SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court dismissed a lawsuit by elementary school parents who were outraged that the Palmdale School District 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."

The plaintiffs had sought unspecified monetary damages.

In upholding a lower court that had also ruled against the parents, a three-judge panel of the appeals court here dismissed the case, ruling unanimously that "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."

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the San Francisco-based panel, added that "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."

The appellate panel noted that other courts have upheld similar issues, including mandatory health classes, a school district's condom distribution program and a district's compulsory sex education program.

The district's attorney, Dennis Walsh, said the survey was not to sexually exploit children but instead was part of a legitimate program to help students.

The district, located in Los Angeles County, had dropped the survey in 2002 amid complaints from parents. The poll was given to children in the first, third and fifth grades.

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.

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.''

The case is Fields v. Palmdale School District, 03-56499.


Now the federal courts want to tell me, as a parent that because my kid may go to a public school that I don't have the sole right as my childs parent to be the exclusive provider of sexual information for my child? :rolleyes:

Yet the school decieved the parents by not providing any information about the sexual questions on the consent slip.


DS

This - in the first and third grade?
How disgusting!
I'd choose another school for my children!

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.

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.''

Did the consent form mention other topics which would be included in the survey, and, if so, what are/were they?

Presumably, this was some type of program designed by psychologists or something, who thought that the answere to these questions had value in creating the program.

Were the children surveyed among those who have been exposed to early trauma and suffering from barriers to learning?

If these were "normal" elementary school children being surveyed about their attitudes towards sex for no particular reason, I'd say that it's none of the school's business.

But if these children are learning disabled in some way, and the parents consented to their participation in the program without knowing any of the details - in other words, it would be different if all the details of the program were divulged except the "sex survey" -
then I have no problem with it.

Without knowing the answers to the above, I find it hard to offer an opinion.

As I understand it, this is not about "sex education", it's about designing a program to help children with learning disabilities, which, apparently, sexual thoughts may have something do with even in the third grade.

BTW, Don Smitty.....Are you against sex education in public schools?

You raise some legitimate questions on the school program's consent form itself Plaw.

But how about a court of law deciding that you, as a parent, do NOT have the sole right to teach your children about sex?

Personally I think that the court's decision is outrageous. What next, a parent doesn't have the sole right to dicipline their kids?

Governors holding inmates for longer periods than the original sentencing, courts telling parents that they have no say in their elementary school aged children learning about or not learning about sex.

Who the hell do these judges think they are telling me that I do not have the sole right as a parent to decided if my young child should or should not learn abour sex?

Slippery Slope.


Don Cardi

Does that mean that you are against sex education in public schools.

I'd agree that third grade is too early for it, because i don't think the children's level of understanding is high enough.

But in general, at a later stage, you don't think that public schools should provide sex education?

Thats not the issue here Plaw. The issue here is if a court of law has the right to tell me or you as a parent that we don't have the sole right to teach our kids about sex. That's the issue. Not if I believe in sex education or not.

The questions that were asked of kids this age were not right. I don't want my 2nd or 3rd grade child to be asked how many times a day she thinks of sex and stuff like that. Would you?


DS

Yes I would, if my child had a learning disability of some kind and had been placed in a program designed to treat it, in which a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist thought that the answers to those questions had value in helping to treat my child.

Perhaps the cause of the learning disabilty was an unhealthy and inappropriate preoccupation with sex, and only by obtaining the answers to these questions could it be identified and treated properly.

Regarding sex education.....

Am I wrong to assume that if you wish to have the exclusive right to teach your child about sex, which you seem to imply unless I misunderstand you, that you are against sex education in a public school?

You can'y have it both ways. You either have the exclusive right, or you don't.

Yes I do. At a later stage of course. Not to elementary school aged children though. Too soon. But that's another topic. As DS said, that is not the issue. The court telling us as parents that we cannot be the sole teachers of sex to our children is what disturbs me. Slippery Slope


Don Cardi

So let me see if I understand your argument here, DC.

You favor sex education in public schools, but at a later age than third grade, as I do.

But on the other hand, you feel that parents should have the exclusive right to teach their children about sex.

I guess those parents have to send their kids to private school then, because I don't see how you can have it both ways.

You know what happens when you assume Plaw? You make and ASS out of U and ME ?

I don't see anything wrong in the teaching of sex education later on in the upper middle school grades.

This court thing bothers me because they made this ruling that I do not have the sole right to teach my elementary school aged kid about sex. They made this decision based on a case that involves elementary aged kids.
:rolleyes:


DS

Well, I'm glad we finally all agree, then.

Upper middle school - what is that, 8th or 9th grade?

I think that's too late, though. These days, by that age, kids are already having sex.

I think about 6th grade - age eleven - is about right.

Plaw, do I need to spell it out for you?

This case troubles me because I do not believe that a court of law should have made this decision based on the case presented to them that concerned elementary school children. IMO the court should not have the right to tell me as a parent that I do NOT have the authority to decided if I should be the sole educator when it comes to things like teaching about sex, for my elementary grade child.

Asking first grade school children how often they think of sex, and other sexual related questions is outrageous. I am the parent of that child and no one should EVER have the right, without my consent, to ask my 1st grade child, a 6 year old, if the think about sex. No one should ever have the right to even bring up the subject of sex to my 6 year old child. Because if they do, then you guys will be arguing back and forth about my right to a fair trial, and my being innocent till proven guilty because of the action that I took against some sicko teacher, doctor or whomever that talked about sex to my 6 year old child. Just because a person is licensed as a proffessional, does not mean that they know what's best for MY child. We see many incidents in the news involving outrageous acts by so called professionals. I'll be the judge of who is capable and who is not capable of making decisions about if and when something like sex should be taught to MY child.

A court of law saying that it is ok for someone else besides a parent to ask a 6 year old questions about sex. :rolleyes:





Don Cardi

I agree with you about sex education for such young children.

But as I said earlier, apparently these questions were not asked as part of "sex education", but as a part of a program to help children with learning disabilities.

If my child had a learning disability of some kind and had been placed in a program designed to treat it, in which a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist thought that the answers to those questions had value in helping to treat my child, I'd have no objection..

Perhaps the cause of the learning disabilty was an unhealthy and inappropriate preoccupation with sex, and only by obtaining the answers to these questions could it be identified and treated properly.

Would you object to that, if that was the context in which the questions were asked? Seemingly, that was the case here.

Or would you prefer that this area remain unexplored with your child and, if it was possibly the cause of the learning disability, having the disability remain unidentified and untreated?

If they were part of a sex education program or not, doesn't really matter. It was inapropriate not to inform the parents of such young children that sex questions would be a part of the program. As a matter of fact had they sent a consent form home aksing permission from the parent to ask questions to the children as part of a sex education study, then at least the parents would have known that sex would be in the content of those questions. As it sounds right now, nothing was ever mentioned in the letter about sex questions.


And suppose you did object and the court told you that it is not your right to object, that the school can go against you as a parent, that they could decide what is best for YOUR child instead of you? Then how would you feel as a parent?

Again, I'd prefer that I, ME, THE FATHER, make the decision of if I, ME, THE FATHER feels that the program is appropriate and was going to help my child. NOT some judge sitting in some court, not some phsyciatrist, not some phsycologist. It is MY decision to make, not theirs.


I wonder how you would have reacted had this news story said that President Bush proposed that a law be passed taking away the sole right of a parent to decide if their child is old enough to be questioned about sex by someone else? For some strange reason I think that you would be singing your SLIPPERY SLOPE tune all over these boards!




Don Cardi

I support the court's decision.

Care to tell us why you think that the court has the right to tell a parent that someone else can ask their 6 year old son or daughter questions about sex? It may be good to hear the view of someone who does not have a child.


Don Cardi

I agree with Don Cardi and Smitty here. If the parents knew about what was going to be asked, they would have the option to discuss this with the school or in the extreme case, not send their children to the school. It really doesn't matter whether those questions would have helped to identify some cause for slow learning.

If I am correct in assuming that the questions were asked only as a part of the program described above, then that should have been disclosed to the parents prior to their being asked to gibe consent to their chold's participation in the program, as, in fact, all aspects of the program should have been.

If this - or any other part of the program which the parents could have possibly found objectionable - was disclosed after the fact, then upon finding out the parents presumably would have the right to withdraw their child from the program if they had any problem with it.

I don't think that the judge's ruling meant that the parents were rquired to keep their child in a special program which they found objectionable.

As I said in my first post, there are too many unanswered questions in this 350 word article to really discuss this properly.

The whole thing hinges on whether or not the parents knew in advance. the fact that they were required to sign a consent form at the outset would indicate that they were not required to keep their child in the program.

My guess, based on the lawsuit, is that they did not know in advance, and if that is the case then I think the judge's ruling was wrong, although I would question whether or not the parents were entitled to any compensatory damages.

It would depend, I think, on just how much about the program was disclosed in the consent form.

If it was a blanket form in which the parents agreed to allow their child participate, I don't think they have much of a case.

But if some aspects of the program were disclosed while others were withheld, then that's a different story.

Even if it was a blanket form, I think they have a case. It is really not obvious for the parents to expect that the questionairre would contain questions related to sex because the kids were really young. They would have no case if it was an obvious thing. But in this case it is not so obvious, maybe this is the very first time some school might have experimented this idea.
Even by your argument, if those sexual questions indeed help identifying some cause of learning disabilities, this is definitely a new technique. Before the school introduces the new technique(let's assume some researcher has come up with a paper that explains this new technique) on the kids, they could have informed the parents that they are planning on some new technique which will help their kids. I think that it is common sense to assume that some parents may have objections to it. The hypothetical researcher who wrote paper must have mentioned the possible roadblocks (parents objecting) in implementing the new technique, as is required of any standard scientific publishing. The school authorities must analyze the pros and cons of the new technique and then choose to include it in their current year's program.

Why do we bother to raise our children at all? Why don't we just turn them over to the state since they are better able to determine what's best for them? If we kept them at home we might not ask them about sex when they are 6 years old, or even worse, we could have them saying the pledge of allegiance and believing in God. What if they were taught the 10 commandments? Oh shit, they might even learn that there is a difference between right and wrong.

Let me say this just one more time, Marlon....

From what I understand from the limited information provided in this article is that these questions were not asked as part of "sex education", but as a part of a program to help children with learning disabilities.

Children with learning disabilities of some kind and had been placed in a program designed to treat it, in which a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist thought that the answers to those questions had value in helping to treat the child.

Perhaps the cause of the learning disabilty was an unhealthy and inappropriate preoccupation with sex, and only by obtaining the answers to these questions could it be identified and treated properly.

This is not a case of the government attemting to tell parents how to raise their children or telling parents what is best for their child.

The program was voluntary. The parents objection, and it is a valid one, was that the children would be surveyed about sex, which was not disclosed in the consent form.

What is the general age of kids to start having sex in the USA?
I presume there is also a difference between the bible belt and the coasts in this age...

"This is not a case of the government attemting to tell parents how to raise their children or telling parents what is best for their child."

It's not? The parents went to such lengths to hire a lawyer, file suit against the school system, and a judge told them they had no right to tell the school system they did not want them asking their 6 year olds about sex.

How is this NOT telling parents what is best for their kids?

Because this was a voluntary program.

The parents signed a consent form allowing their children to participate.

Their complaint, apparently, is that the aspects of the program involving sex were not disclosed.

You can assume that, because had they been disclosed, then any parents with an objection would not have consented.

I understand that, but is this really voluntary? They did this without telling the parents what the subject of the survey was to be, or if they did, they forgot to mention the sex part.

I would rerally like to know exactly what was asked and how.

If there was a consent form involved, that would mean that it was voluntary, wouldn't it?

And I agree with you, and it's what I've been saying all along:

We really don't have enough information here.

I was taught sex education in school in the 5th grade. I never had one of those talks from my parents. Oddly enough, I knew about it in the third grade. I even learned what a "dilto" was in the 4th grade from other kids telling me. :p

My parents never said shit to me. I read where babies come from in a book when I was 8.

They were debating this on FoxNews last nite. From what I understand, the school contracted some outside psychological group for this survey, and didn't bother to read the survey. Neither did the parents, who approved it with consent forms.

While I disagree with the survey, especially with regards to such young children and sexual matters, the parents signatures and the schools ignorance essentially doom their argument. If anything, I would think the parents would be better served going after those in the district who approved the survey without even reviewing or reading it first...

Certainly these schools, while claiming to have some kind of sovereign jurisdiction, are subject to the parents because it is their tax dollars that pay for the school.

---

As far as sex education goes, I know we had "health" in 7th grade, so that would be about...12/13 years of age. I mean, by then, we had a pretty fair idea that girls weren't wearing ballons underneath their shirts and there was a reason they got different bathrooms than the boys.

I think 13-14 is about the right age to begin sex education because this is when they really begin to be exposed to the culture of sex and illicit (or perhaps "unwholesome" ?) messages from the media and their peers. My parents didn't fool me with any stork stories or the cabbage patch - I understood that it took a sperm and an egg from a relatively early age, about 5 or 6.

I think that sex education is important in our schools, but that the schools should still respect the rights of parents to be...well...parents. In high school we had more advanced "health" classes which were mandatory and covered a broad spectrum of topics throughout the semester including exercise, drug abuse and alcoholism, and sex/birth control. As the stork/cabbage patch arguments prove, many parents are either too nervous or unwilling to disclose the truth to their children, which, down the road, can lead to misconceptions which are dangerous when pre-teens and teens begin to experiment is sexual behavior. It is how "lore" like douching with a carbonated beverage is still considered by many to be a legitimate form of birth control.

Therefore, I think it is vital that schools provide a cursory survey of sex education and birth control so that we can prepare our youth. It should be done in a respectful and tasteful manner, but certainly not designed to insult their intelligence (can you all say "penis?" *snicker*).

I'm gld we cleared some of that up.

I've often expressed my bewilderment (Here? In other threads? Who even remembers anymore?) about why so many Americans are "uptight" about sex.

But the fact is that they are, and I think that a parent who does not want their learning-disabled third grader surveyed about their attitudes towards sex - regardless of how important the identification of those attitudes may be in treating the disablitity - obviously has the right to have their wishes respected.

I would only suggest that perhaps -just perhaps - it's the parents very attitude about sex, unspoken or not, which may be part of the problem.

Anyway, the only thing that remains here is an absence of the judge's complete decision. The article, I think, doesn't really go into enough detail to intelligently discuss its merits.

As far as sex education goes, there's sex education, and then there's sex education.

I don't have a problem teaching how human reproduction works at age ten or eleven or so. I think the kids are old enough to understand it at that age, and by then many of them have probably picked up a great deal of mis-information, which can be clarified.

"Advanced" sex education is a bit trickier, though.

I believe that there is a real possibility that "too much" information can encourage youngsters to experiment, which is obviously not desirable.

Same argument as handing out free condoms in schools, which is probably a good topic for another thread.