sex education ruling -update

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 6 2005, 09:25 PM']The best tools parents can give their children is a lens through which to interpret the information they get in -- a way to discern what's right and wrong about what they hear and see.
[right][snapback]780657[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='avemaria40' date='Nov 6 2005, 09:29 PM']and also about dating, relationships, intimacy, and marriage (which they never even touch on) so that kids can make the right decision.
[right][snapback]780669[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
yes, I think this is the main problem with sex education in the public schools. Young people need to learn about sex in its proper context.

[jezic]

this is sick ....

what is to say parents can tell their children anything yet?

They certainly can't control what they learn anymore ......

gr.....

[jmjtina]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 6 2005, 08:25 PM']Seriously, what parents think they ARE going to be their children's sole source of information on sex?

Heck, my parents kept me out of sex ed class when I was in junior high. So, instead of getting info on sex in class, I got it through my own research and from kids on the bus. Much better, eh?

It's ridiculous to think parents are going to control the flow of information to their children's brains, particularly when children and not home-schooled. The best tools parents can give their children is a lens through which to interpret the information they get in -- a way to discern what's right and wrong about what they hear and see.
[right][snapback]780657[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



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.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Nov 6 2005, 07:01 PM']Just because a bunch of really liberal extremists run the party doesn't make the party Communist.

Please don't make such blanket statements.  There are good people in the party trying to change it for the better.  It's discouraging and upsetting to them when you through them out with the rest.  You might suggest that they just become Republicans, but let's face it, that won't happen...and since we're a two-party system, wouldn't it be nicer if we could just convert both parties to Christ instead of just assuming ours is holy and bashing the other?
[right][snapback]780540[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well said.

[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.