From Teach The Facts (Montgomery County, Maryland):
In early November, a three-judge panel ruled in favor of Palmdale, Calif., schools and the local community regarding a survey of student sexual mores:
Parents do not have “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 itis appropriate to do so.”
Fields v. Palmdale School District, decided by a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November 2, 2005, affirming the decision of Bush II appointee, United States District Judge James V. Selna.
The excerpt above is from page 15074 of the decision, available here in PDF format.
The panel essentially decided that individual parents adhering to one extreme may not hijack public-school curricula that have already been vetted and approved by the broader community.
Focus on the Family and the religious-right Liberty Counsel was among many religious-right organizations that blasted this victory of all parents in a community over the anti-public-school obstructionism of a few. (It’s curious how Focus defends community values only when the communities are conservative and the dissenting parents are liberal.)
Teach The Facts discusses in depth how the ruling may directly impact the ability of Montgomery County, Maryland, to reclaim its sex-ed curriculum from lawsuits by the antigay, anticommunity groups PFOX and CRC.
Community values are not absolute; they may not be used as an excuse to crush minority individuals’ constitutional freedoms. But neither may one individual’s demand for special rights and privileges be permitted to bring a community’s good health and education to a standstill.
I’ll begin this discussion, because I think its important, not just from an ex-gay perspective, but from a “how the world really works” perspective.
First, when a child, who’s been sheltered to the extent that the children of these right wing idealogues have been reaches the age of 18, how equipped are they going to be to function in the world that is today’s reality?
That child, who in a twinkling, becomes an adult and is no longer subject to the idiosyncroses of his/her parents sexual hangups is now an adult and is probably ill-equipped to deal with the world as we know it.
I fear that the children of the religious right will ultimately suffer the consequences of their parents’ deliberate denial of reality.
Adults have sex with each other, I don’t care what their religious beliefs are. It’s just one of those things that happens. However, if you’ve been taught that postponing sex until marriage will prevent sexually transmitted disease, you are denying reality, because that paradigm does not take into account infidelity in marriage or prior sexual history of the partner, not to mention other possible means of transmission.
Sad but true, there is NO guarantee that you can live in a totally safe world. These people who seek to promote ignorance as a means of coping with reality are in for a rude, and tragic awakening.
I won’t even get into the lack of pragmatism in relationship-building skills with people who may come from different backgrounds/faiths.
Sadly, it is their children who will pay the price, because they’ve been so poorly educated.
Mike A. said:
The panel essentially decided that individual parents adhering to one extreme may not hijack public-school curricula that have already been vetted and approved by the broader community.
As I understand it, the Palmdale issue has nothing to do with curricula, vetted or otherwise. It was a questionnaire supplied by a graduate student, Kristi Seymour, who volunteered as a mental health counselor at Mesquite Elementary School while she was enrolled in a master’s degree program at the California School of Professional Psychology. The questionnaire was a way of gathering data for her Doctoral Dissertation. She provided a first draft to the Assistant Principal and was told to make certain changes and resubmit for approval, which she never did.
The consent letter sent to parents using the school’s postage and letterhead was clearly deceptive in it’s omissions of anything to do with sexual content of the questionnaire, and the real reason behind it:
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.
Again, this was all for the benefit of a volunteer worker’s Master’s Program. It was not vetted by the community but it was potrayed as official and obviously worded to gain the most cooperation by the omission of what the author (Kristi Seymour) must have known would have been controversial material at best:
Questions pertaining to sexual issues (yes/no):
8. Touching my private parts too much
17. Thinking about having sex
22. Thinking about touching other people’s private parts
23. Thinking about sex when I don’t want to
26. Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside
34. Not trusting people because they might want sex
40. Getting scared or upset when I think about sex
44. Having sex feelings in my body
47. Can’t stop thinking about sex
54. Getting upset when people talk about sex
Now, to portray as “prudes” or “right wing ideologues” the parents who might object to an elementary school asking their 7 year old those questions is way out of line. Are we going to deny that a significant portion of this country might object strongly to this as well? I would bet on a majority. And If I had a child in that school, I would be on their side. Every parent has the same right to share these concepts with their children at the time they deem appropriate. I see nothing in the stance of those who are against the school issuing such a questionnaire that would deny anyone else the right to do just that. However the opposite is not true because it circumvents the ability of all parents to share these issues with their children at the time and place of their choosing.
Posted by: Phil at December 11, 2005 10:54 PM
Phil, I’m not sure you read about the Palmdale issue before posting (maybe you were thinking of the Montgomery County case), but I would like to respond to a couple of your points.
First, when a child, who’s been sheltered to the extent that the children of these right wing ideologues have been reaches the age of 18, how equipped are they going to be to function in the world that is today’s reality?
That child, who in a twinkling, becomes an adult and is no longer subject to the idiosyncroses of his/her parents sexual hangups is now an adult and is probably ill-equipped to deal with the world as we know it.
I fear that the children of the religious right will ultimately suffer the consequences of their parents’ deliberate denial of reality.
These statements are full of unsubstantiated, generalized and derogatory comments about people whose parenting skills we really know nothing about (and further assumes that the only objectors to the Palmdale questionnaire are “right wing [insert epithet here]”). Have we so demonized the “right wing” that now they can’t even be good parents? The fact is we don’t know how much love or discussion goes on in the majority of these families, and to make such an assumption is quite unfair and even arrogant.
Adults have sex with each other, I don’t care what their religious beliefs are. It’s just one of those things that happens. However, if you’ve been taught that postponing sex until marriage will prevent sexually transmitted disease, you are denying reality, because that paradigm does not take into account infidelity in marriage or prior sexual history of the partner, not to mention other possible means of transmission.
Yes, adults often have sex. But deciding when to introduce these concepts with any depth to a 7 year old is in the purview of the parents. The Palmdale issue is not about sex education or STDs – this was not sex education curricula. If the issue had been sex education and the students were older, having given the parents a wide margin of time to discuss such issues on their own, then I think the argument would be much more valid.
I personally believe the Palmdale decision will be overturned. Given the presiding Judge and 9th Circuit, it is a good bet. As such, I would suggest that Montgomery County schools not hang their hat on this one. Their struggle is really quite different and I would tend to take their side from what I have read at Teach the Facts. It’s unfortunate, but in both cases the court decision intensified an adversarial relationship between the community and the school system. That is the last thing anyone should want. Children are a parent’s most valuable gift to the world and raising them is a sacred trust; one interferes with that trust at great peril.
David
I, as with David, believe that parents generally do a better job than bureaucrats in raising children and deciding what is best for them. As long, of course, as they are adequately advised as to what’s going on.
However, I also agree with Mike that a handful of parents are not entitled to dictate what a school can and cannot present. When things work well, that’s why there are op-out choices given to parents.
And yet personal experience suggests that op-out programs don’t always work either. My family distrusted sex education in the schools and signed the op-out slips (I was dumb enough to bring them home). “That’s for parents to teach their children at home”. Unfortunately, they never quite got around to teaching it at home. So I ended up reaching adulthood with only the vaguest sense of how sex worked.
Being of a curious mind, I did do some reading of my own but, frankly, wasn’t much interested in finding out what men did with women. Finally, my other interest drove me to some sleazy booth in an adult bookstore where by putting in quarters I could see what guys did with other guys. I was naïve enough to honestly believe that what I saw was faked because surely THAT wasn’t possible.
Sorry… “anonymous” was me.
As I understand the issues of this specific case, the problem was not that the parents were claiming this questionnaire was inappropriate; rather they expanded their claim to state that parents had the exclusive right to determine all content of their child’s education in sexual (and by extension, all curricular) matters.
The court rightly decided that parents do not have such exclusive rights. The irony is that in making their claim to sweeping, the parents lost the battle over this specific questionnaire. IIRC, the court even admitted this questionnaire was inappropriate.
Timothy said:
When things work well, that’s why there are op-out choices given to parents.
Agreed, but I think we can all concur that the consent form above was woefully inadequate and did not give parents the information they needed to make such a decision intelligently.
So I ended up reaching adulthood with only the vaguest sense of how sex worked.
Again, I can understand your point but it’s the solution I disagree with. Perhaps it is the Libertarian in me but I do not see it as the State’s job to jump in just because some parents may bungle the job. I believe we must steer clear of the idea that our government can cure all the ills – it is in fact notoriously bad at it.
I would also suggest that, considering the abundance of information available and the many ways there are to access it, few children are going to suffer the factual deficit that you did. Even if the parent drops the ball, there are many ways to get good information. And I agree that in the later grades some form of basic sexual education is necessary – but not for 7 year olds. I think I can honestly say that I would have been quite traumatized if a school official had approached me with such issues in first, third or even fifth grade. There is a certain period of youth during which a child should not have to deal with these things.
CPT_Doom said:
The irony is that in making their claim to sweeping, the parents lost the battle over this specific questionnaire.
If correct, it does appear they shot themselves in the foot on that one (perhaps bad legal advice?). However, I would still avoid basing any action in the Montgomery County issue on this case, as I think the chance it will be reversed is high. I think in the end we will have some sort of age boundary below which parents do have exclusive rights in sexual education matters, and above which the community consensus will govern.
David
David,
“Again, I can understand your point but it’s the solution I disagree with.”
No, I don’t think you do understand my point. I did not provide a “solution” at all. My story was simply an ironic illustration that even though I support parental opt-outs, I recognize that nothing works perfectly. I support the choices that parents make IN SPITE of the less than perfect ones made by mine.
I do not think it’s the state’s job to “jump in”. However, I don’t think it is “jumping in” for sex education to be offered by schools. It’s EDUCATION, for heaven’s sake. And the factual information is more readily available to schools than to parents.
To suggest that the education system has no business providing sex education makes no more sense than saying that health education cannot be provided because Christian Scientist oppose medicine. Or that dinosours should not be mentioned because Southern Baptists believe in a 144 hour creation. Or that the Protestant Reformation shouldn’t be taught because Catholics would be offended.
And I think that internet information is as likely to result in abysmally wrong sets of “facts” as it is to provide correct ones. For example, some parent or child might read “facts” from Focus on the Family and end up thinking that all sex other than through marriage will automatically end in horrible disease and death. Or that gay people fall over dead at 42.
Schools need to provide factual science based information and parents need to decide if they want their kids to have access to factual science based information.
I agree that in some instances schools have been less than lauditory in informing parents. But that doesn’t mean that the process doesn’t work, just that it doesn’t always work. But nothing works all the time. And the alternative is far worse, look.
Timothy, I might not be communicating well, I haven’t felt well the past couple of days and I tend to be less comprehensive when I am sick. Please allow me some special dispensation 😉
Timothy said:
No, I don’t think you do understand my point. I did not provide a “solution” at all.
I didn’t mean to imply you had a solution. I meant the general solution implied by the other side of this argument. I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth 🙂
I do not think it’s the state’s job to “jump in”. However, I don’t think it is “jumping in” for sex education to be offered by schools.
I want to point out again that this was not sex education. I agree with the need to give basic sex education in schools but not at ages 7-10.
To suggest that the education system has no business providing sex education makes no more sense than saying that health education cannot be provided because Christian Scientist oppose medicine. Or that dinosours should not be mentioned because Southern Baptists believe in a 144 hour creation. Or that the Protestant Reformation shouldn’t be taught because Catholics would be offended.
I think these analogies might be overly focused on religion – one could be an agnostic or atheist and still not feel it is appropriate for the school to allow other adults to discuss these matters with their 7 year old. I understand that FOTF has latched onto this, but it is more fundamental than even religious beliefs. And I doubt seriously that teaching about dinosaurs or the Reformation could have the same impact that the questionnaire above likely would. It’s really apples and oranges.
And I think that internet information is as likely to result in abysmally wrong sets of “facts” as it is to provide correct ones. For example, some parent or child might read “facts” from Focus on the Family and end up thinking that all sex other than through marriage will automatically end in horrible disease and death. Or that gay people fall over dead at 42.
Extremes aside (and I agree they are there), there is still an overwhelming amount of solid information on these matters easily (and anonymously) available today, especially when contrasted to a generation ago (which was my point). That includes a great deal of information from and about kids who are gay and the various stages of their lives described in their own words.
Schools need to provide factual science based information and parents need to decide if they want their kids to have access to factual science based information.
The issue, once again, is not about curricula. These were probing questions, not facts. But I would have to disagree with your statement even so. The issue is not about whether or not to expose children to facts, it’s which ones and how soon. There are many “facts” about this world which I would hope never make it into K-12 classrooms. However, other facts, such as basic sex information, we might agree should be included but then at what age? You have to agree that one can be too young to hear even facts about such things. And even if the potential for trauma were not there, we don’t expose first graders to complex mathematics or highly abstract concepts; they just aren’t ready for it. There is certainly room to assume that the same is true of complicated emotional and developmental issues such as sexual relationships.
I’m interested also in how this decision might be used by those in a different argument. What if a minority doesn’t like that gay sex issues are being treated in a negative light when taught in sex-ed. Say the majority consensus is that this curricula is appropriate and should remain. Does the Palmdale decision also restrict the minority right to change such teaching? Perhaps this is one of the questions Mike had in mind. It’s still partially apples and oranges because in the Palmdale case it was alleged that children of that age should not be exposed to any sexual matters – no qualification was given.
David
David,
I don’t know why you keep insisting that the oranges must be either Granny Smith or Braeburn.
And just why aren’t those apples navel?
I don’t think we are THAT far off; we just keep talking by each other not to each other.
I don’t know that much about this particular questionnaire. It may well have been inappropriate, I can’t say. But that was not the scope of the battle. Had it been so, I might have been on the same side as the wing-nuts.
This was, instead, as the extremists on either end are fond of doing, an excuse to go after any sexuality in school at any level that does not conform to a rigid set of particular beliefs based on certain citizen’s religion. The idea was that if they could get the camel’s nose into the tent then they could go after me. And you. Or the mes and yous that are still in school and just might fall for the ex-gay, abstinance, die at 42, lies they have to spew.
I think you’ll agree that I’m not exagerating, or not by much.
So since they were going for the wide interpretation, I’m glad they lost. Though it may sound unsympathetic, I’d rather some kid inappropriately be asked about masturbation WAY before they’re ready than for all sex ed to have to be run through the filter of Regina Griggs.
I guess my point (and I just may possibly have one) is that I like parental controls, just not a parent’s control. In other words, PARENTS should have control of THEIR kids, but A PARENT should not dictate control for ALL kids.
If that doesn’t put us in agreement, I give up. I’m just not that vested in my position. In fact it’s late, I’m tired, I had a margarita with dinner, and I’m not even completely sure that I know what my position is. Or was.
I give up. You win.
Timothy said:
If that doesn’t put us in agreement, I give up. I’m just not that vested in my position. In fact it’s late, I’m tired, I had a margarita with dinner, and I’m not even completely sure that I know what my position is. Or was.
I give up. You win.
LOL, I was almost going to say the same thing. I agree, we seem to be on the same track but talking past eachother. It’s the debate that brings out truth, it’s not important to win or lose (if there is such a thing in this). And yes, it is distasteful when either side uses these important issues to beat a particular drum – both lose. Maybe if we focus more on just what the children need we could bring it all into perspective.
Have a top-shelf for me!
David
ReasonAble at December 12, 2005 01:03 AM
The consent letter sent to parents using the school’s postage and letterhead was clearly deceptive in it’s omissions of anything to do with sexual content of the questionnaire, and the real reason behind it:…
This is ridiculous. If the parents in the Palmdale case really cared about the subject matter of the questions in the survey they should have asked to see a copy of the questions to be asked in the survey before they signed the consent form. They themselves were derelict in their parental duties.
The consent letter was not deceptive in the least. I cannot figure out why the appeals court did not just dismiss the case out of hand for that reason alone–that the parents should have asked to see the survey questions before signing the consent form–instead of going on for 23 pages addressing the constitutional issues.
Appeals court opinion is at https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0356499p.pdf.
David, you said “The issue, once again, is not about curricula. These were probing questions, not facts. But I would have to disagree with your statement even so. The issue is not about whether or not to expose children to facts, it’s which ones and how soon. There are many “facts” about this world which I would hope never make it into K-12 classrooms. However, other facts, such as basic sex information, we might agree should be included but then at what age? You have to agree that one can be too young to hear even facts about such things. And even if the potential for trauma were not there, we don’t expose first graders to complex mathematics or highly abstract concepts; they just aren’t ready for it. There is certainly room to assume that the same is true of complicated emotional and developmental issues such as sexual relationships.”
Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by curricula, but I don’t see why probing questions (testing knowledge) can’t be an acceptable part of curricula – its a seperate issue as to whether or not the questions themselves were apropriate. I don’t think the intellectual ability required to understand sexual relationships is at all comparable to that required to understand mathematics or highly abstract concepts. Some fundamentals of emotional and sexual relationships are pretty simple and I believe simple enough for a child who may not have experienced sexual feelings to understand.
I think the parents who opposed this questionaire would agree that it was not so much the expression or testing of the child’s knowledge about sex that was the problem, it was that the questions themselves teach (“sexualize”?) children about sex by asking them to think about issues they probably had been unaware of.
This court case was about whether or not the school had the right to include sexual issues in general in curricula, not this specific questionaire in particular. It doesn’t strike me as too likely its broad judgment will be overturned except in a narrow specific exemption way.
Randi said:
Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by curricula, but I don’t see why probing questions (testing knowledge) can’t be an acceptable part of curricula – its a seperate issue as to whether or not the questions themselves were apropriate.
I agree. My purpose was to emphasize that this questionnaire was not part of a sex-ed program which had been in any way evaluated by the community whose children the school serves. It was instead part of a volunteer worker’s research for her Doctoral Dissertation. Many of the points being made here incorrectly gave this questionnaire the status of a full-blown curricula, which would imply that parents and school board members had already evaluated it for use. For a group of parents to then object to its being used would be a somewhat different matter.
I would further say that it strains credulity to say that the school did not realize that the parents would want and need to know about the sexual component of this questionnaire when the consent letter was written. That letter was brief and superficial at best, suggesting that the purpose was to avoid a great number of opt-outs so that the data could be collected. Remember, the school was not the party to benefit from this, it was a graduate student who was not even paid staff. That they would allow this at all is bound to weaken the trust that parents should be able to place in their community schools.
I think the parents who opposed this questionaire would agree that it was not so much the expression or testing of the child’s knowledge about sex that was the problem, it was that the questions themselves teach (“sexualize”?) children about sex by asking them to think about issues they probably had been unaware of.
I would tend to agree here as well, with the caveat that there should exist some age below which only parents are allowed to introduce such issues. I do not believe 7 or even 10 is that age, but I think this will be a component in how the court deals with this issue later. And considering the direction of the Supreme Court of late, I still think it is a good bet this decision will not survive – certainly not in it’s current form – if they should decide to continue with appeals.
David
Randi Schimnosky at December 13, 2005 02:46 PM
David, you said “The issue, once again, is not about curricula. …Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by curricula,…
I don’t know what David means by “curricula” but it usually refers to a course of study. From what I can tell, this was a survey–in which the pupils were merely asked questions–not a course of study–in which the school provides information to the pupils.
I’m not sure why David (ReasonAble) keeps beating on the conjecture that the
My purpose was to emphasize that this questionnaire was not part of a sex-ed program (snip) It was instead part of a volunteer worker’s research for her Doctoral Dissertation.
The questionnaire may indeed have had multiple purposes, depending on the parties involved. The volunteer may have had a primary purpose (to provide information for a doctoral dissertation). She and the school district may have had other purposes in mind as well, reasons that do not come out from the court’s opinion.
On the other hand, you tell me. Why did the “parents” involved in the lawsuit not investigate the questions to be asked in the survey before they signed off on the permission form?
Regarding
I would further say that it strains credulity to say that the school did not realize that the parents would want and need to know about the sexual component of this questionnaire when the consent letter was written.
I’m not sure why the issue is limited to a supposed “sexual component” but if parents were really concerned about the questions that were to be asked–regardless of their content–they could have asked to see a copy of the questionnaire before signing the permission slip. They didn’t ask, and they weren’t concerned. It’s as simple as that.
BTW, it’s nice to see that others are adopting my phraseology. I first noticed that on Ed Brayton’s weblog Dispatches from the Culture Wars, where he has taken to referring to WorldNetDaily as WorldNutDaily. Now, David has adopted “strains credulity.”
The problem that David has in this instance is that it does not “strain credulity.” If the parents wanted to know the questions being asked, before signing off on the permission slip they should have asked to see the questions, or not given permission. It really isn’t rocket science. Shorter court opinion:
(i) You were asked to give permission for your child to be involved in a survey.
(ii) You didn’t care enough to find out what the questions were to be asked in the survey,
(iii) before you gave permission for your child to be involved in the survey; and now
(iv) you want the court to (apparently) hold the school district liable for–something–that you were unwilling to investigate yourself.
That is the long and the short of it.
Raj said:
BTW, it’s nice to see that others are adopting my phraseology. I first noticed that on Ed Brayton’s weblog Dispatches from the Culture Wars, where he has taken to referring to WorldNetDaily as WorldNutDaily. Now, David has adopted “strains credulity.”
I assume you are being silly here but I’ll go along. “WordNutDaily” appears to have been used quite extensively throughout the Net for some time. You may want to claim you were the Johnny Appleseed responsible for all that, but to repeat a phrase, that would also strain credulity. Which brings me to the second part; I can honestly say I was unaware you had ever used the phrase “strains credulity”, but if you want to claim that one you might be a tad enamored with your own importance 😉
To the real stuff,
…if parents were really concerned about the questions that were to be asked–regardless of their content–they could have asked to see a copy of the questionnaire before signing the permission slip. They didn’t ask, and they weren’t concerned. It’s as simple as that.
If the parents wanted to know the questions being asked, before signing off on the permission slip they should have asked to see the questions, or not given permission.
(i) You were asked to give permission for your child to be involved in a survey.
(ii) You didn’t care enough to find out what the questions were to be asked in the survey,
(iii) before you gave permission for your child to be involved in the survey; and now
(iv)you want the court to (apparently) hold the school district liable for–something–that you were unwilling to investigate yourself.
I would submit that it is the schools job to give as much information as possible to the parents without requiring additional action to obtain it. And I would agree that, in this instance, the consent letter had so little information that a parent would have to see the questionnaire in order to make an informed decision. That being so, the correct procedure would have been for the school to send a copy of the questionnaire with the consent letter to begin with. Not doing so simply abused a trust which some parents, to their detriment, relied upon when consenting without further investigation.
Do I think the parents should have asked to see the questionnaire before consenting? Ideally, yes Do I think the onus should have been on the school to provide the information up front? Absolutely. In short, when the school wished to expose children to questions that any reasonable person could predict would be controversial at best, it was up to the school to make certain the parents of those children were fully informed of their content. Sending a bland consent letter which required further inquiry for any detail simply doesn’t cut it.
David