sex education ruling -update

[Sojourner]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Nov 6 2005, 10:21 PM']

these are 7-10 year olds. [b]not[/b]junior high. 2nd grade?! I teach 2nd grade!

And the parents were [b]uninformed[/b]. Your parents had the choice of keeping you out of those classes because they were aware of the content. Those parents were not. According to the letter, your parents wouldn't have any say so. You would have been in the sex ed class at 7 years old because they have no "fundamental right" to protect you otherwise.

10 QUESTIONS that were explictedly sexual. Those parents have a RIGHT to be concerned. No child should be stripped of their innocence, especially when the parents are trying hard to keep them innocent.  I would have done the same thing.

Vote those judges outta office.

God Have mercy on us.
[right][snapback]780782[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I had a pretty decent knowledge of the mechanics of sex by the time I was 10. Didn't learn any of it from my parents. And I don't think I'm unusual.

My point was that my parents efforts to "protect" me did nothing of the sort. I just got the information from other sources.

And you can't vote these judges out of office. They're appointed.

[mommyof2]

I am disturbed! Children have no right to live but if they do then they have no right to their innocence! We take a child and put them into an adult situation and then sit back and do "studies" on how [color=red][Edited by Kilroy the Ninja: Please watch the language!][/color]they are because of it!

How can we saturate children with information on sex then wonder why the hell they are doing it?



It is a sick sad world and we have no right to shield our children from it. What rights do our children have? Shouldn't they have a right to a childhood?

Edited November 7, 2005 by Kilroy the Ninja

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='mommyof2' date='Nov 7 2005, 12:09 AM']I am disturbed! Children have no right to live but if they do then they have no right to their innocence! We take a child and put them into an adult situation and then sit back and do "studies" on how [color=red]-------- [/color] because of it!

How can we saturate children with information on sex then wonder why  the hell they are doing it?
It is a sick sad world and we have no right to shield our children from it. What rights do our children have? Shouldn't they have a right to a childhood?
[right][snapback]780933[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
We don't say that here...

Edited November 7, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[jmjtina]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 6 2005, 10:00 PM']I had a pretty decent knowledge of the mechanics of sex by the time I was 10. Didn't learn any of it from my parents. And I don't think I'm unusual.

My point was that my parents efforts to "protect" me did nothing of the sort. I just got the information from other sources.

And you can't vote these judges out of office. They're appointed.
[right][snapback]780836[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

my point was that your parents had the choice because they were aware of what and how they were teaching it in the public schools. Your parents controlled what they could. What you did and learned (and we all did) in other places, they have no control over. My point being, if you have control over the situation, take it. Or try to. Especially when it is for your kids.

A 10 year old knowledge and a teen's knowledge of sex is a vast difference. Alot has changed since I was in high school that's for sure from what the YG tells me.

appointed. Someone appoints them. Vote them out of office. I'm not going to google how and who appoints a judge right now.

And our school district would have fired whoever was in charge. It's happened before.

Parents do have a say. The more conservative districts win BIG. i hope more parents in Cali do what they can to change the corrupt system they live in. It effects us all.

Edited November 7, 2005 by jmjtina

[mommyof2]

Sorry both new and outraged!

[Aloysius]

completely understandable.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='mommyof2' date='Nov 7 2005, 01:24 AM']Sorry both new and outraged!
[right][snapback]780991[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Oh, I totally agree with you... explative aside.

Welcome to Phatmass.

[Sojourner]

If we're going to have an informed discussion on the topic of this decision, we should [url="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8695945B7C6F6B5882570AD0051320A/$file/0356499.pdf?openelement"]read the actual opinion so we can understand why the court ruled as it did. [/url]

After reading the opinion, I note a couple of things. As was stated in the original article, the school did notify parents that a survey would be conducted of first-, third-, and fifth-grade children. Parents knew the school would be asking questions about "children's exposure to early trauma (for example, violence)." They agreed, in the approval section, that they understood "answering questions may make my child feel uncomfortable."

Now, if your child is going to be asked questions about "early trauma" that "may make my child feel uncomfortable," shouldn't that raise red flags? There was contact information for the research coordinator included in the letter, along with an invitation to contact her with questions. [b]They were given the opportunity to keep their children from taking the survey.[/b] It seems odd to me that these parents who were so concerned about the information their children were being asked weren't concerned about it on the front end, when they could have opted out without consequence.

The parents, in their suit against the school, argued that their right to "control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs" is encompassed in their due process right to "contral the education and upbringing of one's children," and in their "constitutional right to privacy to make intimate familial decisions."

The 9th Circuit decision relied heavily on [i]Brown[/i], a 1st Circuit case in which a compulsory high school assembly presentation aimed at educating students on AIDS and other health concerns included explicit references to sexuality. Notable from that decision, the 1st Circuit opinion states:
[quote]We think it is fundamentally different for the state to say to a parent, "You can't teach your child German or send him to a parochial school," than for the parent to say to the state, "You can't teach my child subjects that are morally offensive to me." The first instance involves the state proscribing parents from educating their children, while the second involves parents prescribing what the state shall teach their children. If all parents had a fundamental constitutional right to dictate individually what the schools teach their children, the schools would be forced to cater a curriculum for each student whose parents had genuine moreal disagreements with the school's choice of subject matter. [i]We cannot see that the Constitution imposes such a burden on state educational systems, and according find that the rights of the parents ... do not encompass a broad-based right to restrict the flow of information in the public schools.[/i][/quote]

The 9th Circuit agreed with and adopted the 1st Circuit analysis. From the [i]Fields et al[/i] decision:
[quote]We agree with and adopt the First Circuit's analysis. [i]Meyer, Pierce[/i] and their progeny "evince the principle that the state cannot prevent parents from choosing a specific educational program," but they do not afford parents a right to compel public schools to follow their own idiosyncratic views as to what information the schools may dispense. Parents have a right to inform their children when and as they wish on the subject of sex; they have no constitutional right, however, to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so.[/quote]

and later
[quote]As the First Circuit made clear in [i]Brown[/i], once parents make the choice as to which school their children will attend, their fundamental right to control the education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished. ... Perhaps the Sixth Circuit said it best when it explained, "While parents may have a fundamental right to decide [i]whether[/i] to send their child to a public school, they do not have a fundamental right generally to direct [i]how[/i] a public school teaches their child. Whether it is the school curriculum, the hours o fthe school day, school discipline, the timing and content of examinations, the individuals hired to teach at the school, the extracurricular activities offered at the school or ... a dress code, these issues of public education are generally 'committed to the control of state and local authorities.'[/quote]

Reminds me of the fable of the frog who gives the scorpion a ride, only to have the scorpion sting him to death. "You knew what I was when you picked me up."

The moral of the story: If you don't want the school to teach your kids about sex, don't send them to the school. This decision doesn't take away a parents' ability to make decisions about their kids' education, or, as was intimated in an earlier post, pave the road for the state to restrict parents' sending their children to private schools or homeschooling them. It does clarify what a parent can expect of the public school system.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Nov 4 2005, 12:03 PM']Bets on how long before the Communist party is thriving in America.

Oh wait.... they already are. They are called "Democrats"
[right][snapback]778734[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is an uncalled generalization and rude.

[jmjtina]

I'll print it out later and really go through it, but the first couple of pages got stuck in my printer.

First, it said trama. (example) volience. Now would sexual questions EVER come into mind? And for the first graders who had no idea what sex was, what definition did they give them? Don't you think the "researchers" termed the letter to not "alarm" the parents so that they could actually have a "study"? I've read MANY studies that cleared them up "legally" but were very decietful. The parents claimed if they had known the true nature of the survey, the would have not consented.

There is something very wrong with the decision. I just find it alarming how one parent can complain about the pledge of alligence because of the reference to God and get thier way and another group has no say to what goes on. double standard in my opinion.

Some people can't afford homeschooling or private schools. We need to change the public school system.

Not every parent has an education or can read. when I read the whole thing, I'd be interested if these parents were migrants, minorities and their education. What kind of background do these families have? I have alot of parents who can't read in English. It's not always black and white when it comes to education and protecting our children. Yes, this is what we can expect from the education system but we should do all we can to change it because the children are the victims in tragedies like this.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Nov 7 2005, 07:11 PM']First, it said trama. (example) volience. Now would sexual questions EVER come into mind? And for the first graders who had no idea what sex was, what definition did they give them? Don't you think the "researchers" termed the letter to not "alarm" the parents so that they could actually have a "study"? I've read MANY studies that cleared them up "legally" but were very decietful. The parents claimed if they had known the true nature of the survey, the would have not consented. [right][snapback]781886[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I can't speak for these parents. With what I've seen and read, though, I can tell you I'd definitely consider that questions which a) involved early trauma and b) could result in a child feeling uncomfortable could involve sexually-based questions. It would concern me enough that I'd take a minute to contact the school and find out more details before I signed the paper. But that's just me.

And I have no idea how the questions were explained to the younger children. I'm sure the researchers were trying to determine whether the kids had histories of sexual abuse -- which could definitely become an impediment to learning. However, as the opinion notes, the specific content of the survey wasn't at issue. The question was what level of right parents have in dictating the content of their children's education.

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Nov 7 2005, 07:11 PM']There is something very wrong with the decision. I just find it alarming how one parent can complain about the pledge of alligence because of the reference to God and get thier way and another group has no say to what goes on. double standard in my opinion.
[right][snapback]781886[/snapback][/right][/quote]
These were two different constitutional arguments. They're two different issues. While you may see them as being related because both involve, at some level, questions of faith, legally they're not related.

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Nov 7 2005, 07:11 PM']Some people can't afford homeschooling or private schools. We need to change the public school system.

Not every parent has an education or can read. when I read the whole thing, I'd be interested if these parents were migrants, minorities and their education. What kind of background do these families have? I have alot of parents who can't read in English.  It's not always black and white when it comes to education and protecting our children. Yes, this is what we can expect from the education system but we should do all we can to change it because the children are the victims in tragedies like this.
[right][snapback]781886[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree it's not always black and white. And I agree that schools need to be improved. But it's not as though only Christians send their children to public schools. Lots of parents don't mind that their kids learn about sex from the school, and even encourage that. I think the school did its job by alerting parents to the fact a survey was being done, and allowing parents the opportunity to opt out. [i]These parents chose not to opt out.[/i] They'll know in the future to be more careful with what they agree to allow their children to particpate in.

And I'd really hesitate to call this a "tragedy." It may not be the ideal situation for the kids involved, but I can't in good conscience call it a tragedy. If one of the kids were raped, that'd be a tragedy. These kids were asked 10 questions about sex. I'd be very surprised if, in a public school setting, these kids hadn't already been exposed to information about sex.

[jmjtina]

obviously the parents didn't understand fully what their children were getting into, so they couldn't "opt" out because they probably thought it wasn't a big deal. (this is where we disagree) Yes they should be more involved, (especially in California).

it happens all the time. As educators, it's our responsibility to make sure that "controversial" items are very clear. Granted, we fail at this most of the time, but come on! Those questions are way to graphic for 6 year olds! Espcially those items. Those questions were outrageous.

I know they were different instances, I was thinking outloud about it. (plegde of alligence and this)

If it would've happened in Texas, it would have been a different ruling. And probably wouldn't have needed to go so far. People have been fired for less by the superintendent.

The tragedy is this, that letter was decietful and didn't make the parents aware of what they were going to ask their children. (Where we also probably disagree) Parents have a right to know. Again, I'd be interested in the background of the parents. Most parents are intimidated by the school system because of thier level of education. (or lack of) (and all the ancronyms that we use).

I agree with you in this: that letter [u]to me[/u], had red flags in there. I saw them. But those parents didn't. I was shocked at the questions they were asking and totally agree with the parents on this.

Cheers.

Now off to vote!!!

[Sojourner]

[url="http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18823/article_detail.asp"]Here's an article on this ruling from The American Enterprise[/url]

From the conclusion:

[quote]... courts seem to have accepted three propositions. The first is that they have no business making curricular choices or policy decisions for schools—except when, in their view, the Constitution demands them, as in the case of religion or racial integration. The second is that the courts have accepted the judgment of school officials that sex education is an important part of the public school curriculum. And the third is that the sex education curriculum is a matter of public health and science, not religion. By engaging in sex ed, the schools are acting neutrally and scientifically, not establishing a religion of secularism, so constraining religious freedom as to run afoul of the First Amendment, or so trenching on parental freedom (religious or non-religious) as to bring the Ninth Amendment to bear.

In other words, the courts will not enforce parental rights because they do not [i]want [/i]to enforce parental rights.

Thus, in allowing school officials to sometimes get away with insensitive and offensive behavior, the courts are reminding us that they are not our primary protector of rights. Rather, our rights are primarily protected by individual responsibility and vigilance. The Palmdale parents shouldn’t have sued; they should have burned up the phone, FAX, and Internet lines to the school board; they should have held school officials accountable for rectifying their shoddy research oversight in the next school board elections; and, if all else failed, they should have pulled their children out of the public schools, sending them to private schools or educating them at home.

The lesson here, then, is not that we parents have no right to choose how and what our children will learn, but that we parents are responsible for exercising that right through the choices we make regarding the education of our children. At the very least, we should actively demand school choice, and not just between various public options. And at most, we should bring our children back home, where strangers are much less likely to inquire into whether they “can’t stop thinking about sex.”

This case can, in other words, be a victory for parental control, if only we act like parents, and not like wards and clients of the state.[/quote]

[Jedi_StClaire]

I first found this article on lifesitenews and I was outraged. Parents are losing rights all over. First they lose the right to say no to these inapproipriate questions for their 6 and 7 year olds (and 9/10/11 year olds) then PROP73 doesn't pass so parents don't even know if their daughters are being taken for a secret abortion. What next?

This is why PP must be REMOVED from schools immediately.

[cmotherofpirl]

update:
House takes on court stance
School sex-survey decision enrages reps
By Lisa Friedman, Washington Bureau



WASHINGTON - Lawmakers in the U.S. House overwhelmingly denounced the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday for tossing out a lawsuit by Palmdale parents furious that their children were surveyed at school about sex.
In a 320-91 vote, legislators passed a resolution demanding the court rehear the case and charging that it "declared parenting unconstitutional" when it rejected last month the Mesquite Elementary School parents' claim that they have the exclusive right to tell their children about sex.

The measure carries no enforcement or legal weight but is the latest in a string of congressional attacks on the 9th Circuit Court as the House nears a vote on a budget bill that may include a provision that would split the court. The Senate is expected to oppose that move.

"The 9th Circuit Court decided to overstep the boundaries of what a court should be doing," said Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., who sponsored the Palmdale resolution.

"When it comes to what schools are asking very young children about sex, the 9th Circuit decided parents not only don't have the right to say no, they don't even have the right to know what is being asked," Murphy said. "The court should rehear the case and reverse the decision."

The case stems from a 2002 survey administered to 13 third- and fifth-graders by a mental health therapist working on her doctoral degree. When parents complained, Palmdale School District officials halted the survey after they learned what questions it contained. Parents signed permission forms for the survey, but the forms made no mention of sexually oriented questions.

Among its questions, the survey asked youngsters to rate how often they "can't stop thinking about sex" and "not trusting people because they might want sex."

A group of parents sued, alleging their right to control their children's upbringing had been violated. But a three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled that "there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to children."

Rep. Howard "Buck,"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



McKeon, R-Santa Clarita, who co-sponsored the resolution, said in a statement the case is "another example of the courts acting out of the mainstream."

"It should primarily be the parents' right and responsibility to discuss matters of this nature with their children," he said, noting that he has six children and 27 grandchildren.

"At the very least, parents should be able to know what their children are being exposed to at school, and be given the opportunity to opt out of any discussions or surveys relating to sexual education," he said.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., noted that the 9th Circuit Court sided with the school board, and said Republicans who bemoan "judicial activism" are intellectually dishonest.

"What the majority says is, when we don't like a decision we'll criticize the courts. That's fine. But why disguise what you're saying?" Frank said. "Stop pretending you're upset about activism when what you're really upset about is judicial passivity."

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Van Nuys, also defended the 9th Circuit and said there are other avenues for fighting a school district.

"We can't solve all of society's problems by virtue of constitutional law," he said.

The resolution drew support from 94 Democrats, including Rep. Joe Baca, D-San Bernardino, and Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena. The entire Southern California Republican delegation supported it, while all other Democrats in the region opposed it.

Lisa Friedman, (202) 662-8731