you are imagining, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Now the kid feels like an utter outcast, the exact opposite of the intent. Best just to stick to the basics of elementary education and not let teachers go, "off script."

That would be traumatic, but also basically the default outcome unless you somehow believe that children are kinder to each other when the teacher is gone. If the kids are going to snicker and laugh while the teacher is there, I can't imagine they'd be any kinder if they found out on their own.

I don't think it will always be perfect, but I don't think leaving the kids to figure it out themselves is going to lead to a better outcome.