9th Circuit Decision Regarding Children and Sex

[BCPVP]

That's pretty accurate. The court said the parents do not have a right to *exclusive* control over the child's education. While the parents do have the right to choose where their kids go to school, once they choose public school, they do not have the right to dictate what the school may and may not teach their child. So a parent can't say "Don't teach my son math, it offends me." because a school can't function if it has to have unique curriculums for every kid.

I think the ruling was reasonable and deferred the judgement about what should be taught back to the school. Which is a conservative ideal, so I'm surpised at some conservative's reactions.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Completely ridiculous ruling. Will be overruled by SCOTUS.

[BCPVP]

Please elaborate.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Since I'm at work, I can't elaborate too much. The concept that once a parent allows a child to set foot in a public school, they lose all right to teaching morality is beyond the pale. Our government schools are woefully inadequate in teaching math, science and language, yet they somehow think they can mold the moral fibre of our children?

The questions in this test were completely inapropriate to ask a 7 year old.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The concept that once a parent allows a child to set foot in a public school, they lose all right to teaching morality is beyond the pale.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was not what the ruling was. The court said the parents do not have the exclusive right to such teaching. Wouldn't you agree that if you send your kid to public school, you don't have the right to start picking and choosing what parts of the curriculum they will learn? Do you feel that you have the right to say "I don't want my kid to learn about war in history class because war is offensive to me."?

[ QUOTE ]
The questions in this test were completely inapropriate to ask a 7 year old.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm with you on this, but do we want the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to be "legislating from the bench" what morality is appropriate for your child? Or would you rather they defer to the local governments and school boards so you can actually have some influence in the decision?

[elwoodblues]

Okay, the survey might have been dumb. But, this lawsuit is not about wisdom of the particular survey. The question is whether the school can teach sex ed in the way it deems appropriate. If the parents don't like the method of teaching they can try to get it changed (through the school board), but what makes people think there should be a lawsuit about it.

Here are the fundamental holdings of the case --- can people explain where they disagree. Thanks

Holding 1: There is no fundamental due process right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children. NOTE: this is NOT saying that parents don't have a say in teaching sex education, nor that they would be disallowed from holding their children out of such a survey.

Holding 2: Parents have no Constitutional right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.

To quote the court:
[ QUOTE ]
the state does not have the power to "standardize its children" or "foster a homogenous people" by completely foreclosing the opportunity of individuals and groups to choose a different path of education. We do not think, however, that this freedom encompasses a fundamental constitutional right to dictate the curriculum at the public school to which they have chosen to send their children. 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 moral disagreements with the school's choice of subject matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holding 3: Once parents make the choice as to which school their children will attend, their fundamental due process right to control the education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished.

I was 5 when i was in 1st grade.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Completely ridiculous ruling. Will be overruled by SCOTUS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bet you $500 you are wrong here. Terms: if the case is overruled the at least one of the bases of the ruling has to be the substantive holding of the case (not a procedural issue.)

Send me your e-mail and I will create a Clip where we can monitor this case as it moves up the appellate chain (I would suspect it won't even be heard by the Supreme Court.) All results of the clip will be posted here (i.e. when the Supreme court grants/denies review.) Payment due within 2 weeks of final disposition. If no appeal is made (even though I would really win the bet) no payment is required. If the Supreme court denies review or grants review and upholds the lower court's substantive holding - I win. If the Supreme Court grants review and reverses the lower court's substantive holding you win.

Whaddya say?

[elwoodblues]

Does anyone think that parents have a Constitutional Right to force the school to not teach evolution? How is this any different?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone think that parents have a Constitutional Right to force the school to not teach evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not through the courts.