sex education ruling -update

[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