NationStates Jolt Archive

does this bother anyone else?

By DAVID KRAVETS, AP Legal Affairs Writer
(11-03) 00:08 PST San Francisco (AP) --

A federal appeals court dismissed a lawsuit by elementary school parents who were outraged that the Palmdale School District had surveyed students about sex.

While the surveys asked students how often they thought about sex, among other questions, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday that parents of public school children have no "fundamental right" to be the exclusive provider of sexual information to their children.

The parents maintained they had the sole right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex."



Parents whose students took the survey signed consent forms, however the forms never mentioned sex would be a topic. Questions the children answered included whether they thought about having sex, thought about touching other people's "private parts" and whether they could "stop thinking about having sex."

FULL article here (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/11/02/state/n125603S08.DTL)

I am not against sex education but, I would like to know why the parents weren't provided with a list of questions (my 4 year old knows all about sex, but I wouldn't want her to have to answer such private questions, yes I believe that my 4 year old has a right to basic privacy, and answering questions about masturbation in school trample all over it imo)

The thing though that really bothers me about this article is how it reeks of all the things I hate about big goverment. I don't necessarily want to be my daughters only source of information, but I don't think the school should ever supercede my wishes.

The other thing, if it is a public school, shouldn't the public have some recourse if thier kids are being taught something like this? I mean it isn't like evolution which is scientific and needs to be taught, this is something that has no business in a public school, if you were asked questions about your sexuality it would be a problem, but if it is kids they say it is "all educational".

I am really mad, and also happy that my kid doesn't have to go to that school .
___

Couldn't the STUDENTS just not take the survey, if they didn't wish to answer such private questions? Even if they had agreed to it? Was somebody going to punish them if they didn't take the survey?

Although yes, the parents should have been better informed.

Couldn't the STUDENTS just not take the survey, if they didn't wish to answer such private questions? Even if they had agreed to it? Was somebody going to punish them if they didn't take the survey?

Although yes, the parents should have been better informed.
They way they are spinning it on talk radio the kids were in elementary school, I have no way to find out if that is true or not. I remember being in elementary school, all the way up to middle school, there was this understanding that you did what the teacher said or you would get in trouble. I don't want any adult pressuring my kids to divulge personal information like that.


EDIT: I found the school districts website (http://www.psd.k12.ca.us/) google works after all. It looks like they serve from preK to 8th grade. (still pretty intimidatable years)

The parents maintained they had the sole right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex."
Which is turning out great. Sex education is a necessary education, the parents have the fundamental right to control it, by homeschooling their children. However, a sneak survey of sexual urges to anyone below 18 should be illegal without direct parental consent.

However, a sneak survey of sexual urges to anyone below 18 should be illegal without direct parental consent.
agreed. I worry most about the precident that parents can't question the curriculum.

They way they are spinning it on talk radio the kids were in elementary school, I have no way to find out if that is true or not. I remember being in elementary school, all the way up to middle school, there was this understanding that you did what the teacher said or you would get in trouble. I don't want any adult pressuring my kids to divulge personal information like that.


EDIT: I found the school districts website (http://www.psd.k12.ca.us/) google works after all. It looks like they serve from preK to 8th grade. (still pretty intimidatable years)

Hmm... possibly. Maybe they should take this oppurtunity to learn that you won't always get in trouble if you don't follow orders? Or that sometimes, it's a good thing to get in trouble to avoid following an order you disagree strongly with?

I think the survey in itself is harmless. But I stand by my initial statement: The parents should have been better informed.

Besides that, if they don't want the public schools to ask those kind of questions, then they should involve themselves in the school not in the courts.

does this bother anyone else?
Yes, and I'm a teacher!

I am not against sex education but, I would like to know why the parents weren't provided with a list of questions (my 4 year old knows all about sex, but I wouldn't want her to have to answer such private questions, yes I believe that my 4 year old has a right to basic privacy, and answering questions about masturbation in school trample all over it imo)
This is a little strange. School usually conduct such surveys to get access to local/state/national trends on student drug or sexual use. I can see two reasons.

1. If it was to track trends, the survey would be "blind" and at which case, the questions should not have been released in order to have children answer honestly without undo infulance from their parents.

However, the article said that the LA School District was using it to identify children who have been tramatised so...

2. The questions were indeed used to identify children who had been sexual abused and so the questions were not relased in order to grab the children who might have been forced to not have to take the survey or forced to answer dishonestly.

But ethnically, for reserch purposes, it is a violation of the rules to have done so and the above reasons do not, IMO, constitute a valid reason for ignoring the rules.

The thing though that really bothers me about this article is how it reeks of all the things I hate about big goverment. I don't necessarily want to be my daughters only source of information, but I don't think the school should ever supercede my wishes.
I have to agree with the 9th though, there really IS no constitutional right that a parent's wishes supercedes the school's. This has been used to cover health classes, school meals, inoculations, sex ed, and (limited) moral education. *ducks* Don't yell at me, I'm just starting what the case law is.

Part of the issue is that the US educational system is decentralized (no matter how many times I see some people on this board scream about the Dept of Ed or the NEA, they do not have much power). All major decisions are taken at the local school board, possibly the state level. This has led the courts to state that the boards are reflecting local values and conditions. Whether this is true or not is up for debate, but that's the rulings.

Pretty much entering your child in school invokes in loco parentis (In place of the parents) powers on the part of the school. The irony being that in loco parentis laws have been vastly increased in areas that the schools never traditionally delt with (health, meals, and the like), but have been seriously gutted in others (disapline and conduct education).

The other thing, if it is a public school, shouldn't the public have some recourse if thier kids are being taught something like this? I mean it isn't like evolution which is scientific and needs to be taught, this is something that has no business in a public school, if you were asked questions about your sexuality it would be a problem, but if it is kids they say it is "all educational".
Unfortunately, those who are against the teaching of evolution use the same argument. You do have a number of recourses actually. One is to pull your child out of the district, if you can. Two, demand information from the schools when you feel a wavier is not being fully honest with you. Finally though, like I said, these decisions are made at the local board, go there and let them know. Start a campaine to get the board voted out. In reality, the people that effect educational policy the most IS that local board, which means you have ready access to go there and scream at them. ;)

Couldn't the STUDENTS just not take the survey, if they didn't wish to answer such private questions? Even if they had agreed to it? Was somebody going to punish them if they didn't take the survey?

Although yes, the parents should have been better informed.

Seven-year-olds? What would they say? "Sorry, but I think this survey is too sexually explicit for someone my age?" Right.

The thing though that really bothers me about this article is how it reeks of all the things I hate about big goverment. I don't necessarily want to be my daughters only source of information, but I don't think the school should ever supercede my wishes.

The other thing, if it is a public school, shouldn't the public have some recourse if thier kids are being taught something like this? I mean it isn't like evolution which is scientific and needs to be taught, this is something that has no business in a public school, if you were asked questions about your sexuality it would be a problem, but if it is kids they say it is "all educational".



It's a divisive issue.... but schools MUST deal with certain information that might 'supercede' a parent's wishes... if for no other reason than you cannot expect the syllabus to be individually tailored to EACH family.

There IS a recourse, of course, in home-schooling. If you don't agree with how public schools are run, you don't HAVE TO avail yourself of their services.

It makes me wonder why so many people DO complain about (for example) sex education in public schools. To me - it's like bitching at the volunteer firebrigade that they are using a type of water you don't like.

Also - it's an unfortunate reality, but we NEED sexual awareness in schools. To stop our children making mistakes, or becoming victims. And, of course, because SOME parents will NOT give sexual information. (I live in rural Georgia, and this is a problem I see every day).

It's a divisive issue.... but schools MUST deal with certain information that might 'supercede' a parent's wishes... if for no other reason than you cannot expect the syllabus to be individually tailored to EACH family.

There IS a recourse, of course, in home-schooling. If you don't agree with how public schools are run, you don't HAVE TO avail yourself of their services.

It makes me wonder why so many people DO complain about (for example) sex education in public schools. To me - it's like bitching at the volunteer firebrigade that they are using a type of water you don't like.

Also - it's an unfortunate reality, but we NEED sexual awareness in schools. To stop our children making mistakes, or becoming victims. And, of course, because SOME parents will NOT give sexual information. (I live in rural Georgia, and this is a problem I see every day).

you miss the part where I said I don't have a problem with sex education in school, just that they were asking such personal questions without parental consent. (to the actual questions)

I do realize that schools can't make a separate lesson plan for each student, but if something so controversial is being taught, parents should be able to question it, even if the answer is "take your kids somewhere else" the fact that the court ruled that parents (read public who pays taxes) don't have the constitutional right to question the curriculum of a PUBLIC school bothers me.

i dont like it one bit.

while its a bit nutz for parents to think that they could ever be the sole provider of sexual information to their children, this isnt exactly what that is now is it?

it seems to me that "It was part of a program to gauge exposure to early trauma and to assist in designing a program for children to overcome barriers to learning, according to the district." could easily be a fishing expedition to find abused children.

there is a world of difference between teaching a 7 year old the name for the different male/female body parts and asking them about their own sexual thoughts. that seems to me to be the sort of thing you teach your children is none of any adults business.

Which is turning out great. Sex education is a necessary education, the parents have the fundamental right to control it, by homeschooling their children. However, a sneak survey of sexual urges to anyone below 18 should be illegal without direct parental consent.

Its the end of the world. I agree with Teh_pantless_hero

i dont like it one bit.

while its a bit nutz for parents to think that they could ever be the sole provider of sexual information to their children, this isnt exactly what that is now is it?

it seems to me that "It was part of a program to gauge exposure to early trauma and to assist in designing a program for children to overcome barriers to learning, according to the district." could easily be a fishing expedition to find abused children.

there is a world of difference between teaching a 7 year old the name for the different male/female body parts and asking them about their own sexual thoughts. that seems to me to be the sort of thing you teach your children is none of any adults business.

But then... why SHOULDN'T we want to find abused children?

It isn't like pedophilia is a protected constitutional right.

But then... why SHOULDN'T we want to find abused children?

It isn't like pedophilia is a protected constitutional right.
because you dont do it by sending out a questionaire to the schools. the rate of "false postives" is way too high.

and if you want to protect children you dont get them used to talking about their personal sex lives to random adults with power over them.

there is a world of difference between teaching a 7 year old the name for the different male/female body parts and asking them about their own sexual thoughts. that seems to me to be the sort of thing you teach your children is none of any adults business.
because you dont do it by sending out a questionaire to the schools. the rate of "false postives" is way too high.

and if you want to protect children you dont get them used to talking about their personal sex lives to random adults with power over them.

Exactly.

besides if a teacher suspects a child is being abused in any way they have
to notify the authorities. They are what you call mandatory reporters, they are supposed to report suspicious behavior not make up questionaires and try to figure it out themselves, there are people who know a whole lot more about that, like social workers and child psychologists.

because you dont do it by sending out a questionaire to the schools. the rate of "false postives" is way too high.

and if you want to protect children you dont get them used to talking about their personal sex lives to random adults with power over them.

Again, though... what is this fear?

I am not worried about 'false positives'... because, if my daughter gave a 'false positive', there is no 'true positive' behind it, and I would be exonerated.

On the other hand, if you just assume that NO children are being abused, you are sticking your head in the sand, at the expense of innocence.

Personally, I'd rather I was investigated, and all the REAL assholes were caught.

That's an awful lot of grief for no gain. If you're investigated, you will lose a lot, job, reputation, friends.

Suspicion is pretty much enough to convict you these days.

Besides, you place far too much trust in the state to be fair, and investigate you properly, instead of lynch you to improve the prospects of some sticky fingered politician.

I think you need to accept that what is in theory is not necessarily in practice.

Again, though... what is this fear?

I am not worried about 'false positives'... because, if my daughter gave a 'false positive', there is no 'true positive' behind it, and I would be exonerated.

On the other hand, if you just assume that NO children are being abused, you are sticking your head in the sand, at the expense of innocence.

Personally, I'd rather I was investigated, and all the REAL assholes were caught.
you don't have a problem with them questioning all the kids and then picking out who look suspicious?

I mean you ask a 7 year old questions of a sexual nature and then try to decide if they are "normal" by your standards or not. I worry first, that your standards may be skewed, and second that there is no way to feel "normal" about sex. People are different, just because they may answer differently than everyone else in class doesn't neccesarily mean they are being abused. There are enough symptoms of sexual abuse that can be seen without kids having thier privacy invaded for no reason, risking the chance of thier answers being labeled "abnormal"

Couldn't the STUDENTS just not take the survey, if they didn't wish to answer such private questions? Even if they had agreed to it? Was somebody going to punish them if they didn't take the survey?

Although yes, the parents should have been better informed.
A five-year-old child does not usually have sufficient willpower and strength of character to resist answering questions from an adult. This is one reason it's so difficult to teach small children how to resist pedophiles.

IMHO, this was an aberration and highly irregular. Parents should have been informed and given the opportunity to opt-out. It's my understanding that several bills have been proposed at both the State and national level to correct this problem.

This just seems so odd to me. I'm a parent of a 10 year old and he recently participated in the sex-ed courses at his school (public). A form requesting my permission for him to participate in this class was sent home prior to the sex-ed sessions. Is that unusual then? I thought it was standard for parents to be notified of any issues raised in the classroom that might be objectionable.

This just seems so odd to me. I'm a parent of a 10 year old and he recently participated in the sex-ed courses at his school (public). A form requesting my permission for him to participate in this class was sent home prior to the sex-ed sessions. Is that unusual then? I thought it was standard for parents to be notified of any issues raised in the classroom that might be objectionable.

That was why a form was given out to you I believe.

This just seems so odd to me. I'm a parent of a 10 year old and he recently participated in the sex-ed courses at his school (public). A form requesting my permission for him to participate in this class was sent home prior to the sex-ed sessions. Is that unusual then? I thought it was standard for parents to be notified of any issues raised in the classroom that might be objectionable.
true, but the actual questionaire wasn't disclosed to the parents (or the fact that there even was one) and that is why they were mad.

would I sign a paper saying my kid could take sex ed? yes. would I sign a paper that said an adult could pressure information about personal sexual preference and ask questions about masturbation? no, it isn't any of the teachers business, if they think my kid is being abused then they need to take action, not question the whole class to see if my kid is "normal"

That was why a form was given out to you I believe.

OK Uber Genius, I'm not confused as to why I was sent a form. I am simply wondering if this is abnormal since I am reading that parents are being told they have no say in their children's educational matters.

You do realize this was a research survey, not a survey to be put on their files. In other words, it was anonymous and the data that they wanted was aggregate data, not individual data on students. There is no privacy concern in an anonymous survey.

Furthermore, to set the record straight. This survey was administered to 1st, 3rd and 5th graders. Here is a little more info:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/11/02/state/n125603S08.DTL

You do realize this was a research survey, not a survey to be put on their files. In other words, it was anonymous and the data that they wanted was aggregate data, not individual data on students. There is no privacy concern in an anonymous survey.

Furthermore, to set the record straight. This survey was administered to 1st, 3rd and 5th graders. Here is a little more info:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/11/02/state/n125603S08.DTL
okay no. first that is not more info, it is the same article that I took excerpts from and linked to the actual article.

second the article states

It was part of a program to gauge exposure to early trauma and to assist in designing a program for children to overcome barriers to learning, according to the district.
gauging exposure to early trauma in whom? the students who took the test.

second, my problem is that the parents weren't notified at all about the survey.

Parents whose students took the survey signed consent forms, however the forms never mentioned sex would be a topic.


and my big huge problem is that the court ruled that the public can't question a public school.

1. The school district, at the very least, was deceptive in its description of the questionnaire. As a parent, I should be able to trust that the school district is giving me an accurate description.

2. Where is the ACLU? If this was being used as some sort of dragnet to catch some child abusers, it seems to me to be very heavy-handed and an abuse of privacy. If the police just picked some neighborhood at random, searched everybody's house for stolen goods, and managed to catch a few thieves, people would be howling about violations of civil rights.

3. As to the argument that those who object should home-school, why? I pay school taxes, why shouldn't my child get educated by it, in a way that reasonably accomodates my beliefs? And what if I can't afford to home-school (we both have to work to pay the bills)?

does this bother anyone else?





FULL article here (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/11/02/state/n125603S08.DTL)

I am not against sex education but, I would like to know why the parents weren't provided with a list of questions (my 4 year old knows all about sex, but I wouldn't want her to have to answer such private questions, yes I believe that my 4 year old has a right to basic privacy, and answering questions about masturbation in school trample all over it imo)

The thing though that really bothers me about this article is how it reeks of all the things I hate about big goverment. I don't necessarily want to be my daughters only source of information, but I don't think the school should ever supercede my wishes.

The other thing, if it is a public school, shouldn't the public have some recourse if thier kids are being taught something like this? I mean it isn't like evolution which is scientific and needs to be taught, this is something that has no business in a public school, if you were asked questions about your sexuality it would be a problem, but if it is kids they say it is "all educational".

I am really mad, and also happy that my kid doesn't have to go to that school .
___
Yet another good reason to have vouchers. As long as we have to pay taxes to support this kind of nonsense, we should be able to choose the brand of nonsense to which we subject our kids.

You do realize this was a research survey, not a survey to be put on their files. In other words, it was anonymous and the data that they wanted was aggregate data, not individual data on students. There is no privacy concern in an anonymous survey.

Furthermore, to set the record straight. This survey was administered to 1st, 3rd and 5th graders. Here is a little more info:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/11/02/state/n125603S08.DTL
Personally, I wouldn't have given a damn what the purpose, method or use was going to be. Had this involved any of my grandchildren, there would have been holy hell to pay! :mad:

Don't make me angry. You woudn't like me when I'm angry! :D

Yet another good reason to have vouchers. As long as we have to pay taxes to support this kind of nonsense, we should be able to choose the brand of nonsense to which we subject our kids.

Vouchers are useless.

The textbooks the government would have to shell out for would kill any imagined savings they would get.

Public: Schools pass down books so the next year's students can use them. Likely bought right from the publisher without retail markups.

Private: Schools make you rebuy books every year. Those of us who went to college know what that is like. You pay the retail markup, 2 or 3 times what the book actually costs and you repeat that every year. Big cash cow for private schools and voucher kids will have their bills paid by your tax dollars naturally. If their families could afford such things in the first place they wouldn't be voucher kids.

This doesn't even begin to count uniforms, field trips (foreign and domestic destinations) and a zillion other costs they may decide to tack on. The voucher program will just be another form of corporate welfare, abused by schools who want to suck the vast tax well in Washington dry with crazy and unecessary charges to increase their own resources.

At least public institutions can be held accountable for behaviour in ways private ones cannot.

does this bother anyone else?

You make some good points, but I don't see why parents who send their child to a school claim exclusive right to educate their child abvout sex. They don't have an exclusive right to educate their child in mathematics or poetry, so why sex?

But in general, I think the public does have a right to question public schools.

Don't make me angry. You woudn't like me when I'm angry!
Definitely not!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/superheroes/images/hulk.jpg

does this bother anyone else?





FULL article here (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/11/02/state/n125603S08.DTL)

I am not against sex education but, I would like to know why the parents weren't provided with a list of questions (my 4 year old knows all about sex, but I wouldn't want her to have to answer such private questions, yes I believe that my 4 year old has a right to basic privacy, and answering questions about masturbation in school trample all over it imo)

The thing though that really bothers me about this article is how it reeks of all the things I hate about big goverment. I don't necessarily want to be my daughters only source of information, but I don't think the school should ever supercede my wishes.

The other thing, if it is a public school, shouldn't the public have some recourse if thier kids are being taught something like this? I mean it isn't like evolution which is scientific and needs to be taught, this is something that has no business in a public school, if you were asked questions about your sexuality it would be a problem, but if it is kids they say it is "all educational".

I am really mad, and also happy that my kid doesn't have to go to that school .
___


1. You are making up and/or overreacting to what the article actually says. This is even more true for the actual court decision.

2. You believe parents have a constitutional right to veto something from being taught in public school? To veto a question even being asked?

3. I assume you like activist judges that are willing to add new rights to the Constitution -- or are you a hypocrite?

3. As to the argument that those who object should home-school, why? I pay school taxes, why shouldn't my child get educated by it, in a way that reasonably accomodates my beliefs? And what if I can't afford to home-school (we both have to work to pay the bills)?
Because at the school I teach at I have around 500 students, which belief system should I accomodate?

1. You are making up and/or overreacting to what the article actually says. This is even more true for the actual court decision.
where exactly?

2. You believe parents have a constitutional right to veto something from being taught in public school? To veto a question even being asked?
Veto, no, but do they as taxpayers have a right to question what is taught in the public schools? yes. I worry about a world where you pay into a public system but are not allowed to even question it. also, I believe the parents were misinformed about the nature of the discussion and that they have a right to know what is being discussed at school specifically.

3. I assume you like activist judges that are willing to add new rights to the Constitution -- or are you a hypocrite?
I do not like activist judges at all, and I believe here they are taking rights away from parents. I do not like that at all. How am I specifically being hypocritical? that is a pretty serious charge and I would like to see evidence.

Veto, no, but do they as taxpayers have a right to question what is taught in the public schools? yes. I worry about a world where you pay into a public system but are not allowed to even question it. also, I believe the parents were misinformed about the nature of the discussion and that they have a right to know what is being discussed at school specifically.
Uh... they do... it's called calling your student's teaching and asking... The 9th decision said nothing about parents cannot contact the school and ask questions about what is being taught or brought up in school.

Uh... they do... it's called calling your student's teaching and asking... The 9th decision said nothing about parents cannot contact the school and ask questions about what is being taught or brought up in school.
true. but why send home a letter asking for consent that doesn't accurately describe the class?

Here (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8695945B7C6F6B5882570AD0051320A/$file/0356499.pdf?openelement)

Much of the speculation about the facts and decision are flatly wrong.

where exactly?

Veto, no, but do they as taxpayers have a right to question what is taught in the public schools? yes. I worry about a world where you pay into a public system but are not allowed to even question it. also, I believe the parents were misinformed about the nature of the discussion and that they have a right to know what is being discussed at school specifically.

Where does it say in the article that taxpayers cannot question what is taught in public schools?

More importantly, where does it say anything close to that in the actual decision (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8695945B7C6F6B5882570AD0051320A/$file/0356499.pdf?openelement).

The issue in the case was whether the parents could sue for money damages for violation of a "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."

These parents wanted an absolute veto power over anything their kids could even be asked in school.

I do not like activist judges at all, and I believe here they are taking rights away from parents. I do not like that at all. How am I specifically being hypocritical? that is a pretty serious charge and I would like to see evidence.

You need to read the decision and re-read the article. The parents were arguing for a new constitutional right -- i.e., a new right never before recognized.

From where in the Constitution do you find the right of parents to be the exclusive source of information about sexuality to their children?

Judges that believe their are rights not expressly stated in the Constitution -- like the right to privacy and the right to abortion -- are labeled as "activist." Here, the court refuses to make a new right and you criticize them.

Thus, you are being ignorant or hypocritical or both.

true. but why send home a letter asking for consent that doesn't accurately describe the class?
Haven't not seen the letter, I can only speculate. I would assume that since the researchers doing the study wanted to have honest answers that were not effected by the parents, they chose to hide the true extent of the survey. Technically I believe that is in violation of the Buckley Amendment (You'd have to bug someone more familar with that one, I haven't been allowed to play with humans yet). Ethnically it does violate research ethics, but is sound for a good survey.

But like I said, I haven't seen the actual waiver so I couldn't tell you how accurate it was. Many times what one person thinks is ok, the other can't get at all.

Edit: Once again, Cat has come through with the orginal stuff. In reading the letter, it does state that the child may feel uncomortable and the tool is well designed. While I think that I would have included a short list of examples for the types of questions being asked, it doesn't look like anyone was hoodwinked here.

true. but why send home a letter asking for consent that doesn't accurately describe the class?
there is no consent if they dont tell you what you really need to know. i think any parent should be pissed if they were tricked into consenting to something they wouldnt have consented to if they were fully informed.

and i wonder why they DIDNT really inform the parents of what the questions would be when they were talking about children this young.

true. but why send home a letter asking for consent that doesn't accurately describe the class?

what class?

the issue is not a class or something that was taught. It was:

a psychological assessment questionnaire for first, third, and fifth grade students with the announced goal of “establish[ing] a community baseline measure of children’s exposure to early trauma (for example, violence).”
Prior to administering the survey, [the School District] mailed a letter to the parents of the children to be surveyed informing them of the questionnaire’s nature and purpose, and requesting their consent to its administration. ... [Included] was a warning that “answering questions may make [the] child feel uncomfortable.”

The letter to the parents specified that the survey was about early trauma -- obviously including sexual trauma like molestation!!! :headbang:

I do not like activist judges at all, and I believe here they are taking rights away from parents. I do not like that at all. How am I specifically being hypocritical? that is a pretty serious charge and I would like to see evidence.
Activist judges? Flashbang, boom headshot! Activist is a term used by the rightwing to villainize any judge making a decision you disagree with.

I first heard about this on television news and in several reports specific questions from the survey were quoted. They seemed to me the kinds of questions that should be asked in cases where abuse is specifically suspected, or in therapy to help children who actually have been abused. The general topics of the questions were about being afraid of sex or thinking about it too much or being afraid of being touched or being afraid that strangers will want sex from you, etc. These are not neutral questions about sexuality. I can easily see how the questions themselves would be frightening to children.

In the reports I've followed, the person who administered the survey was not an employee of the school, and if this was in fact a research survey, I would question why the hell the school administrators thought it would be okay to do this without getting consent from the parents. This was clearly not part of the curriculum, not part of the standard package the parents had agreed to by enrolling their kids at the school. The parents expect their kids to be taught about sex by the accredited teachers, not surveyed about it by god knows who.

I have to side with the parents on this one.

People are so incredibly fixated on sex.

What makes sexual education so special that the way it's taught is some sort of critical upbringing decision? How is it more or less important than what system is used to teach our children to read? Or what level of mathematics is being taught?

When was the last time any of those busybody lawsuit-happy parents actually LOOKED at their child's school curriculum?!? Actually voiced an interest before the subject turned to *GASP!* sex?

I agree with the court. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any guarantee that parents will be the sole educator of their children. ANd sex is no more or less a topic of importance than world history.

*sigh*

Thus, you are being ignorant or hypocritical or both.
I plead ignorant. thank you for linking to the actual decision, I had not been able to track it down (busy day) ;)

what class?

the issue is not a class or something that was taught. It was:

a psychological assessment questionnaire for first, third, and fifth grade students with the announced goal of “establish[ing] a community baseline measure of children’s exposure to early trauma (for example, violence).”
Prior to administering the survey, [the School District] mailed a letter to the parents of the children to be surveyed informing them of the questionnaire’s nature and purpose, and requesting their consent to its administration. ... [Included] was a warning that “answering questions may make [the] child feel uncomfortable.”

The letter to the parents specified that the survey was about early trauma -- obviously including sexual trauma like molestation!!! :headbang:

i dont see why it should be obvious at all. and i dont think it is in any way appropriate for the school district to be asking 1st graders about their sexual experiences/feelings.

anyone want to quote the important part of the decision? my incredibly slow connection means i cant be bothered to download pdf that i may or may not understand.

Couldn't the STUDENTS just not take the survey, if they didn't wish to answer such private questions? Even if they had agreed to it? Was somebody going to punish them if they didn't take the survey?

Although yes, the parents should have been better informed.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the kids could have just declined to answer.

I first heard about this on television news and in several reports specific questions from the survey were quoted. They seemed to me the kinds of questions that should be asked in cases where abuse is specifically suspected, or in therapy to help children who actually have been abused. The general topics of the questions were about being afraid of sex or thinking about it too much or being afraid of being touched or being afraid that strangers will want sex from you, etc. These are not neutral questions about sexuality. I can easily see how the questions themselves would be frightening to children.

In the reports I've followed, the person who administered the survey was not an employee of the school, and if this was in fact a research survey, I would question why the hell the school administrators thought it would be okay to do this without getting consent from the parents. This was clearly not part of the curriculum, not part of the standard package the parents had agreed to by enrolling their kids at the school. The parents expect their kids to be taught about sex by the accredited teachers, not surveyed about it by god knows who.

I have to side with the parents on this one.

1. A volunteer mental health counselor, the School District, the California School of Professional Psychology, and the Children’s Bureau of Southern California created the survey together.

2. The intent of the questions was to identify trauma.

3. The questions were neutral.

4. This was for the school's use -- not just an experiment for the heck of it.

5. The parents were asked for permission to have their child participate.

i dont see why it should be obvious at all. and i dont think it is in any way appropriate for the school district to be asking 1st graders about their sexual experiences/feelings.

anyone want to quote the important part of the decision? my incredibly slow connection means i cant be bothered to download pdf that i may or may not understand.

I'm with you on the first part... my 3rd-grade class was used in a psych study, attempting to replicate the famous one on racism you see on PBS from time to time, only this one was done in an unprofessional and sloppy way, and resulted in confusion for most of the kids, and ate up a week of class time.. I think parents should have a right to abstain from that kind of thing on behalf of their kids.. but whether it's unconstitutional is another issue. Unethical, it seems, but unconstitutional, probably not. Classrooms should be used for teaching kids, not as a cheap source of guinea pigs for PhD. candidates.. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the kids could have just declined to answer.
most of the 1st graders I know wouldn't ever decline to do something a person in authority asked them to.

i dont see why it should be obvious at all. and i dont think it is in any way appropriate for the school district to be asking 1st graders about their sexual experiences/feelings.

So it is in no way appropriate for the school district to ask 1st graders questions to determine if they have been sexually abused?

You don't think a letter expressly saying that your children were being asked questions about "childhood trauma (including violence)" and questions that "may make [the] child feel uncomfortable” might include questions about sexual trauma?

If you got the consent form and didn't feel you knew enough about the subject of the survey, you didn't have to consent. Or you could have asked for more information.

I'm with you on the first part... my 3rd-grade class was used in a psych study, attempting to replicate the famous one on racism you see on PBS from time to time, only this one was done in an unprofessional and sloppy way, and resulted in confusion for most of the kids, and ate up a week of class time.. I think parents should have a right to abstain from that kind of thing on behalf of their kids.. but whether it's unconstitutional is another issue. Unethical, it seems, but unconstitutional, probably not. Classrooms should be used for teaching kids, not as a cheap source of guinea pigs for PhD. candidates.. :rolleyes:

These parents did have that right. They gave consent.

Nor was this simply using the children as "guinea pigs" for a PhD candidate.

So it is in no way appropriate for the school district to ask 1st graders questions to determine if they have been sexually abused?

You don't think a letter expressly saying that your children were being asked questions about "childhood trauma (including violence)" and questions that "may make [the] child feel uncomfortable” might include questions about sexual trauma?

If you got the consent form and didn't feel you knew enough about the subject of the survey, you didn't have to consent. Or you could have asked for more information.
no it is not in ANY way appropriate for the school district to be asking those questions.

NO i do not think a letter like that is enough information for my consent and i think the school knew it and thats why they didnt fully inform the parents'

i think, moreover, that if parents HAD been told what questions were going to be asked of their 6 and 7 year old that they would have put a stop to it before it was done.

if i had been in the situation, and i had known what the questions would be, i would have used it as a lesson to my son that there are some questions that are inappropriate for adults to ask children and that there are times to say NO.

The students were being asked, not as individuals, but as an aggregate. Their names, presumably, were not to be written on their answer forms. So the argument that "You're writing down info on my Susie's sexuality?" is a failed one: nobody knows who answered what.

Also, the parents were not informed of the content so they could not tell their children what to answer. It's VERY important, in such studies, not to allow prejucidial influences into your data! It would be like me putting out a survey on the Republican party's popularity and starting it with questions about torture. :p

Yes, it is true that sometimes the subjects of the experiment will be disturbed by the process of the experiment (in this case, the survey). Look at Stanley Milgram - look what he did to his experimental subjects. He made them think they were electrocuting the person in the next room. Yet his results have forced us to confront our mindless obedience to authority, as well as the ways actual authority gets subverted. Let's say nothing then of the Stanford prison experiment, which drove one of the subjects into a psychotic episode. What you have to do is design your experiments to minimize the risk of harm to your subjects, that's all. I don't think little Susie is going to be harmed by questions about masturbation. I would, however, ask her about the survey she filled out, and would try my best to level-headedly discuss the material with her.

The people who wrote the survey and the permission form were probably agonizing over it just as much as the parents were agonizing over what harm their children might have come to through taking the survey.

Any children I raise will be educated about sex by me and my wife or resident boyfriend before they get to first grade. My parents taught me about sex, as had the parents of some of my friends taught their kids; as I compare the people who had The Talk with their parents as little kids, and those who got it much later, the people who had the talk earlier are more secure sexually, less anxious about it, and have fewer accidents.

Nor was this simply using the children as "guinea pigs" for a PhD candidate.

Nah, I meant the one they did on us in Illinois.. it was aborted 3/4 the way through.. that one was sloppy.. nothing against PhD. candidates, but it was plain amateurish.

Anyhow, teachers are legally bound to report signs of abuse in kids, yes? I'd rather they keep to their legal obligation as usual, instead of subjecting all the kids to an intrusive survey to pro-actively investigate abuse themselves.. but I don't have kids, and won't, so I haven't dealt with the system from that angle before.

no it is not in ANY way appropriate for the school district to be asking those questions.

NO i do not think a letter like that is enough information for my consent and i think the school knew it and thats why they didnt fully inform the parents'

i think, moreover, that if parents HAD been told what questions were going to be asked of their 6 and 7 year old that they would have put a stop to it before it was done.

if i had been in the situation, and i had known what the questions would be, i would have used it as a lesson to my son that there are some questions that are inappropriate for adults to ask children and that there are times to say NO.

Did they ask? Believe it or not, most decent parents actually review their child's curriculum.

The students were being asked, not as individuals, but as an aggregate. Their names, presumably, were not to be written on their answer forms. So the argument that "You're writing down info on my Susie's sexuality?" is a failed one: nobody knows who answered what.

Also, the parents were not informed of the content so they could not tell their children what to answer. It's VERY important, in such studies, not to allow prejucidial influences into your data! It would be like me putting out a survey on the Republican party's popularity and starting it with questions about torture. :p

Yes, it is true that sometimes the subjects of the experiment will be disturbed by the process of the experiment (in this case, the survey). Look at Stanley Milgram - look what he did to his experimental subjects. He made them think they were electrocuting the person in the next room. Yet his results have forced us to confront our mindless obedience to authority, as well as the ways actual authority gets subverted. Let's say nothing then of the Stanford prison experiment, which drove one of the subjects into a psychotic episode. What you have to do is design your experiments to minimize the risk of harm to your subjects, that's all. I don't think little Susie is going to be harmed by questions about masturbation. I would, however, ask her about the survey she filled out, and would try my best to level-headedly discuss the material with her.

The people who wrote the survey and the permission form were probably agonizing over it just as much as the parents were agonizing over what harm their children might have come to through taking the survey.

Any children I raise will be educated about sex by me and my wife or resident boyfriend before they get to first grade. My parents taught me about sex, as had the parents of some of my friends taught their kids; as I compare the people who had The Talk with their parents as little kids, and those who got it much later, the people who had the talk earlier are more secure sexually, less anxious about it, and have fewer accidents.
im sorry, its not appropriate to do experiments on children.

i dont THINK they were doing this as an experiment, i think they were not fully informing the parents so they could get better data for their study.

also not appropriate.

Did they ask? Believe it or not, most decent parents actually review their child's curriculum.
i have no way of knowing how many parents asked, what they were told, or how alarming/accurate the consent letter was.

all i know from the article is that parents werent told about the sex questions.

i have no way of knowing how many parents asked, what they were told, or how alarming/accurate the consent letter was.

all i know from the article is that parents werent told about the sex questions.

Yet you assume that the psychologist, the school district, the California School of Psychology, and the Southern California Children's Bureau deliberately tricked the parents.

You assume the US district court for the Central District of California was wrong.

And you assume the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was wrong.

All without knowing the facts. Don't you feel a bit foolish leaping to such conclusions?

And you assume the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was wrong.

All without knowing the facts. Don't you feel a bit foolish leaping to such conclusions?

The nerve! :eek: Assuming nuttiness from the Ninth Circuit like that.

Couldn't resist that, sorry. :p

i have no way of knowing how many parents asked, what they were told, or how alarming/accurate the consent letter was.

all i know from the article is that parents werent told about the sex questions.

ANd I don't think that those parents cared what questions were on that survey even when warned they might make their children 'uncomfortable' until the dreaded S. E. X. was brought up. It's stunning how parents are willing to put such trust into their school's judgement on any other educational topic, but somehow feel that sex is something that they should be consulted on thoroughly before word one is even uttered.

These parents didn't care enough to find out what was on the questionaire until after the fact, despite the fact that their permission was needed to take it. The school did it's job.

The nerve! :eek: Assuming nuttiness from the Ninth Circuit like that.

Couldn't resist that, sorry. :p

The alleged nuttiness of the Ninth Circuit is pathetic myth.

These parents didn't care enough to find out what was on the questionaire until after the fact, despite the fact that their permission was needed to take it. The school did it's job.

That's what I've been saying about cigarette smokers and that label on the box, but no one will hear me.. :( If you don't do the research to see what you've got coming, you deserve what you get, that's the rule.

That's what I've been saying about cigarette smokers and that label on the box, but no one will hear me.. :( If you don't do the research to see what you've got coming, you deserve what you get, that's the rule.

Especially with warnings out and about. 'you could get cancer! you could get emphysema!'

Hmm...maybe I ought to look into this cancer and emphysema shit before I breathe this toxic smoke in too deply... *rubs chin thoughtfully* ...nah.

I'll give some cigarettes to my toddler. I bet they're loaded with vitamin C. :)

im sorry, its not appropriate to do experiments on children.

i dont THINK they were doing this as an experiment, i think they were not fully informing the parents so they could get better data for their study.

also not appropriate.
D... the fuck?

How else are you going to get data on how children work, or on how many children are abused?

Are you unaware that the ONLY way we know which children have been abused is by observing behaviours that we know, through experiments, are strongly correlated with abuse?

It is important to limit your research for the sake of ethical conduct, but I have no respect and can have no respect for those who stand in the way of research for purely personal grounds. Unless you can propose an ethical defense of your position, it remains personal and therefore irrelevant.

Yet you assume that the psychologist, the school district, the California School of Psychology, and the Southern California Children's Bureau deliberately tricked the parents.

You assume the US district court for the Central District of California was wrong.

And you assume the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was wrong.

All without knowing the facts. Don't you feel a bit foolish leaping to such conclusions?
no i dont

until someone does what i told them i needed and quotes me from the decision, ill go with what the article told me the questions were. the were inappropriate.

D... the fuck?

How else are you going to get data on how children work, or on how many children are abused?

Are you unaware that the ONLY way we know which children have been abused is by observing behaviours that we know, through experiments, are strongly correlated with abuse?

It is important to limit your research for the sake of ethical conduct, but I have no respect and can have no respect for those who stand in the way of research for purely personal grounds. Unless you can propose an ethical defense of your position, it remains personal and therefore irrelevant.

its a parents JOB to protect their children. i would stand in the way of any research that i thought was inappropriate for my child.

ANd I don't think that those parents cared what questions were on that survey even when warned they might make their children 'uncomfortable' until the dreaded S. E. X. was brought up. It's stunning how parents are willing to put such trust into their school's judgement on any other educational topic, but somehow feel that sex is something that they should be consulted on thoroughly before word one is even uttered.

These parents didn't care enough to find out what was on the questionaire until after the fact, despite the fact that their permission was needed to take it. The school did it's job.
i find there to be a big difference between sex education and asking children intimate questions about their personal lives.

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the purpose of the survey. They werent trying to find out which kids had been victims of abuse. They were trying to gather aggregate data on the amount of and types of trauma present in the community so they could establish programs to deal with it. There are no privacy implications in asking kids questions about themselves on a survey that doesnt even have their name on it and will quickly be turned into aggregate data.

Uh... they do... it's called calling your student's teaching and asking... The 9th decision said nothing about parents cannot contact the school and ask questions about what is being taught or brought up in school.

Wait? This came from the 9th Circuit court of Appeals? As in the San Fran court? This will get overturned at the Supreme Court.

Activist judges? Flashbang, boom headshot! Activist is a term used by the rightwing to villainize any judge making a decision you disagree with.

And the liberals say the same exact thing when decisions don't go there way. Hell... they are already calling Alito an activist judge.

no i dont

until someone does what i told them i needed and quotes me from the decision, ill go with what the article told me the questions were. the were inappropriate.


Cat-Tribes provided the decision; it's in plain old English that I can see. I am definitely NOT into legal jargon, but it's laid out without much of that obfuscating language.

Wait? This came from the 9th Circuit court of Appeals? As in the San Fran court? This will get overturned at the Supreme Court.

Yes. The 9th Circuit upheld the district court.

The 9th Circuit is based in San Francisco, but has offices and holds court in many other locations, including 7 other states.

No, it won't be overturned. You haven't even read it yet.

And the liberals say the same exact thing when decisions don't go there way. Hell... they are already calling Alito an activist judge.
And where did they pick up the term?

The alleged nuttiness of the Ninth Circuit is pathetic myth.

Actually, it isn't myth. It would be a myth if they weren't overturned so much. I don't think I would live in a Circuit Court area if I knew that they were the most overturned court in the land.

And the liberals say the same exact thing when decisions don't go there way. Hell... they are already calling Alito an activist judge.

If a panle of judges finds a brand new right protected by the Constitution, it would normally be called an activist court.

With abortion, you find that a problem.

With this case, you don't.

Hmmmm.

Yes. The 9th Circuit upheld the district court.

The 9th Circuit is based in San Francisco, but has offices and holds court in many other locations, including 7 other states.

No, it won't be overturned. You haven't even read it yet.

I'll wait for the Supreme Court thank you.

If a panle of judges finds a brand new right protected by the Constitution, it would normally be called an activist court.

With abortion, you find that a problem.

With this case, you don't.

Hmmmm.

With this, I find that the 9th is taking away rights. Isn't the Constitution supposed to protect rights?

Actually, it isn't myth. It would be a myth if they weren't overturned so much. I don't think I would live in a Circuit Court area if I knew that they were the most overturned court in the land.

Most overturned?

When?

By what measure? Not by number of cases decided versus number overturned.

The Ninth Circuit handles more cases than any other Circuit. It has responsibility for Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, and California.

You can skew the numbers, but they are not the most overturned court every year. Nor is that a particularly meaningful phrase anyway, as it still only means that 1 out of tens of thousands of decisions get overturned.

With this, I find that the 9th is taking away rights. Isn't the Constitution supposed to protect rights?

What right?

Where do you find it in the Constitution?

Where do you find it ever recognized before?

I'll wait for the Supreme Court thank you.

It won't even make it to SCOTUS. More than 99% of cases don't.

no i dont

until someone does what i told them i needed and quotes me from the decision, ill go with what the article told me the questions were. the were inappropriate.
*sighs* I know I'm rewarding lazy behavor, but I have decided that since your postion is not informed and you have stated that you don't care to be informed until someone posts that damn thing fo you to read...



OPINION
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
When parents of schoolchildren in Palmdale, California learned from their sons and daughters that they had been questioned in their public elementary school about sexual topics such as the frequency of “thinking about having sex” and “thinking about touching other peoples’ private parts,” some of them exercised their constitutional right to take their grievance to the courts. The questioning was part of a survey the Palmdale School District was conducting regarding psychological barriers to learning. The parents brought an action in district court against the School District and two of its officials for violating their right to privacy and their right “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex.” They brought both federal and state claims. The district court dismissed the federal causes of action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed the state claims without prejudice to their right to re-file in state court. 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. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. Finally, we hold that the defendants’ actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.
I.
Kristi Seymour 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 Palmdale School District, of which Mesquite was a part, collaborated with the School of Professional Psychology, the Children’s Bureau of Southern California, and Seymour to develop and administer a psychological assessment questionnaire for first, third, and fifth grade students with the announced goal of “establish[ing] a community baseline measure of children’s exposure to early trauma (for example, violence).”
Prior to administering the survey, Seymour mailed a letter to the parents of the children to be surveyed informing them of the questionnaire’s nature and purpose, and requesting their consent to its administration.1 The parental consent letter was enclosed in a School District envelope and was mailed using School District postage. The letter did not explicitly state that some questions involved sexual topics, although it did specify that the survey questions were about “early trauma (for example, violence)” and there was a warning that “answering questions may make [the] child feel uncomfortable.”
After the School District approved the survey, Seymour administered it during school hours at Mesquite Elementary School. She sat with the students, aged seven to ten, while they completed the survey and ensured that they read and responded to each question. The survey included seventy-nine questions testing the frequency that the subjects experienced a variety of sensations, emotions, thoughts, and experiences. It was composed of four questionnaires. The first questionnaire contains fifty-four questions and is copyrighted by Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.2 The children were asked to rate the following activities, among others, on a scale from “never” to “almost all the time”: “Bad dreams or nightmares,” “Feeling dizzy,” “Wanting to yell at people,” “Wanting to hurt other people,” “Trying not to have feelings,” “Can’t stop thinking about something bad that happened to me,” and “Wanting to kill myself.” Ten of those questions were about sexual subjects.3 The second part of the survey is labeled “Bialer-Cromwell LC Scale (Modified).”4 These questions concentrate on the child subject’s perception of other people and the external world. The third part follows the same format as Bialer-Cromwell, but the questions focus upon the children’s past traumatic experiences. Among the questions are the following: Have you ever “[B]een threatened or chased by a gang?”, “Seen someone get shot?”, “Been in a car accident?”, “Been touched by someone, on your body, that made your feel uncomfortable?”, and “Know[n] anyone who has or is being abused?” The final part is limited to demographic information such as the student’s grade, race, and familial living arrangement.
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. Prior to filing in federal court, the parents initially sought redress for their alleged injuries through an administrative tort claim filed with the Palmdale School Board. Therein, they alleged that their “basic constitutional right to control” their children’s upbringing had been “robbed” by the defendants’ actions. Their claim was denied and they subsequently filed a complaint in district court alleging four causes of action: (1) violation of their federal constitutional right to privacy; (2) violation of their California constitutional right to privacy; (3) deprivation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (4) negligence. The parents sought damages and injunctive relief.
Defendant Michael Geisser is the Palmdale School District’s Director of Psychological Services, and Arland Atwood is the principal of Mesquite Elementary School; both Atwood and Geisser are sued in their official capacities.5 The defendants did not file an answer to the complaint. Instead, they moved under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the entire action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. They asserted that there is no deeply rooted and fundamental right of parents “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs.” They further contended that the § 1983 claim was not viable because the parents’ civil rights had not been violated and that even if they had, the School District is immune from suit and the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Finally, they argued that they are not liable under California law because their actions were discretionary and state law immunity applies.
The parents countered that the administration of the survey violated their constitutional privacy right as well as their right to control their children’s exposure to sexual subjects, that the defendants arrogated unto themselves the parents’ right to determine how their children learn about sexual matters, and that the defendants are not immune from suit.
After holding a hearing on the motion, the district court dismissed the federal claims for “lack of a cognizable legal theory.” In doing so, it first recharacterized the parents’ privacy claim as a substantive due process claim because “all of the Parents’ arguments concerning the claim are grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Substantive Due Process Clause.
Other than citing generally to privacy cases outside the Fourteenth Amendment’s scope, the Parents do not connect their asserted interest . . . to the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, or Tenth Amendments.” The court ruled next that the right “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs” does not rise to the level of a fundamental right protected by Substantive Due Process. It further concluded that the fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of one’s children does not encompass the right “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs.” Finally, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law causes of action and dismissed them without prejudice. The parents now appeal.
...
We note at the outset that it is not our role to rule on the wisdom of the School District’s actions. That is a matter that must be decided in other fora. 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. It is clear, and the parents agree, that no court has ever held that parents have a specific fundamental right “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs.” In fact, no such specific right can be found in the deep roots of the nation’s history and tradition or implied in the concept of ordered liberty. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21 (1997). 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.
[1] The parents next argue that the right they seek to invoke is encompassed within the fundamental due process right to “control the education and upbringing of one’s children.” The Supreme Court has held that the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000) (plurality opinion) (“[I]t cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.”).
This right is commonly referred to as the Meyer-Pierce right because it finds its origin in two Supreme Court cases, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
[2] 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 [by the state] in the public interest.” Id. at 166. 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.” Id. (footnotes omitted). See also Runyon v. McCrary,
...
Finally, there are a number of cases that have upheld the constitutionality of school programs that educate children in sexuality and health. See, e.g., Leebaert v. Harrington, 332 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2003) (upholding school district’s mandatory health classes against a father’s claim of a violation of his fundamental rights); Parents United for Better Sch., Inc. v. School Dist. of Philadelphia Bd. of Educ., 148 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 1998) (upholding school district’s consensual condom distribution program); Brown v. Hot, Sexy & Safer Prods., Inc., 68 F.3d 525 (1st Cir. 1995) (upholding compulsory high school sex education assembly program); Citizens for Parental Rights v. San Mateo County Bd. of Educ., 51 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1975) (upholding school district’s non-compulsory health and sex education program against parental challenge).
[3] Of particular import to this case is Brown, in which a compulsory high school assembly presentation aimed at educating students on AIDS and other health concerns included explicit references to sexuality. See 68 F.3d at 529. The Brown plaintiffs alleged that the compelled attendance of schoolchildren at the assembly deprived the minors and their parents of their privacy rights, substantive due process rights, and their right to an educational environment free from sexual harassment. Rejecting those claims, the First Circuit explained that, [t]he Meyer and Pierce cases, we think, evince the principle that the state cannot prevent parents from choosing a specific educational program — whether it be religious instruction at a private school or instruction in a foreign language. That is, 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.
We cannot see that the Constitution imposes such a burden on state educational systems, and accordingly find that the rights of parents as described by Meyer and Pierce do not encompass a broad-based right to restrict the flow of information in the public schools.
Id. at 533-34 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). We agree with and adopt the First Circuit’s analysis. Meyer, Pierce, and their progeny “evince the principle that the state cannot prevent parents from choosing a specific educational program,” but they do not afford parents 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 it is appropriate to do so. Neither Meyer nor Pierce provides support for the view that parents have a right to prevent a school from providing any kind of information — sexual or otherwise — to its students.
...
The parents offer two arguments with respect to our rational basis review. First, the complaint alleges on information and belief that there was no legitimate governmental purpose to the survey and that it was undertaken in order to benefit Seymour’s academic career. The allegation is entirely speculative and conclusory in nature. No facts are offered in support of the parents’ theory. Although in other circumstances we might dismiss such an allegation with leave to amend, it is apparent here that such a dismissal could not in the end aid the parents in stating a claim. Attached to the complaint is detailed information setting forth the legitimate governmental purpose of the survey and explaining with specificity how the information obtained will be used for educational purposes and how it will ultimately benefit the School District and its children. Given the inclusion in the complaint of this specific information establishing the legitimacy of the School District’s action, we must, even for purposes of a motion to dismiss, approach the application of the rational basis test from the premise that the School District had a legitimate educational purpose in undertaking the survey.
The parents also argue that the survey cannot pass review because it was not a part of the school’s curriculum, and information regarding sexual matters may be conveyed only as part of a student’s academic studies. The curriculum argument also fails. First, neither education itself nor the legitimate functions of a public school are limited to the curriculum. See Blau discussed supra at pp. 15075-76 and adopted herein. Such a view construes too narrowly the aims of education and fails to recognize the unique role that it plays in American society. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 221 (1982) (stating that public education is not “merely some governmental ‘benefit’ indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation”); Sch. Dist. of Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 230 (1963) (Brennan, J., concurring) (calling public education “a most vital civic institution for the preservation of a democratic system of government”). One need review only the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), for a reminder of the state’s compelling interest in the broad ends of education, the scope of which extend far beyond “curriculum”:
Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society.
It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship.
Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.
...
III.
In summary, we hold that there is no free-standing fundamental right of parents “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs” and that the asserted right is not encompassed by any other fundamental right. In doing so, we do not quarrel with the parents’ right to inform and advise their children about the subject of sex as they see fit. We conclude only that the parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any forum or manner they select. We further hold that a psychological survey is a reasonable state action pursuant to legitimate educational as well as health and welfare interests of the state. Accordingly, the parent-appellants have failed to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted. The decision of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
1The letter states:
“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.
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.
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 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.

2Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. is a leading publisher of
assessment instruments, software, books, and other related materials. See
http://www.parinc.com (last visited Aug. 16, 2005).
3The sexual references are:
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
4The Bialer-Cromwell Locus of Control Scale is a 23-item, “yes-no”
questionnaire that measures the extent to which a child construes outcomes
as being consequential to his own actions (i.e., internally controlled)
rather than due to the whims and/or manipulations of fate, chance,
or other people (i.e., externally controlled).

What right?

Parental rights.

Where do you find it in the Constitution?

Where do you find half the crap in the Constitution.

Where do you find it ever recognized before?

I could ask you the same thing on many issues.

Parental rights.



Where do you find half the crap in the Constitution.



I could ask you the same thing on many issues.

You dodged my questions.

Where are "parental rights" in the Constitution? More importantly, where is the specific parental right asked for in this case?

Wouldn't it be activist to suddenly decide that there was the new right asked for in this case existed?

Feel free to challenge me to point to the legal basis for cases I agree with.

(BTW, you really should read the decision before going further out on a limb.)

Parental rights.
The 9th answered that pretty well, nor is the 9th orgininating the limit of parental rights, they based their ruling on SCOTUS and 1st Circut cases.

2Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. is a leading publisher of
assessment instruments, software, books, and other related materials. See
http://www.parinc.com (last visited Aug. 16, 2005).
3The sexual references are:
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
4The Bialer-Cromwell Locus of Control Scale is a 23-item, “yes-no”
questionnaire that measures the extent to which a child construes outcomes
as being consequential to his own actions (i.e., internally controlled)
rather than due to the whims and/or manipulations of fate, chance,
or other people (i.e., externally controlled).

Perfectly normal questions to be asking 6 and 8-year olds, right? :rolleyes:

Still, I agree that this sort of activity should be controlled at the local level, rather than by the courts.. local ordinances and state laws are written for a reason, and they can be written to enforce more specific disclosure of psych exams on kids. You gotta ask yourself what kind of braindead administrator thought this was appropriate for 1st Graders.. but that's why we have school board elections and such.. the least heavy-handed approach to stop this kind of thing is the best, I would think.

Perfectly normal questions to be asking 6 and 8-year olds, right? :rolleyes:

The first questionnaire contains fifty-four questions and is copyrighted by Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.2 The children were asked to rate the following activities, among others, on a scale from “never” to “almost all the time”: “Bad dreams or nightmares,” “Feeling dizzy,” “Wanting to yell at people,” “Wanting to hurt other people,” “Trying not to have feelings,” “Can’t stop thinking about something bad that happened to me,” and “Wanting to kill myself.” Ten of those questions were about sexual subjects.3 The second part of the survey is labeled “Bialer-Cromwell LC Scale (Modified).”4 These questions concentrate on the child subject’s perception of other people and the external world. The third part follows the same format as Bialer-Cromwell, but the questions focus upon the children’s past traumatic experiences. Among the questions are the following: Have you ever “[b]een threatened or chased by a gang?”, “Seen someone get shot?”, “Been in a car accident?”, “Been touched by someone, on your body, that made your feel uncomfortable?”, and “Know[n] anyone who has or is being abused?” The final part is limited to demographic information such as the student’s grade, race, and familial living arrangement.
Looks like good questions to me to test for trauma, which was the purpose of the study.

Looks like good questions to me to test for trauma, which was the purpose of the study.

I don't care how effective the test is.. you give it to kids when you've got some kind of probable cause or odd behavior, not an entire student population. And not at that age. You can test for a thousand dangerous mental conditions, but you don't test everyone. You test individuals that seem hyper- or hypo- sexual or social, not every student, if the tests are as personal and confusing to most kids at that age as this one was. But like I was saying, taking it to the courts might've been overkill.. this should've been dealt with locally as far as I can tell.

I don't care how effective the test is.. you give it to kids when you've got some kind of probable cause or odd behavior, not an entire student population. And not at that age. You can test for a thousand dangerous mental conditions, but you don't test everyone. You test individuals that seem hyper- or hypo- sexual or social, not every student, if the tests are as personal and confusing to most kids at that age as this one was. But like I was saying, taking it to the courts might've been overkill.. this should've been dealt with locally as far as I can tell.

But what you are talking about wouldn't be the useful data the school district wanted.

You are talking about identifying specific kids with trauma.

This was an anonymous study of the amount of trauma. It was to provide background data necessary for the kind of individualized treatment that you advocate.

At least we agree there wasn't a constitutional right violated merely by giving the survey with the parent's consent.

I don't care how effective the test is.. you give it to kids when you've got some kind of probable cause or odd behavior, not an entire student population. And not at that age. You can test for a thousand dangerous mental conditions, but you don't test everyone. You test individuals that seem hyper- or hypo- sexual or social, not every student, if the tests are as personal and confusing to most kids at that age as this one was. But like I was saying, taking it to the courts might've been overkill.. this should've been dealt with locally as far as I can tell.
You answered yourself the reason for this. As stated in the court's decision, this was to provide a statistical view of how many children may have had trama within the area to arrange for services to be created should the need be there. They didn't test everyone, they didn't even test every student, they performed a baseline because states tend to not want to set up treatment or services unless there is a need in the area. The survey did not identify students and wasn't meant to, according to the decision.

Once the services were there, then actual identification could take place with much finer tools than the ones mentioned above.

Research wise, it's sound and valid.

You answered yourself the reason for this. As stated in the court's decision, this was to provide a statistical view of how many children may have had trama within the area to arrange for services to be created should the need be there. They didn't test everyone, they didn't even test every student, they performed a baseline because states tend to not want to set up treatment or services unless there is a need in the area. The survey did not identify students and wasn't meant to, according to the decision.

Once the services were there, then actual identification could take place with much finer tools than the ones mentioned above.

Research wise, it's sound and valid.

Yes, well.. I just read the survey myself and I don't feel victimized or confused or embarassed, etc. But I'm not six or eight years old. I'm not saying that research into sexual trauma should never be done, only that it should be done among more mature kids. Approaching kids when they're old enough not to require a waiver to take part, for example, would yield more accurate results anyway, since the terms are more easily understood, and they couldn't be exempted by abusive or concerned parents in any case. Most of the questions on the survey have nothing to do with abuse in any case, and I know I'd have had no idea what most of them meant in the first grade. It seems to me like the agency responsible was looking for false positives, cooking up a headline.. but that's speculation.

Yes, well.. I just read the survey myself and I don't feel victimized or confused or embarassed, etc. But I'm not six or eight years old. I'm not saying that research into sexual trauma should never be done, only that it should be done among more mature kids. Approaching kids when they're old enough not to require a waiver to take part, for example, would yield more accurate results anyway, since the terms are more easily understood, and they couldn't be exempted by abusive or concerned parents in any case. Most of the questions on the survey have nothing to do with abuse in any case, and I know I'd have had no idea what most of them meant in the first grade. It seems to me like the agency responsible was looking for false positives, cooking up a headline.. but that's speculation.
Such children would be over 18, not to mention it would be years later and therefore much harder to help any trama.

Yes, well.. I just read the survey myself and I don't feel victimized or confused or embarassed, etc. But I'm not six or eight years old. I'm not saying that research into sexual trauma should never be done, only that it should be done among more mature kids. Approaching kids when they're old enough not to require a waiver to take part, for example, would yield more accurate results anyway, since the terms are more easily understood, and they couldn't be exempted by abusive or concerned parents in any case. Most of the questions on the survey have nothing to do with abuse in any case, and I know I'd have had no idea what most of them meant in the first grade. It seems to me like the agency responsible was looking for false positives, cooking up a headline.. but that's speculation.
But if the hope is to find a statistical regression of side effects of sexual abuse you need to find the trend at the age you are looking att applying the regression formula at

Simply states if you are looking to find the stats of how sexual abuse statisticaly shows itself at lets say age 8 you need to find out information from that age if you hope to use the information to detect a trend in other 8 year olds

Such children would be over 18, not to mention it would be years later and therefore much harder to help any trama.
Exactly if you are looking at using this information to help young kids you have to get the information from young kids to have the regression be anything neer acurate (therefore making that regression more of a help in detecting trauma)

Such children would be over 18, not to mention it would be years later and therefore much harder to help any trama.

I'm pretty sure you can get away with giving voluntary tests to minors past a certain age.. just as a child can choose his or her custodian past age 12 or 14, depending on their state of residence, minors can elect do take exams at different ages last I knew. If not, that can be changed. But in any case, if the goal is to treat trauma, give the test to kids exhibiting some kind of sign of trauma. If the goal is to obtain data, ask kids who are old enough and articulate enough to understand the terminology in context. At six years old, you'll agree to just about anything an authority figure tells you.

I'm pretty sure you can get away with giving voluntary tests to minors past a certain age.. just as a child can choose his or her custodian past age 12 or 14, depending on their state of residence, minors can elect do take exams at different ages last I knew. If not, that can be changed. But in any case, if the goal is to treat trauma, give the test to kids exhibiting some kind of sign of trauma. If the goal is to obtain data, ask kids who are old enough and articulate enough to understand the terminology in context. At six years old, you'll agree to just about anything an authority figure tells you.
The problem is how do we define what is or is not signs of trama at age 8?

By geting statistical data for what the "norm" is and then finding out which predictors and in what strength indicate a past of trauma

To do this you NEED A SURVEY JUST LIKE THEY WERE DOING

The problem is how do we define what is or is not signs of trama at age 8?


There are already a number of ways.. we're not operating in a vacuum here.. decades of research have been done, and, although more research is better than less, as I've been saying, my opinion is simply that we shouldn't be doing invasive sexual profiles on six-year-olds when we have alternatives of any kind.

http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/welcome/commonproblems/child_abuse.html
http://www.helpguide.org/mental/child_abuse_physical_emotional_sexual_neglect.htm

Every class I've taken in criminology or psychology has had some kind of mention of the signs of child neglect or abuse, from burning objects to hyper-sexuality.. I think we should be expanding our knowledge of the topic by experimenting on less impressionable kids, that's all.

There are already a number of ways.. we're not operating in a vacuum here.. decades of research have been done, and, although more research is better than less, as I've been saying, my opinion is simply that we shouldn't be doing invasive sexual profiles on six-year-olds when we have alternatives of any kind.

http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/welcome/commonproblems/child_abuse.html
http://www.helpguide.org/mental/child_abuse_physical_emotional_sexual_neglect.htm

Every class I've taken in criminology or psychology has had some kind of mention of the signs of child neglect or abuse, from burning objects to hyper-sexuality.. I think we should be expanding our knowledge of the topic by experimenting on less impressionable kids, that's all.
And how did THEY get thoes age specific indicators

Let me guess surveys at the rough ages they were attempting to get the inicators for

Which is exactly why we should be continuing to attempt to get this information ... it might lead us to determin another predictor that reduces the SSE of the model

And how did THEY get thoes age specific indicators

Let me guess surveys at the rough ages they were attempting to get the inicators for

Which is exactly why we should be continuing to attempt to get this information ... it might lead us to determin another predictor that reduces the SSE of the model

Unfortunately, there's no shortage of abused kids.. we have plenty available to monitor for behavioral patterns without going into public schools where, apparently, some parents felt mislead as to the intentions of the study. But methodology is going to vary by intent, yes? Anyhow.. I suggest more specific disclosure be given to the parents, say, the questions that will be asked, for example. Have them sign off on it. That way, we avoid the ugliness we saw in this case. I wasn't arguing that it should be ruled unconstitutional to do the studies, but that parents should more actively control this sort of thing through local measures. I'd hope that's possible without bringing the judiciary into it.

Unfortunately, there's no shortage of abused kids.. we have plenty available to monitor for behavioral patterns without going into public schools where, apparently, some parents felt mislead as to the intentions of the study. But methodology is going to vary by intent, yes? Anyhow.. I suggest more specific disclosure be given to the parents, say, the questions that will be asked, for example. Have them sign off on it. That way, we avoid the ugliness we saw in this case. I wasn't arguing that it should be ruled unconstitutional to do the studies, but that parents should more actively control this sort of thing through local measures. I'd hope that's possible without bringing the judiciary into it.
You can only find the outliers by finding the baseline

By finding a better regressionional model of a baseline in the general population the more accurate you can judge predictor variables

Meaning the more data (specialy if it leads to a hevy reducing of the sequensial SSE) the better we are able to find people "differing" from the norm

We may be able to find kids that either dont show many of the predictors (or in weeker strength) or early on in their abuse

but that can ONLY be done by geting a good baseline for the agegroup

It can NOT be done by by sampling only thoes exposed to abuse

In fact even geting permissionslips introduces bias to the study reducing its effectiveness (not promoting doing it without permission just stating a fact)