![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rivka(OWL training, the first 24 hours. In the second half I might just start summing up, because damn, a lot happened in 48 hours of training.)
The plan was that my fellow faciliators and I would meet at the church at 2:30 and drive up to the retreat center together. I worked from home until about 1:30, packed my suitcase, did a little housework, and got to the church at 2:29. And waited. And waited. At 2:45, the church administrator came down and told me that Adrian had called. He and Whitney (Who will be our alternate/substitute teacher) were running late, but they should be there by 3. At 3:30, Adrian finally showed up, followed closely by Whitney. I'm not sure this bodes well for our future enterprises.
So we piled into the car and drove up to the middle of nowhere. I guess that technically West Chester is a suburb of Philly, but we got there through a series of tiny villages, wooded rolling hills, and narrow, twisting country lanes. We got to Temenos just in time for dinner, dumped our bags in our rooms (which were like inexpensive but painstakingly-maintained rural motel rooms - two double beds and an enclosed bathroom, all very simple and non-luxurious), and joined our fellow students at three big tables for supper. There were fourteen students and two trainers, mostly from churches in Maryland and Pennsylvania. One woman was there from a Quaker private school - I thought that was interesting. Even though the course requires male and female co-teachers, 10 out of the 14 students were women. I guess that when churches have multiple facilitators trained, the extras tend to be women.
Friday was taken up with getting-to-know-you exercises, an explanation of the training structure, an overview of the OWL philosophy and program values, a small-group discussion of the feelings we associate with our childhood experiences of learning about sexuality, and an exercise in broadening our definition of sexuality.
According to the OWL philosophy, there are five "circles of sexuality" which together make up our experiences as sexual beings: Sensuality (awareness and enjoyment of the body, sexual response, sense pleasures), Intimacy (emotional closeness), Sexual Identity (sexual orientation, gender identity, gender role), Sexual Health and Reproduction (anatomy, physiology, contraception, STDs, etc.), and Sexualization (using sexuality to control or manipulate). "Normal" sex education typically includes only the Sexual Health and Reproduction component. OWL includes all five. The trainers put up big pieces of newsprint for each circle and had us rotate around the room in small groups, brainstorming everything we could think of that fit into each circle.
Finally, they divided us into four "peer facilitation" groups. Each group was assigned an exercise or lesson from the curriculum, which we were responsible for teaching on Sunday morning. Within our groups, we had to learn the exercise, prepare all the materials, assign teaching roles, practice (if necessary), and actually deliver the lesson to our fellow facilitators. We were told that when we were acting as "students," we should feel free to behave in developmentally appropriate ways.
They gave us some time to start planning. In my group, I was the only one who was even glancingly familiar with the curriculum. The two men in my group immediately started to make "joking" comments about me being overprepared. "You probably have a Ph.D.," one of them snarked. Perhaps unwisely, I said that I did. As I tried to get our group organized and up to speed, they continued to make undermining comments and jokes. I tried to ignore it, but got progressively more pissed off.
Finally, we all came back together and the trainers asked us to fill out a "reflection card" about our response to the training so far. I sat with my pen over my paper for a couple of minutes, trying to figure out what to say about how I was feeling. Then I heard one of the guys in my peer facilitation group say to the other, "Everyone's finished except Rebecca. Hers is going to be this big elaborate essay." I put my pen down and glared at him. "We're just joking," he said. "Please stop," I said without smiling. "You're making me very self-conscious." I picked up my response card, scrawled "Group dynamics can really be no fun," and handed it in.
After the group broke up, one of the guys said to me, "I'm sorry. I think this is coming out of a certain discomfort with being here, and the material." I told him, "It's not much fun to be put in a 'teacher's pet, know-it-all' role." We sort of nodded at each other and moved on, and that was the last trouble I had with either of them. But sheesh.
I played cards with Adrian and Whitney until midnight and went to sleep.
After breakfast we jumped right in with an exercise in identifying and expressing our value differences. The trainers labeled different points in the hallway as "Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree." They read out a value statement and asked us to move to the appropriate part of the hall. Then they asked various people to explain their position, starting with the minority end of the spectrum. I was impressed that they managed to find four issues for which there was a broad spectrum of opinion among UUs - at one point, the discussion actually got a bit heated.
We spent quite a bit of time Saturday morning talking about where teenagers are physically, cognitively, socially, and emotionally. Technically this was a dual training for OWL grades 7-9 and 10-12 (although all of us were planning to teach 7-9), so we talked about each age group. This was one of the most valuable parts of the training for me - not because I learned a lot of things I didn't already know, but because the collaborative discussion helped me build a good mental picture of the context for our class and our teaching. The trainers threw in a lot of useful anecdotes and advice about teaching sex education to this age group. The single most useful piece of advice: "You always have to address the agenda in the room, not just the agenda in the curriculum." In other words, you can't think of the course as a linear and orderly progression through the curriculum, because you need to address the issues the kids are concerned with right then.
We had some more time to work in our peer facilitation groups, and then lunch. We were given a reading assignment to complete during the lunch hour: a ten-page overview of sexual identity issues, including biological sex (including intersex), sexual orientation, and gender identity. Most of the material was well put-together, but there was one point that caught up both me and my co-teacher, Adrian: the statement that "drag" stands for "Dressed as a Girl," and that the equivalent female term is "drab, for "Dressed as a Boy."
"I never heard that," Adrian said. "That can't be the real derivation," I said. "It must be a back formation." "I have never heard anyone say 'Drab King," he said. "Hey: I was in a Drag King competition, and we spelled it with a G," I said. That seemed to settle it, but it had me wondering about the rest of the material. (Google agrees with us: 67 results for "drab king," and 280,000 for "drag king.")
We spent the hour after lunch discussing sexual orientation and gender identity issues. The trainers opened the floor for a brief general discussion of the reading assignment, and then distributed cards and asked people to write questions on them. Then they went through the pack of questions and answered them or put them up for discussion. That's a good technique to remember: in addition to allowing the safety of anonymity, it's also an efficient way of identifying the parts of a subject that people don't understand or are most interested in.
There was some discussion of fluidity vs. rigidity of sexual orientation. A few people were alarmed at the idea of fluid sexuality, because they had adopted what they thought was the "correct" position that sexual orientation is fixed at birth and cannot be changed. We spent some time on that. Several people had trouble wrapping their minds around gender identity issues, and particularly with the reading's suggestions for inclusiveness, and so we spent some time on that. Then the trainers read Adrian's question (okay, so much for anonymity) about whether and/or how facilitators' sexual orientation should by identified in class. This set off a mini firestorm. Everyone agreed that facilitators' sexual experiences ought to be completely off-limits in class discussion, but there was debate about whether orientation "counted" as inappropriate self-disclosure. I suggested that perhaps the married facilitators should avoid wearing wedding rings to class, and some people were horrified that I thought it was the same thing.
Our male trainer kept insisting that it was extremely unlikely that our students would have personal questions for us: "I've taught OWL since it began, and no one has ever asked me a personal question." (As Adrian pointed out later, this guy was 60 years old when he started teaching OWL. It completely fails to surprise me that kids didn't ask him about his sex life, because I bet they assumed he didn't have one. That doesn't mean they're going to be equally incurious about the private life of a facilitator who is in his 20s.)
The whole conversation got pretty frustrating. I think I assumed that all UUs - or at least most, or at least, most of those who would sign up to teach sex ed - were at the same general level of enlightenment on sexual minority issues. Nope. At one point in the discussion, Adrian said in frustration, "Look, my church probably has more gay people in it than all your churches put together..." Nods all around the room. "Our inner city churches are really in a unique position," one of the trainers said euphemistically.
That conversation took most of an hour. Then they cut us loose for a half-hour break, which I spent on the deck, basking in the sunlight and silence and reading the latest Wrede/Stevermeyer book.
To be continued...
The plan was that my fellow faciliators and I would meet at the church at 2:30 and drive up to the retreat center together. I worked from home until about 1:30, packed my suitcase, did a little housework, and got to the church at 2:29. And waited. And waited. At 2:45, the church administrator came down and told me that Adrian had called. He and Whitney (Who will be our alternate/substitute teacher) were running late, but they should be there by 3. At 3:30, Adrian finally showed up, followed closely by Whitney. I'm not sure this bodes well for our future enterprises.
So we piled into the car and drove up to the middle of nowhere. I guess that technically West Chester is a suburb of Philly, but we got there through a series of tiny villages, wooded rolling hills, and narrow, twisting country lanes. We got to Temenos just in time for dinner, dumped our bags in our rooms (which were like inexpensive but painstakingly-maintained rural motel rooms - two double beds and an enclosed bathroom, all very simple and non-luxurious), and joined our fellow students at three big tables for supper. There were fourteen students and two trainers, mostly from churches in Maryland and Pennsylvania. One woman was there from a Quaker private school - I thought that was interesting. Even though the course requires male and female co-teachers, 10 out of the 14 students were women. I guess that when churches have multiple facilitators trained, the extras tend to be women.
Friday was taken up with getting-to-know-you exercises, an explanation of the training structure, an overview of the OWL philosophy and program values, a small-group discussion of the feelings we associate with our childhood experiences of learning about sexuality, and an exercise in broadening our definition of sexuality.
According to the OWL philosophy, there are five "circles of sexuality" which together make up our experiences as sexual beings: Sensuality (awareness and enjoyment of the body, sexual response, sense pleasures), Intimacy (emotional closeness), Sexual Identity (sexual orientation, gender identity, gender role), Sexual Health and Reproduction (anatomy, physiology, contraception, STDs, etc.), and Sexualization (using sexuality to control or manipulate). "Normal" sex education typically includes only the Sexual Health and Reproduction component. OWL includes all five. The trainers put up big pieces of newsprint for each circle and had us rotate around the room in small groups, brainstorming everything we could think of that fit into each circle.
Finally, they divided us into four "peer facilitation" groups. Each group was assigned an exercise or lesson from the curriculum, which we were responsible for teaching on Sunday morning. Within our groups, we had to learn the exercise, prepare all the materials, assign teaching roles, practice (if necessary), and actually deliver the lesson to our fellow facilitators. We were told that when we were acting as "students," we should feel free to behave in developmentally appropriate ways.
They gave us some time to start planning. In my group, I was the only one who was even glancingly familiar with the curriculum. The two men in my group immediately started to make "joking" comments about me being overprepared. "You probably have a Ph.D.," one of them snarked. Perhaps unwisely, I said that I did. As I tried to get our group organized and up to speed, they continued to make undermining comments and jokes. I tried to ignore it, but got progressively more pissed off.
Finally, we all came back together and the trainers asked us to fill out a "reflection card" about our response to the training so far. I sat with my pen over my paper for a couple of minutes, trying to figure out what to say about how I was feeling. Then I heard one of the guys in my peer facilitation group say to the other, "Everyone's finished except Rebecca. Hers is going to be this big elaborate essay." I put my pen down and glared at him. "We're just joking," he said. "Please stop," I said without smiling. "You're making me very self-conscious." I picked up my response card, scrawled "Group dynamics can really be no fun," and handed it in.
After the group broke up, one of the guys said to me, "I'm sorry. I think this is coming out of a certain discomfort with being here, and the material." I told him, "It's not much fun to be put in a 'teacher's pet, know-it-all' role." We sort of nodded at each other and moved on, and that was the last trouble I had with either of them. But sheesh.
I played cards with Adrian and Whitney until midnight and went to sleep.
After breakfast we jumped right in with an exercise in identifying and expressing our value differences. The trainers labeled different points in the hallway as "Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree." They read out a value statement and asked us to move to the appropriate part of the hall. Then they asked various people to explain their position, starting with the minority end of the spectrum. I was impressed that they managed to find four issues for which there was a broad spectrum of opinion among UUs - at one point, the discussion actually got a bit heated.
We spent quite a bit of time Saturday morning talking about where teenagers are physically, cognitively, socially, and emotionally. Technically this was a dual training for OWL grades 7-9 and 10-12 (although all of us were planning to teach 7-9), so we talked about each age group. This was one of the most valuable parts of the training for me - not because I learned a lot of things I didn't already know, but because the collaborative discussion helped me build a good mental picture of the context for our class and our teaching. The trainers threw in a lot of useful anecdotes and advice about teaching sex education to this age group. The single most useful piece of advice: "You always have to address the agenda in the room, not just the agenda in the curriculum." In other words, you can't think of the course as a linear and orderly progression through the curriculum, because you need to address the issues the kids are concerned with right then.
We had some more time to work in our peer facilitation groups, and then lunch. We were given a reading assignment to complete during the lunch hour: a ten-page overview of sexual identity issues, including biological sex (including intersex), sexual orientation, and gender identity. Most of the material was well put-together, but there was one point that caught up both me and my co-teacher, Adrian: the statement that "drag" stands for "Dressed as a Girl," and that the equivalent female term is "drab, for "Dressed as a Boy."
"I never heard that," Adrian said. "That can't be the real derivation," I said. "It must be a back formation." "I have never heard anyone say 'Drab King," he said. "Hey: I was in a Drag King competition, and we spelled it with a G," I said. That seemed to settle it, but it had me wondering about the rest of the material. (Google agrees with us: 67 results for "drab king," and 280,000 for "drag king.")
We spent the hour after lunch discussing sexual orientation and gender identity issues. The trainers opened the floor for a brief general discussion of the reading assignment, and then distributed cards and asked people to write questions on them. Then they went through the pack of questions and answered them or put them up for discussion. That's a good technique to remember: in addition to allowing the safety of anonymity, it's also an efficient way of identifying the parts of a subject that people don't understand or are most interested in.
There was some discussion of fluidity vs. rigidity of sexual orientation. A few people were alarmed at the idea of fluid sexuality, because they had adopted what they thought was the "correct" position that sexual orientation is fixed at birth and cannot be changed. We spent some time on that. Several people had trouble wrapping their minds around gender identity issues, and particularly with the reading's suggestions for inclusiveness, and so we spent some time on that. Then the trainers read Adrian's question (okay, so much for anonymity) about whether and/or how facilitators' sexual orientation should by identified in class. This set off a mini firestorm. Everyone agreed that facilitators' sexual experiences ought to be completely off-limits in class discussion, but there was debate about whether orientation "counted" as inappropriate self-disclosure. I suggested that perhaps the married facilitators should avoid wearing wedding rings to class, and some people were horrified that I thought it was the same thing.
Our male trainer kept insisting that it was extremely unlikely that our students would have personal questions for us: "I've taught OWL since it began, and no one has ever asked me a personal question." (As Adrian pointed out later, this guy was 60 years old when he started teaching OWL. It completely fails to surprise me that kids didn't ask him about his sex life, because I bet they assumed he didn't have one. That doesn't mean they're going to be equally incurious about the private life of a facilitator who is in his 20s.)
The whole conversation got pretty frustrating. I think I assumed that all UUs - or at least most, or at least, most of those who would sign up to teach sex ed - were at the same general level of enlightenment on sexual minority issues. Nope. At one point in the discussion, Adrian said in frustration, "Look, my church probably has more gay people in it than all your churches put together..." Nods all around the room. "Our inner city churches are really in a unique position," one of the trainers said euphemistically.
That conversation took most of an hour. Then they cut us loose for a half-hour break, which I spent on the deck, basking in the sunlight and silence and reading the latest Wrede/Stevermeyer book.
To be continued...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-23 08:59 pm (UTC)I have seen the term Drab King before (seen it written down, never heard it spoken aloud), but I think it was in a similar context, listed in a curriculum or something.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-23 09:17 pm (UTC)I absolutely love it. And it really does change the whole context for what "comprehensive sex education" really means. Where do kids learn about sensuality and intimacy? From the media, I guess, if at all. And where do they learn about sexualization? Probably from being subjected to it.