Schools can have more rights than parents...

[HulaChicken]

Activist Judges say they, not parents, have final say in teaching
sex education to our children

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47195

Not sure what to make of this. Thoughts?

[Sirveri]

1. activist judges?

I say good in this case. Teach sex ed and evolution to kids. Just because it's unpopular locally does not make it wrong or immoral.

[lildreamer316]

2. I would have not had a good

grasp of sex if I had not had my public school sex ed course. Bless them.

[HulaChicken]

4. whoopsie....

I cut & pasted that from someone who sent it to me. "Activist Judge" was her word, not mine....
Sorry!

[donco6]

3. Schools are evil and teachers should be shot.

:sarcasm:

Seriously, here's the ruling that's pertinent:

Wrote Reinhardt: "As with all constitutional rights, the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children is not without limitations. In Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Court recognized that parents' liberty interest in the custody, care and nurture of their children resides 'first' in the parents, but does not reside there exclusively, nor is it 'beyond regulation in the public interest.' For example, the state 'as parens patriae' may restrict parents' interest in the custody, care and nurture of their children 'by requiring school attendance, regulating or prohibiting the child's labor and in many other ways.'"

Contrary to Focus on the Family's fundraising hysteria (Parents are no longer parents, blah blah), all the court was saying is that parents do not have an *exclusive* right to determine everything a child learns in school. In other words, a parent can't sit down with a laundry list of allowables and non-allowables and expect the school to abide by them.

On the other hand, in this particular case, there are reasons schools routinely refuse to participate in surveys about sexuality. We don't participate - ever. It just causes too much trouble with our parents. So they should have been smarter in the first place.

[HulaChicken]

9. So, do you think the parents were justified?

I have young children myself, and I'm also a teacher. I've always said that the parents of my other students have no right to dictate what I do or don't teach in my classroom to *other* kids, but they absolutely have a right to what their own children are exposed to. Maybe I'm being too generous? I had one parent insist that her child read nothing but the Bible during silent reading time, and when we did research projects, he again chose to research the Bible. Well, the kid wasn't getting much variety in his educational diet, but he was still technically completing the assignments, so I let her be.

[donco6]

13. I think the ruling was correct.

And I think the parents were justified in questioning it. What I DISAGREE with is the characterization by "Carrie Gordon Earll" of FOF:

Carrie Gordon Earll is director of issue analysis with Focus on the Family Action.

"Anyone who wonders why pro-family organizations like ours have been so concerned about activist courts only has to look at this case," Earll said in a statement. "The 9th Circuit did more than rule against parents who were upset that their elementary-school-aged children were being asked explicit questions about sex in class. They told all parents they have no right to protest what public schools tell their children."

Continued Earll: "What the court did here is declare parenthood unconstitutional. It's long been the liberal view that it takes a village to raise a child – but never before have the 'villagers' been elevated, as a matter of law, above mothers and fathers."

The court did no such thing. Parenthood isn't even mentioned in the Constitution, for one thing - so that's preposterous on its face. But all the court did was clarify the boundaries between what parents can expect to control, and what they can't.

[HulaChicken]

18. Devil's advocate

...but does it really need to mention "parenthood"? I mean, if I could find some progressive-minded secular homeschool resources in my area, I think I would definately homeschool... I don't want the school to just do whatever it wants and then if I protest, it says, "tough nuts" to me. We should be able to question the schools the same as we should be able to question our government.
Don't you think? ***don't flame, me please...I'm a friend here, really!***

[donco6]

23. I think you have to step back a little.

Has this really been a problem for you in the schools? Are your schools unreasonably unresponsive when you have an issue? (They may be, but remember, they have to balance out the needs of several hundred kids). Are there really that many decisions being made by the Board of Education (who possess the power of determining curriculum) that you simply can't live with? I'm not defending them - really - they may be utterly unacceptable. But you need to think about what's really going on in your school right now.

Rather than making a decision to homeschool based on a fear of what MIGHT happen, maybe you should check out the school and see what really IS happening. This particular article is so inflammatory that I really hope you're not using it as a basis for your decision on where to send your kids to school.

[HulaChicken]

25. No, it wasn't this article that got me started...

In spite of what Randi Rhodes says, homeschooling isn't totally weird... that is, if you can find a progressive, secular homeschooling community... and to be honest, yes, I actually have had quite a few problems with public schools. I worked in them for about 10 years...and don't get me wrong...there are some AMAZING public school teachers out there (I'd like to think that I was one of them) but there are also some total jerk-offs that really screw with kids heads. Deciding to homeschool isn't about fear (for me, anyway) it's about standing up for what I know to be good for my kids. I spent a year working with a fellow teacher who would give kids daily assignments to just COPY, handwritten, what was in the textbook..."for tonight's assignment, copy 30 pages, and over holiday break, copy 200." NO WAY I'm putting my kids through that kind of BS.

[donco6]

26. Then maybe you've answered your own question.

What's stopping you?

[HulaChicken]

30. Yeah, I guess...

I get really stuck sometimes... I live in a community that until recently had the most per capita churches in the United States, and I am also a member of natural birth groups, natural child groups, etc, and a GOOD chunk of those mamas are conservative Christian right-wingers. It's hard for me when I say "hooray for homeschooling" and "hooray for breastfeeding & natural birth, etc" when the other women on the board are saying the same thing but with their own slant on it. I guess I just need a reality check sometimes that the reasons for these things are not PURELY conservative. You know what I mean? Thanks

[IChing]

5. From the same rag that has "General wants Wilson apology"

sound rather freepish DON'T YOU THINK? really? Don't you think?

[IChing]

7. I thought not

[HulaChicken]

11. Sorry...

I don't know what you're reffering to. I'm new to this board. Are you saying I'm a freeper? I guess I messed up. I cut and pasted what another woman sent to me because it had me confused. I didn't mean that I agreed with this, necessarily, and I definately shouldn't have pasted "Activist Judge"...that was dumb on my part.

[WhollyHeretic]

6. Things getting lonely under the bridge?

[MichiganVote]

8. Since when does a 'volunteer' mental health clinician

get to do any kind of survey of kids w/o also providing the survey to the parents? Very strange.

In standard sex education programs, parents can opt their children out

[HulaChicken]

14. Yeah, that's why I wanted thoughts

This did sound really strange to me. I thought maybe there were actually grounds for the lawsuit, and maybe Alito had it wrong this time? DON'T FLAME ME! I suport the 9th circuit! I'm just asking questions...trying to understand. Thank you.

[sandnsea]

39. A consent was sent home

I'm sure any parent could have taken the time to go to the school and see the questionaire. They just didn't bother to show up. I was shocked when the school showed the sex ed video for my daughter's 5th grade and I was the only parent who showed up to see it.

I would have been livid over this questionairre myself. But if I hadn't bothered to take the time to find out what was in it before hand, then I wouldn't think I had a right to sue either. As long as consent is required, the school has met their obligation to parents.

[MichiganVote]

40. Depends on whether the questionaire was available to parents

where and for how long. Like I said, something stange in this.

[cornermouse]

10. Should it be taught? Yes.

Should parents have the right to say no for their children? Yes.

[SoCalDem]

12. Thoughts? Mine follow:

1. glad my kids are grown
2. agree...republican activist judges are dangerous
3. kids need to know about sex..most parents do a shitty job teaching it
4. if parents do not like what public schools teach, they can homeschool or send them to storefront Jesus Academies, where they can learn about Jesus and his pet dinosaur , Humphrey..
5. zzzzzzzzzzzz

[HulaChicken]

15. hee hee n/t

[11 Bravo]

16. I say welcome, and enjoy your stay.

But, as a rule, linking to World Net Daily frequently (and rightly) sets off alarms.

[HulaChicken]

19. I didn't know...

Is that a right-wing publication?
I didn't know. This is all new stuff to me. My husband & family are SERIOUSLY politically active, and I'm tired of just "ditto'ing" them and am trying to educate myself. That's part of the reason I joined DU. I know Fox is right-wing...but everyone knows that. How can I recognize other right-wing media if I'm not already familiar with it?
Thanks

[TimeChaser]

17. This is good

It has been proved that Abstinece only education doesn't prevent teens from having sex. Besides that, kids who haven't been given a good sex education do not know important information about STDs and safe sex.

[MrMonk]

20. Here's a link to yesterday's discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5291049&mesg_id=5291049

Typical fundraising hype and distortion of a decision based on long-standing precedent.

Here's more:

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1762901

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/3/121659/766

There is also a news story on the web (which I saw yesterday, but can't find today) wherein the school board claimed that they had approved the survey *without* the sex-related questions, apologized to the parents, and changed the policy so that similar incidents wouldn't occur. All this took place before the case was filed.

I suspect that this was filed as a test case, in the hope of establishing a precedent whereby parents as individuals could influence a school's curriculum.

[HulaChicken]

22. Okay, I missed that...thank you n/t

[Igel]

21. Look at the grades.

"The controversy began in 2001 when a volunteer "mental health counselor" at Mesquite Elementary School set out to conduct a psychological assessment test of students in the first, third and fifth grades."

First? Third grade?

"Touching my private parts too much
Thinking about having sex
Thinking about touching other people's private parts
Thinking about sex when I don't want to
Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside
Not trusting people because they might want sex
Getting scared or upset when I think about sex
Having sex feelings in my body
Can't stop thinking about sex
Getting upset when people talk about sex."

Do all first graders these days really understand sex sufficiently to make sense of the questions, and might it not prompt questions at home that the parents didn't want to address with a 7- or 9-year-old kid? But that's not their call. Instead, I suspect they're implicitly wanting to find out how many parents are groping their own kids.

Perhaps the judges should have to visit all the first grades on parents day and field questions, the sensitive, caring souls that they are.

[MrMonk]

28. Read the decision

or at least a commentary on it.

The judges were asked a specific question: do parents have a Constitutional right to be the *sole* providers of information to their children (paraphrased). They were not asked to rule on whether the survey was appropriate for elementary school children, and they did not.

[HulaChicken]

31. But shouldn't they be?

If I *want* to be the sole provider of information for my child (educationally), then as a trained & experienced teacher myself, shouldn't I have that right? I think that's why the right gets upitty about this stuff. A good chunk of them homeschool & maybe this is threatening? You might say, "good, homeschooling should be threatened..." but I don't think so. Progressive, secular homeschooling has its place. Or would you haul my butt off to court if I tried to teach my kids instead of sending them to my local public school which happens to be HORRIBLE?

[SmokingJacket]

24. Teaching kids to use a condom is in the interest of public health

If some personal whatever is more important to someone than the good of the public, maybe they should consider homeschooling.

[HulaChicken]

27. Not everyone can afford to homeschool

And isn't that kind of exclusionary? That's kind of like saying, "If you don't like saying the Pledge of Allegiance with 'under God'" then just go stand in the hall."

[SmokingJacket]

29. "Under God" is what's exclusionary. nt

[HulaChicken]

32. Well yeah, but...

telling a kid to go sit out in the hall is also exclusionary. They both are. And I'm sorry, but it works both ways... because in my RIDICULOUSLY conservative Bush-lovin' town, I know there are public school teachers who are going to push the boundaries as much as they can. I want the right to question them to be strong!

[SmokingJacket]

36. I guess I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate here, because I

actually took my kid out of class rather than have him in a sex ed class. It was kindergarten! I just didn't want a teacher teaching him about sex ed before I felt he was ready (the class was about "bad touching" and "stranger danger," a phrase that pisses me off because I don't think teaching little kids paranoia is a good idea, and because I didn't want my son thinking that the world is full of strangers just dying to touch his Johnson).

But honestly, lots of issues are in the service of public health, like condom usage and STDs, and I think the state is well within its right to insist that they be part of the curriculum. You can always take your kid out if you feel you must.

Which is an entirely different issue from the "under God" business, which while it doesn't bother me enough to work up a lawsuit against my school district or anything, I do think it imposes a religious world view and ought not be part of a public school's day.

[gollygee]

33. Don't parents who disagree with the sex ed taught in schools

usually pull their kids from the sex ed classes? This has been done forever.

Schools can't ignore sex ed because so many parents don't care and their kids don't learn anything. If a parent cares and chooses to teach something else, it's easy enough for that parent to pull his/her child from the sex education and teach it his/her own way.

[HulaChicken]

34. Yes, so...

why did the court rule the way it did? It seems like the parents should have had a right to get ticked off about questions like that. Doesn't stuff like this give fuel to the right about the 9th court? I want to defend it, but I'm struggling with it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. Parents do have a say

They are invited to help write curriculum, both at the state and local level. Maybe that is what the court was thinking about.

But I do think this ruling is odd. I definitely don't agree.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

37. Dude -- "World Net Daily"?

[jazzjunkysue]

38. This is obviously a screening for abuse victims. It's OK.

Six parents in Palmdale, Calif are really afraid of something. I wonder what?

This is an attempt to stop abuse of kids. These questions are not in and of themselves dangerous to kids. They're dangerous to parents who are either :

a: Totally repressed and afraid of their own sexuality
b. Totally shamed out of admitting to sexuality
c. Allowing questionable activities that might not sound too good when told to the school counselor.

Lots of families know about uncle Bruce, and pretend they don't. This threatens anyone with ugly secrets that they're trying to hide from themselves.

This does kids no harm: Only parents who are in denial about something.