Yours is only the second reference I have noted to the Fields v. Palmdale ruling by the 9th Circuit, and I wrote the other at Pennywit's new Multifaria site. At issue in the Fields case was a rather lengthy and explicit sexual survey of 7 to 10 year olds done by the school. The parents, who had to authorize their children's participation in the survey, were not told the true nature of the explicit questions being asked. To have included children so young in such a survey is one thing. But to have done so under clearly and willfully false pretenses, begs the question of whether or not the schools ought to have sought the parents' permission at all. The court seems to have removed any question about parental objection to anything the public school system propses for its students, or parental notificaion, for that matter.

At both the trial and appelate levels, the courts have gone well beyond the more narrow questions raised by the plaintiffs, clearly in an effort to not just re-enforce the legal protections afforded by law to the school system(s), but to insulate their behaviour from future such lawsuits as well. The basic question of parental permission for such a survey would seem to have been made largely moot by the 9th Circuit ruling.

The same court has now stated unequivocably that while it perfectly acceptable to expose 7 year olds to sexual materials without the informed consent of their parents, it is not acceptable to expose them to prayer in school or the Pledge of Allegiance... with or without parental input.

Let me be clear, first, that I think that what the school did here was appalling. In fact, I think it was not only low treatment of the parents, but borderline abusive of the students.

I do wonder why the parents didn't ask for a copy of the survey before giving their consent, since the school did say that the questions might make children "uncomfortable". It is a shame that the 9th Circuit's decision stepped past the boundaries of this case, in one sense, but I am glad to have the matter clearly and unequivocally put forward: the parents have no rights in the determination of what children will learn or be exposed to in public school. Without such a clear message, it's a lot easier to fool onesself into thinking one has some control. With such a clear message, there is the potential for parents to demand relief where it can be properly given: in the legislature. (Or at the school board, in a less sweeping way.)

The Pledge of Allegiance case, by the way, was particularly badly decided by the 9th Circus. And they get that nickname for a reason.

Jeff,

Thank you for your well written post, and your reasoned defense of the court. The blogosphere should be about open and honest debate. Your post definitely made me think. I thank you for putting this out.

That said, your reasoning is sickening beyond reasoning.

Your view is nauseating, judicially spurious, against the tide of politics, socially dangerous, and thought-provoking.

I will attempt to come up with something more cogent tomorrow.

Dan, I look forward to your post.

Before you get too far into things, though, consider this: I homeschool my children. This is in part because I cannot abide the thought of the State raising my children.

Yet legally, the 9th Circuit's decision is the only possible outcome given the current system of education, which is nauseating, against the tide of politics and socially dangerous. (Don't even get me started on child welfare, which is the probable underpinning of the survey that caused this case.) But there we are, and the court did the right thing as the law now stands.

Jeff, the problem is that when you say:

"Government-run schools do not exist to serve the parents, but to serve the State."

and

"Whatever the purpose here ... the government has a near-absolute right to control what your children do, see, learn and are exposed to ..."

to people who don't know you that read this post, they won't necessarily understand that you think this is not a good thing. I see how it could be misinterpreted as your support of blatant socialism.

Apologies for the tardy reply -- I may or may not be sued soon.

http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/11/05/censored-by-nationmaster-in-retaliation-for-a-negative-revie.html