9th Circuit Court decides the State

[erynthered]

did they wear condoms while taking filling out a 300 question psych questionaire, with their parents consent?

 

Seriously, if you want to give to parents an actionable fundamental right to exclusive control over the content of every activity, every lesson, great, I'll make a fortune but we will need lots and lots and lots more courthouses.  Oh, and schools will need more insurance.  Hmmm, I'll also need to learn how to sail my new yacht.  If, as part of that you want to throw out having obtained parental consent, as was done here, as a complete defense for the districts, I'll need to figure out which Lear Jet suits my tastses.

505948[/snapback]

 

 

Hey, I just agreed with OTR, who thought your Dodgeball analogy was poor. Didn't work for me either, sorry.

 

 

Lear jets? Sail boats? Snap out of it Mick. You're a Liberal, you'll never have those things.

[stuckincincy]

Hey, I just agreed with OTR, who thought your Dodgeball analogy was poor. Didn't work for me either, sorry.

Lear jets? Sail boats? Snap out of it Mick. You're a Liberal, you'll never have those things.

505956[/snapback]

 

You realize that you could have been a millionaire if you sold new and used Japanese cars to the Twinkie Brigade members that posts on this section, don't you?

[Campy]

I heard on the radio (have not confirmed it yet) that a list of the questions was sent to the parents. It did not include the sex questions.

505843[/snapback]

That's just wrong.

 

(Not you, I mean them doing that.)

[Mickey]

Mickey, the constitution says, the law makers make laws.  The president signs them or vetoes them. If someone doesn't like them, then they ask the courts to overrule the laws.  That is what the constitution says.  Now show me the law that says schools have a right to overrule the parents decision regarding the childs education.  Yet when the lower courts rule on the parental notification in cases of abortion you have a sh-- fit, even though there are laws there.  So in one case no law is passed but the courts make a totally unsupportable position.  In another, the courts rule that parents don't need to be notified.  Yet in the first they are making law, at least in the second they are ruling on a law and its constitutionality.

505928[/snapback]

That was not their ruling.

 

The parents claimed in this suit, and they fully admitted this so it wasn't even in dispute, that hey had an exclusive right to determine the curriculum, that this right was held by each individual parent and that their own consent, which they gave in this case, was not enough for the school to go ahead with the tests.

 

The parents themselves admitted in this case that there was no precedent whatsoever supporting their position, they invited the court to invent the right. They declined.

 

They did not hold that schools could overrule parents. These parents could have declined to give consent, they could have held their kids out of school that day, how is that overruling parents?

 

Of course the parents have a right to control what their child is exposed to, however, that right is not EXCLUSIVE. If it were, the school would not be allowed to make any determinations whatsoever as to lesson plans, contents, research, book purchases and on and on. If they do, then they would be intruding on the exclusive right you seem to want to be invented so badly here.

 

Parental notification in the context of abortion is just a bit different. For starters, the right to privacy includes abortion and that is the law of the land. Maybe someday it won't but for now it absolutely is. The Parents here admit there is not precedent supporting them, that is not at all the case with notification issues and abortion. You might not like the precedent but there is precedent.

[Mickey]

Hey, I just agreed with OTR, who thought your Dodgeball analogy was poor. Didn't work for me either, sorry.

Lear jets? Sail boats? Snap out of it Mick. You're a Liberal, you'll never have those things.

505956[/snapback]

Do you think parents should have the right to exclusive (ie, no involvement of anyone else at all, no one) control over every lesson, every book, every activity, every everything they are exposed to, taught, shown, etc. in public schools?

 

Yes or no.

[Alexander Hamilton]

What does the 'No Child Left Behind' "act" have to do with the 9th circuit decision that basically said the "state" trumps the parents' authority on what their kids will be taught?

505357[/snapback]

 

You're right. I've gone off-topic.

 

But both the no child left behind and this decision are horrid for children in public schools, and that you'd get your panties in a wad over this decision, and yet not have a daily post about the sad state of public schooling shows how willfully bliss people are about the state of public schools.

 

The US is on the verge of losing a war. Not the war on terror. The war for brains.

 

I see the problems with this survey being the tip of a bigger iceberg. Public schools are a disaster. DISASTER. Especially on educating kids in science and math, which will continue to drive a global economy. Right now, the engine that drives that economy is still here, but it won't be for long, because our school system sucks.

[erynthered]

Do you think parents should have the right to exclusive (ie, no involvement of anyone else at all, no one) control over every lesson, every book, every activity, every everything they are exposed to, taught, shown, etc. in public schools?

 

Yes or no.

505972[/snapback]

 

 

No.

 

 

Do you think 1st graders should be asked questions about sex?

 

Yes or no?

[erynthered]

You realize that you could have been a millionaire if you sold new and used Japanese cars to the Twinkie Brigade members that posts on this section, don't you?

505963[/snapback]

 

 

Ya think? I'd say most of them are credit risks. You know, need it now kinda kids. 10K in credit card debt, cant make there mortgage payment kinda people.

 

I did make a few bucks pushing sleds though, fun times.

[OGTEleven]

Certainly not appropriate to ask without getting parental consent first which in fact was done here.  The problem is that the information sheet on the test used by the parents to make the decision wasn't very detailed, especially on these things.  They didn't override parental instructions, they just did a lousy job getting consent.  That is a problem easily remedied at the next PTA meeting or School Board election, it doesn't give rise to a constitutional fundamental right not recognized by any other court or judicial opinion.

 

Call your congressman.

505812[/snapback]

At what point would a school (or another organization) be deemed as deceptive for having the permission slip very generalized but the content very explicit and sexual? Isn't that really a lack of disclosure?

 

School:  We're going to ask your kid his feelings on violence and related topics.

 

Parent: OK (via signature)

 

School to kid:  Billy, do you touch your pee pee a lot?

 

If that is how it was really done in this case, it seems to me it was deceptive.

 

If not, would it be equally ok if the volunteer demonstrated to Billy, so Billy would understand? Where is the line?

[Taro T]

It wasn't a "sexuality survey" and it is disingenuous to call it such. 

 

The language you are screaming at me above doesn't at all effect consent.  Having the right to pull your kid from school the day they are teaching about slavery is not the same as insisting that the school not be permitted to teach about slavery at all because it offends you.  Certainly you can pull your kid, you just can't tell the school what to teach and what not to based on a constitutional fundamental right.  You can do all sorts of things to control you schools curriculum from being on the school board to the PTA.  This isn't about that, its about having an actionable, fundamental right to control the curriculum via a federal case. 

 

I am sure you understand that the right to raise your kid is still yours, you can send him to school or not if they are doing something that day that concerns you.  You just can't tell them that they have to call the whole lesson off for the whole school because you think it is a bad lesson.

 

Try and imagine how things would work if what you suggest was permitted, if the school needed a fully informed consent from every parent on every lesson before it could be taught.  The school here wasn't trying to force a sexuality survey on ususpecting kids as part of some sick joke they had a hankering to play.  This psychologist came up to them and asked for permission to do this research that could benefit kids who have trouble learning due to emotional and psychiatric reasons.  Among the several tests and many, many questions, were a few about sex.  It got by them.  They weren't out to idoctrinate kids into a porn ring.  They screwed up, it happens.  Lets not let one goofy idea at one lousy school district about an obscure research project give rise to a brand new fundamental constitutional right that makes it impossible to play duck-duck-goose during recess whithout each child making a written waiver in the presence of a court appointed attorney.

505797[/snapback]

Apologies about the caps, wasn't trying to "scream" at you, but my browser sometimes has issues with getting things like "bolding text" to work.

 

I called it a "sexuality survey" because I felt it was very disingenious of the lady who sent the letter out to ignore that several rather "mature" questions, which IMHO are totally inappropriate for 6 and 8 year olds, would be included. Let's be honest about it, she had to have known that if she told the parents that those questions would be in the survey that most of them would have denied permission.

 

I do not come to the same conclusion reading the Court's opinion that you do about notifications. It says parents don't have the right to override decisions about THEIR children, I interpret this to mean their OWN children. You seem to view it as more individual parents don't have the right to alter the curriculum for all children. On that you and I would both agree.

 

I do though see this as becoming a precedent for something far more substantial / sinister (IMHO), that being that parents now no longer have the option to keep their children out of class if something is being taught that the parents object to or to keep the children from participating in activities that the parents don't want them involved in. You keep bringing up the word "exclusive", if that had been in the sentence in question, I would tend to agree with you that this is not a significant issue. It wasn't included in the Court's opinion, and I find it hard to believe that they just "accidentally" worded the sentence in a way that would provide very expansive powers to "educators".

 

If this does in fact become such a precedent, this is a VERY bad thing. If they stated in their opinion that in this one particular instance the plaintiff's didn't have a case for the reasons you have cited, I would agree with you that the Court exhibited judicial restraint. It's funny, because you see this as being a case of judicial restraint and I (and I will admit immediately that I am not a lawyer) see it instead as an opening for intense judicial activism.

 

Yes, if a school board or renegade teacher does pull a stunt like this in the future, the populace can, at the next board election, try to get the board kicked out. But what about the tenured teacher, can the parents get her booted now that they apparently don't have the right to keep their kindergardeners out of today's lesson on proper condom usage? Again, you and I are taking different meanings from the sentence in question. If you could be so kind, please help me understand how I am reading that sentence incorrectly, because if I could get over to your view of the ruling I would be much more comfortable with it.

[Mickey]

Before the rumors get out of control, here is a copy of the consent form and information sent to the parents in the Palmdale case and a quote from the opinion demonstrating that the parents who sued all signed the consent.

 

Plaintiffs James and Tammany Fields, Stuart and Kathleen

Haberman, Robert and Kathie Hoaglin, and Vanessa Shetler

are parents of minor children who were enrolled at Mesquite

Elementary School. All of them had children who participated

in the survey. The parent-plaintiffs learned of the sexual

nature of some of the questions on the survey when their children

informed them of the questions after they had completed

the questionnaires. The parents allege that if they had known

the true nature of the survey, they would not have consented

to their children’s involvement.

 

So they consented, please stop saying they did not. You can certainly argue that the consent was not a very well informed one and should have included more info but don't state that they did not consent, they did. It is a fact.

 

 

 

Parental Consent

 

Dear Parent or Caregiver:

 

The Palmdale School District is asking your support in participating in

a district-wide study of our first, third and fifth grade children. The study

will be a part of a collaborative effort with The California School of Professional

Psychology — CSPP/ Alliant International University, Children’s

Bureau of Southern California and the Palmdale School District.

The goal of this assessment is to establish a community baseline measure

of children’s exposure to early trauma (for example, violence). We

will identify internal behaviors such as anxiety and depression and external

behaviors such as aggression and verbal abuse. As a result, we will be

designing a district wide intervention program to help children reduce

these barriers to learning, which students can participate in. Please read

this consent letter and if you agree, please sign and send it back to your

school’s principal no later than December 20, 2001.

 

The assessment will consist of three, twenty-minute self-report measures,

which will be given to your child on one day during the last week

of January. This study is 100% confidential and at no time will the information

gathered be used to identify your child. Your child will not be photographed

or videotaped. You may refuse to have your child participate or

withdraw from this study at any time without any penalty or loss of services

to which your child is entitled.

 

I am aware that the research study coordinator, Kristi Seymour, one

research assistant, the Palmdale School District, Director of Psychology,

Michael Geisser, and a professor from CSPP, will be the only people who

have access to the study’s information. After the study is completed, all

information will be locked in storage and then destroyed after a period of

five years.

 

I understand answering questions may make my child feel uncomfortable.

If this occurs, then, Kristi Seymour, the research study coordinator,

will assist us in locating a therapist for further psychological help if necessary.

If I have further questions, I may contact Kristi Seymour at 1529 E.

Palmdale Blvd., Suite 210, Palmdale, CA 93550 at 661.272.9997 x128. I

understand that I will not be able to get my child’s individual results due

to anonymity of the children, but I may get a summary report of the study

results.

 

I have read this form and understand what it says. I her[e]by agree to

allow my child to participate in this district-wide study.” (emphasis in

original). Additionally, two lines were made available on the “Parental

Consent” form for the “Parent/Caregiver” to sign and date it.

 

 

So, the radio report Ken heard which he cautioned was unconfirmed is in fact, wrong. They didn't dupe the parents with a partial list of questions that omitted the "bad" ones. If they did, they should have sued for fraud, I would have applauded that case.

[OnTheRocks]

No.

Do you think 1st graders should be asked questions about sex?

 

Yes or no?

505976[/snapback]

 

 

i am reminded of the scene in "The Breakfast Club" where the group starts getting after Claire.

 

"answer the question Claire"

"come on Claire! Answer the question!"

"yeah Claire! Answer the question!"

[jimshiz]

So they consented, please stop saying they did not.  You can certainly argue that the consent was not a very well informed one and should have included more info but don't state that they did not consent, they did.  It is a fact.

505993[/snapback]

 

NO THEY DID NOT !!! That is the whole issue here. It is NOT a fact. They consented to "something"; but, they certainly did NOT consent to SEX questions being asked of their first grade age children.

[stuckincincy]

Ya think? I'd say most of them are credit risks. You know, need it now kinda kids. 10K in credit card debt, cant make there mortgage payment kinda people.

 

I did make a few bucks pushing sleds though, fun times.

505984[/snapback]

 

Sure..they'd be so busy kissing their own fannies, and paying no attention to the simplest of financial details and vehilcle purchase, you'd get the up front $$$ and have a steady stream of decent repo's covered by factory warranties.

[OGTEleven]

Parental Consent

 

Dear Parent or Caregiver:

 

......The goal of this assessment is to establish a community baseline measure

of children’s exposure to early trauma (for example, violence). We

will identify internal behaviors such as anxiety and depression and external

behaviors such as aggression and verbal abuse.......

505993[/snapback]

How general is too general?

 

Do you think if the word "sex" was included in that letter at least once the return rate would have been lower?

 

Do you think the group conducting the test knew that?

 

If so, was that letter complete in your view?

[Mickey]

Apologies about the caps, wasn't trying to "scream" at you, but my browser sometimes has issues with getting things like "bolding text" to work.

 

I called it a "sexuality survey" because I felt it was very disingenious of the lady who sent the letter out to ignore that several rather "mature" questions, which IMHO are totally inappropriate for 6 and 8 year olds, would be included.  Let's be honest about it, she had to have known that if she told the parents that those questions would be in the survey that most of them would have denied permission.

 

I do not come to the same conclusion reading the Court's opinion that you do about notifications.  It says parents don't have the right to override decisions about THEIR children, I interpret this to mean their OWN children.  You seem to view it as more individual parents don't have the right to alter the curriculum for all children.  On that you and I would both agree.

 

I do though see this as becoming a precedent for something far more substantial / sinister (IMHO), that being that parents now no longer have the option to keep their children out of class if something is being taught that the parents object to or to keep the children from participating in activities that the parents don't want them involved in.  You keep bringing up the word "exclusive", if that had been in the sentence in question, I would tend to agree with you that this is not a significant issue.  It wasn't included in the Court's opinion, and I find it hard to believe that they just "accidentally" worded the sentence in a way that would provide very expansive powers to "educators".

 

If this does in fact become such a precedent, this is a VERY bad thing.  If they stated in their opinion that in this one particular instance the plaintiff's didn't have a case for the reasons you have cited, I would agree with you that the Court exhibited judicial restraint.  It's funny, because you see this as being a case of judicial restraint and I (and I will admit immediately that I am not a lawyer) see it instead as an opening for intense judicial activism.

 

Yes, if a school board or renegade teacher does pull a stunt like this in the future, the populace can, at the next board election, try to get the board kicked out.  But what about the tenured teacher, can the parents get her booted now that they apparently don't have the right to keep their kindergardeners out of today's lesson on proper condom usage?  Again, you and I are taking different meanings from the sentence in question.  If you could be so kind, please help me understand how I am reading that sentence incorrectly, because if I could get over to your view of the ruling I would be much more comfortable with it.

505991[/snapback]

She was wrong, I agree, the consent should have had more information. She should be disciplined for that and everyone should agree not to make that mistake again. No need for a new constitutional right.

 

Check the opinion again, the court repeatedly says you can keep your kid away from that stuff. You don't have to send them to school but once you decide to do that, you can't control the curriculum. The partial solution and this is what is often done, is kids are sent to school but held out of the activity the parent objects to, they go to study hall or something. What they can't do is change the whole lesson plan for one kid or two or three. The flow of info for everyone else has to be there while those other kids are in study hall waiting for the "bad" class to end. Really, we seem to agree here.

 

"Exclusive" was not only in the opinion, it was central to it:

 

"The question before us is simply whether the parents have a constitutional right to exclusive control over the introduction and flow of sexual information to their children."

 

and:

 

"Thus, whether the parents have a constitutional right to exclusive control over the introduction and flow of sexual information to their children depends entirely upon

whether the asserted right is encompassed within some broader constitutional right."

 

In their holding, they put the word in italics to emphasize its importance, the italics were omitted in most the article cited to start this thread.

 

"We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children,

either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it."

 

The court even mentioned the activism angle the plaintiffs were expressly inviting, so its not just me:

 

"The parents cite no case recognizing such a curriculum exception. They simply urge that we create one..."

 

Don't get me wrong, the school district was a pack of morons on this one, no question. We just don't need a whole new right breeding tons of cases over parental objections to curriculum. We have too many cases and not enough judges as it is.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

The goal of this assessment is to establish a community baseline measure

of children’s exposure to early trauma (for example, violence). We

will identify internal behaviors such as anxiety and depression and external

behaviors such as aggression and verbal abuse. As a result, we will be

designing a district wide intervention program to help children reduce

these barriers to learning, which students can participate in.

 

 

Jesus Herbert Christ. Talk about your liberal do-gooders looking to create a disease so they can come up with some elaborate scheme to treat the symptoms. And how much do you think all this will end up costing? Wanna know why education costs continue to skyrocket year in and year out there's your answer right there.

 

Generations of school kids used to get through the schools just fine without the constant psychoanalysis. Not only that, now if they show the slightest bit of energy or normal aggression they get medicated. WTF has the educational system come to?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Jesus Herbert Christ. Talk about your liberal do-gooders looking to create a disease so they can come up with some elaborate scheme to treat the symptoms. And how much do you think all this will end up costing? Wanna know why education costs continue to skyrocket year in and year out there's your answer right there.

 

Generations of school kids used to get through the schools just fine without the constant psychoanalysis. Not only that, now if they show the slightest bit of energy or normal aggression they get medicated. WTF has the educational system come to?

506023[/snapback]

 

Holy crap. You quote Gary Gnu?

 

I wonder if kids in China and India participated in a sex test today.

[Campy]

Jesus Herbert Christ. Talk about your liberal do-gooders looking to create a disease so they can come up with some elaborate scheme to treat the symptoms. And how much do you think all this will end up costing? Wanna know why education costs continue to skyrocket year in and year out there's your answer right there.

 

Generations of school kids used to get through the schools just fine without the constant psychoanalysis. Not only that, now if they show the slightest bit of energy or normal aggression they get medicated. WTF has the educational system come to?

506023[/snapback]

I agree 100% with all but one part. I'm not sure it's fair to blame the educational system for parents caving in and taking the easy way with meds. I mean, school nurses don't supply them with meds, do they? Egads, I hope not, but those of you with kids would have a better handle on that than me.

 

I imagine that, like adults, there are some kids that really need them, but I don't know anyone who thinks that kids as a whole are not being over-medicated.

[Mickey]

No.

Do you think 1st graders should be asked questions about sex?

 

Yes or no?

505976[/snapback]

Great, you agree with the Ninth Circuit then.

 

As to your question, I already answered that with regard to my kids. I wouldn't have signed the consent form. At the very least, I would have asked questions just as the info sheet from the district provided. I would have had the right to pull my kid from that class that day. Just as these parents did. What I couldn't do is to stop other kids whose parents were okay with the study from participating.

 

Simple.