Do parents’ rights end at schoolhouse gate? Teenscreen SOS etc

[Guest guest]

http://www.wmicentral.com/opinion/editorials/do-parents-rights-end-at-schoolhouse-gate/article_f38ce752-824f-11e0-9faa-001cc4c002e0.html

Do

parents’ rights end at schoolhouse gate?

Posted: Friday, May 20, 2011 5:00 am

W. Whitehead - Special to The Independent |

0 comments

"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."

- Fields v. Palmdale School District PSD, Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals (2005)

Do parents have a right to control the upbringing of their

children, especially when it comes to what their children should

be

exposed to in terms of sexual practices and intimate

relationships?

That question goes to the heart of the battle being played out in

school districts and courts across America right now over parental

rights and whether parents essentially forfeit those rights when

they send their children to a public school.

On one side of the debate are those who believe, as the U.S.

Supreme Court has ruled, that "the child is not the mere creature

of the state" and 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 U.S.

Constitution.

On the other side are government officials who not only believe,

as

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Fields v. Palmdale

School District PSD (2005), that "chools cannot be expected to

accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every

parent," but go so far as to insist that parents' rights do "not

extend beyond the threshold of the school door."

A recent incident in Fitchburg, Mass. clearly illustrates this

growing tension over whether young people, especially those in the

public schools, are essentially wards of the state, to do with as

government officials deem appropriate, in defiance of the

children's constitutional rights and those of their parents. On

two

separate occasions this year, students at Memorial Middle School

(MMS) in Fitchburg were administered surveys at school asking

overtly intimate and sexually suggestive questions without their

parents' knowledge or consent.

Students were required to complete the Youth Risk Behavior Survey

(YRBS) at school, a survey which asks questions such as "Have you

ever tried to kill yourself?", "Have you ever sniffed glue, or

breathed the contents of spray cans, or inhaled any paints?", and

"With how many people have you had sexual intercourse?"

While the survey questions are explicit enough in terms of their

content, the multiple-choice answers are actually quite

informative-at least, in the sense that they educate young

test-takers about a host of practices and terms with which they

might not actually be familiar and provide them with suggestions

on

how to go about acquiring drugs, sex, etc.

This is a not-so-subtle form of indoctrination into behaviors

that

no parent would want for their children. For example, the survey

asks: "During your life, how many times have you used heroin (also

called smack, junk, or China White)? ...how many times have you

used methamphetamines (also called speed, crystal, crank, or ice)?

.... how many times have you used ecstasy (also called MDMA)?" And

for those not up on the various prescription drugs, the survey

provides a handy list: "During your life, how many times have you

taken a prescription drug (such as OxyContin, Percocet, Vicodin,

codeine, Adderall, Ritalin, or Xanax) without a doctor's

prescription?"

Unfortunately, Fitchburg, Mass., is not the only locality using

young people as test subjects for the purpose of mining data and

securing government funding. In fact, as of 2009, the only states

that did not participate at all in the survey were Oregon,

Washington and Minnesota. The national Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention (CDC), the government agency responsible for

creating and distributing the survey, states that the main purpose

of the survey is to monitor "priority health-risk behaviors and

the

prevalence of obesity and asthma among youth and young

adults."

Developed in 1990 by the CDC, the Youth Risk Behavior

Surveillance

System is similar to other mental health screening programs that

have been creeping into the classroom since President W.

Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health recommended mental

health screenings for all school-aged children, including those in

preschool. However, while the supposed goal is to identify and

prevent risky behavior among young people, many parents are

understandably up in arms over these tests.

The manner in which these tests are administered puts them in

violation of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), a

federal law that was intended to protect the rights of parents and

students. PPRA, which covers educational entities that receive

federal funds, applies whenever students are asked to submit to

any

survey, analysis or evaluation that seeks private information

about

the student, such as political affiliations, sexual activity,

illegal activities or religious beliefs. The PPRA allows parents

to

inspect their children's instructional materials and requires that

schools obtain "written parental consent" before schools engage in

such programs as mental health screening.

Legitimate questions remain about whether such tests really help

students achieve healthier lifestyles. TeenScreen, for example,

has

an 84% false-positive rate. This means that 84% of teens diagnosed

as having some sort of mental health or social disorder are, in

fact, perfectly normal teenagers. Furthermore, although the CDC

insists that there is no danger in asking students highly

suggestive questions about sex, drugs and suicide, most parents

prefer to decide the timing and content of such a sensitive

discussion.

Helping America's teens make positive, healthy and responsible

lifestyle choices is a worthy goal, but it must start with parents

within the home. If the schools are to be part of the process,

they

must ensure that parents are fully informed and involved at every

step of the way. In turn, parents should demand that they be

notified about mental health evaluations and that the evaluations

not be given unless they have provided express written permission,

which is required under federal law. Parents should also be

provided an advance copy of the screening questionnaire in order

to

make an informed decision about whether they want their child to

be

screened.

Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author W.

Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties

organization that provides free legal services to people whose

constitutional and human rights have been threatened or

violated.

[Guest guest]

http://www.wmicentral.com/opinion/editorials/do-parents-rights-end-at-schoolhouse-gate/article_f38ce752-824f-11e0-9faa-001cc4c002e0.html

Do

parents’ rights end at schoolhouse gate?

Posted: Friday, May 20, 2011 5:00 am

W. Whitehead - Special to The Independent |

0 comments

"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."

- Fields v. Palmdale School District PSD, Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals (2005)

Do parents have a right to control the upbringing of their

children, especially when it comes to what their children should

be

exposed to in terms of sexual practices and intimate

relationships?

That question goes to the heart of the battle being played out in

school districts and courts across America right now over parental

rights and whether parents essentially forfeit those rights when

they send their children to a public school.

On one side of the debate are those who believe, as the U.S.

Supreme Court has ruled, that "the child is not the mere creature

of the state" and 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 U.S.

Constitution.

On the other side are government officials who not only believe,

as

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Fields v. Palmdale

School District PSD (2005), that "chools cannot be expected to

accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every

parent," but go so far as to insist that parents' rights do "not

extend beyond the threshold of the school door."

A recent incident in Fitchburg, Mass. clearly illustrates this

growing tension over whether young people, especially those in the

public schools, are essentially wards of the state, to do with as

government officials deem appropriate, in defiance of the

children's constitutional rights and those of their parents. On

two

separate occasions this year, students at Memorial Middle School

(MMS) in Fitchburg were administered surveys at school asking

overtly intimate and sexually suggestive questions without their

parents' knowledge or consent.

Students were required to complete the Youth Risk Behavior Survey

(YRBS) at school, a survey which asks questions such as "Have you

ever tried to kill yourself?", "Have you ever sniffed glue, or

breathed the contents of spray cans, or inhaled any paints?", and

"With how many people have you had sexual intercourse?"

While the survey questions are explicit enough in terms of their

content, the multiple-choice answers are actually quite

informative-at least, in the sense that they educate young

test-takers about a host of practices and terms with which they

might not actually be familiar and provide them with suggestions

on

how to go about acquiring drugs, sex, etc.

This is a not-so-subtle form of indoctrination into behaviors

that

no parent would want for their children. For example, the survey

asks: "During your life, how many times have you used heroin (also

called smack, junk, or China White)? ...how many times have you

used methamphetamines (also called speed, crystal, crank, or ice)?

.... how many times have you used ecstasy (also called MDMA)?" And

for those not up on the various prescription drugs, the survey

provides a handy list: "During your life, how many times have you

taken a prescription drug (such as OxyContin, Percocet, Vicodin,

codeine, Adderall, Ritalin, or Xanax) without a doctor's

prescription?"

Unfortunately, Fitchburg, Mass., is not the only locality using

young people as test subjects for the purpose of mining data and

securing government funding. In fact, as of 2009, the only states

that did not participate at all in the survey were Oregon,

Washington and Minnesota. The national Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention (CDC), the government agency responsible for

creating and distributing the survey, states that the main purpose

of the survey is to monitor "priority health-risk behaviors and

the

prevalence of obesity and asthma among youth and young

adults."

Developed in 1990 by the CDC, the Youth Risk Behavior

Surveillance

System is similar to other mental health screening programs that

have been creeping into the classroom since President W.

Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health recommended mental

health screenings for all school-aged children, including those in

preschool. However, while the supposed goal is to identify and

prevent risky behavior among young people, many parents are

understandably up in arms over these tests.

The manner in which these tests are administered puts them in

violation of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), a

federal law that was intended to protect the rights of parents and

students. PPRA, which covers educational entities that receive

federal funds, applies whenever students are asked to submit to

any

survey, analysis or evaluation that seeks private information

about

the student, such as political affiliations, sexual activity,

illegal activities or religious beliefs. The PPRA allows parents

to

inspect their children's instructional materials and requires that

schools obtain "written parental consent" before schools engage in

such programs as mental health screening.

Legitimate questions remain about whether such tests really help

students achieve healthier lifestyles. TeenScreen, for example,

has

an 84% false-positive rate. This means that 84% of teens diagnosed

as having some sort of mental health or social disorder are, in

fact, perfectly normal teenagers. Furthermore, although the CDC

insists that there is no danger in asking students highly

suggestive questions about sex, drugs and suicide, most parents

prefer to decide the timing and content of such a sensitive

discussion.

Helping America's teens make positive, healthy and responsible

lifestyle choices is a worthy goal, but it must start with parents

within the home. If the schools are to be part of the process,

they

must ensure that parents are fully informed and involved at every

step of the way. In turn, parents should demand that they be

notified about mental health evaluations and that the evaluations

not be given unless they have provided express written permission,

which is required under federal law. Parents should also be

provided an advance copy of the screening questionnaire in order

to

make an informed decision about whether they want their child to

be

screened.

Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author W.

Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties

organization that provides free legal services to people whose

constitutional and human rights have been threatened or

violated.

[Guest guest]

http://www.wmicentral.com/opinion/editorials/do-parents-rights-end-at-schoolhouse-gate/article_f38ce752-824f-11e0-9faa-001cc4c002e0.html

Do

parents’ rights end at schoolhouse gate?

Posted: Friday, May 20, 2011 5:00 am

W. Whitehead - Special to The Independent |

0 comments

"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."

- Fields v. Palmdale School District PSD, Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals (2005)

Do parents have a right to control the upbringing of their

children, especially when it comes to what their children should

be

exposed to in terms of sexual practices and intimate

relationships?

That question goes to the heart of the battle being played out in

school districts and courts across America right now over parental

rights and whether parents essentially forfeit those rights when

they send their children to a public school.

On one side of the debate are those who believe, as the U.S.

Supreme Court has ruled, that "the child is not the mere creature

of the state" and 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 U.S.

Constitution.

On the other side are government officials who not only believe,

as

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Fields v. Palmdale

School District PSD (2005), that "chools cannot be expected to

accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every

parent," but go so far as to insist that parents' rights do "not

extend beyond the threshold of the school door."

A recent incident in Fitchburg, Mass. clearly illustrates this

growing tension over whether young people, especially those in the

public schools, are essentially wards of the state, to do with as

government officials deem appropriate, in defiance of the

children's constitutional rights and those of their parents. On

two

separate occasions this year, students at Memorial Middle School

(MMS) in Fitchburg were administered surveys at school asking

overtly intimate and sexually suggestive questions without their

parents' knowledge or consent.

Students were required to complete the Youth Risk Behavior Survey

(YRBS) at school, a survey which asks questions such as "Have you

ever tried to kill yourself?", "Have you ever sniffed glue, or

breathed the contents of spray cans, or inhaled any paints?", and

"With how many people have you had sexual intercourse?"

While the survey questions are explicit enough in terms of their

content, the multiple-choice answers are actually quite

informative-at least, in the sense that they educate young

test-takers about a host of practices and terms with which they

might not actually be familiar and provide them with suggestions

on

how to go about acquiring drugs, sex, etc.

This is a not-so-subtle form of indoctrination into behaviors

that

no parent would want for their children. For example, the survey

asks: "During your life, how many times have you used heroin (also

called smack, junk, or China White)? ...how many times have you

used methamphetamines (also called speed, crystal, crank, or ice)?

.... how many times have you used ecstasy (also called MDMA)?" And

for those not up on the various prescription drugs, the survey

provides a handy list: "During your life, how many times have you

taken a prescription drug (such as OxyContin, Percocet, Vicodin,

codeine, Adderall, Ritalin, or Xanax) without a doctor's

prescription?"

Unfortunately, Fitchburg, Mass., is not the only locality using

young people as test subjects for the purpose of mining data and

securing government funding. In fact, as of 2009, the only states

that did not participate at all in the survey were Oregon,

Washington and Minnesota. The national Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention (CDC), the government agency responsible for

creating and distributing the survey, states that the main purpose

of the survey is to monitor "priority health-risk behaviors and

the

prevalence of obesity and asthma among youth and young

adults."

Developed in 1990 by the CDC, the Youth Risk Behavior

Surveillance

System is similar to other mental health screening programs that

have been creeping into the classroom since President W.

Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health recommended mental

health screenings for all school-aged children, including those in

preschool. However, while the supposed goal is to identify and

prevent risky behavior among young people, many parents are

understandably up in arms over these tests.

The manner in which these tests are administered puts them in

violation of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), a

federal law that was intended to protect the rights of parents and

students. PPRA, which covers educational entities that receive

federal funds, applies whenever students are asked to submit to

any

survey, analysis or evaluation that seeks private information

about

the student, such as political affiliations, sexual activity,

illegal activities or religious beliefs. The PPRA allows parents

to

inspect their children's instructional materials and requires that

schools obtain "written parental consent" before schools engage in

such programs as mental health screening.

Legitimate questions remain about whether such tests really help

students achieve healthier lifestyles. TeenScreen, for example,

has

an 84% false-positive rate. This means that 84% of teens diagnosed

as having some sort of mental health or social disorder are, in

fact, perfectly normal teenagers. Furthermore, although the CDC

insists that there is no danger in asking students highly

suggestive questions about sex, drugs and suicide, most parents

prefer to decide the timing and content of such a sensitive

discussion.

Helping America's teens make positive, healthy and responsible

lifestyle choices is a worthy goal, but it must start with parents

within the home. If the schools are to be part of the process,

they

must ensure that parents are fully informed and involved at every

step of the way. In turn, parents should demand that they be

notified about mental health evaluations and that the evaluations

not be given unless they have provided express written permission,

which is required under federal law. Parents should also be

provided an advance copy of the screening questionnaire in order

to

make an informed decision about whether they want their child to

be

screened.

Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author W.

Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties

organization that provides free legal services to people whose

constitutional and human rights have been threatened or

violated.

[Guest guest]

http://www.wmicentral.com/opinion/editorials/do-parents-rights-end-at-schoolhouse-gate/article_f38ce752-824f-11e0-9faa-001cc4c002e0.html

Do

parents’ rights end at schoolhouse gate?

Posted: Friday, May 20, 2011 5:00 am

W. Whitehead - Special to The Independent |

0 comments

"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."

- Fields v. Palmdale School District PSD, Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals (2005)

Do parents have a right to control the upbringing of their

children, especially when it comes to what their children should

be

exposed to in terms of sexual practices and intimate

relationships?

That question goes to the heart of the battle being played out in

school districts and courts across America right now over parental

rights and whether parents essentially forfeit those rights when

they send their children to a public school.

On one side of the debate are those who believe, as the U.S.

Supreme Court has ruled, that "the child is not the mere creature

of the state" and 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 U.S.

Constitution.

On the other side are government officials who not only believe,

as

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Fields v. Palmdale

School District PSD (2005), that "chools cannot be expected to

accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every

parent," but go so far as to insist that parents' rights do "not

extend beyond the threshold of the school door."

A recent incident in Fitchburg, Mass. clearly illustrates this

growing tension over whether young people, especially those in the

public schools, are essentially wards of the state, to do with as

government officials deem appropriate, in defiance of the

children's constitutional rights and those of their parents. On

two

separate occasions this year, students at Memorial Middle School

(MMS) in Fitchburg were administered surveys at school asking

overtly intimate and sexually suggestive questions without their

parents' knowledge or consent.

Students were required to complete the Youth Risk Behavior Survey

(YRBS) at school, a survey which asks questions such as "Have you

ever tried to kill yourself?", "Have you ever sniffed glue, or

breathed the contents of spray cans, or inhaled any paints?", and

"With how many people have you had sexual intercourse?"

While the survey questions are explicit enough in terms of their

content, the multiple-choice answers are actually quite

informative-at least, in the sense that they educate young

test-takers about a host of practices and terms with which they

might not actually be familiar and provide them with suggestions

on

how to go about acquiring drugs, sex, etc.

This is a not-so-subtle form of indoctrination into behaviors

that

no parent would want for their children. For example, the survey

asks: "During your life, how many times have you used heroin (also

called smack, junk, or China White)? ...how many times have you

used methamphetamines (also called speed, crystal, crank, or ice)?

.... how many times have you used ecstasy (also called MDMA)?" And

for those not up on the various prescription drugs, the survey

provides a handy list: "During your life, how many times have you

taken a prescription drug (such as OxyContin, Percocet, Vicodin,

codeine, Adderall, Ritalin, or Xanax) without a doctor's

prescription?"

Unfortunately, Fitchburg, Mass., is not the only locality using

young people as test subjects for the purpose of mining data and

securing government funding. In fact, as of 2009, the only states

that did not participate at all in the survey were Oregon,

Washington and Minnesota. The national Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention (CDC), the government agency responsible for

creating and distributing the survey, states that the main purpose

of the survey is to monitor "priority health-risk behaviors and

the

prevalence of obesity and asthma among youth and young

adults."

Developed in 1990 by the CDC, the Youth Risk Behavior

Surveillance

System is similar to other mental health screening programs that

have been creeping into the classroom since President W.

Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health recommended mental

health screenings for all school-aged children, including those in

preschool. However, while the supposed goal is to identify and

prevent risky behavior among young people, many parents are

understandably up in arms over these tests.

The manner in which these tests are administered puts them in

violation of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), a

federal law that was intended to protect the rights of parents and

students. PPRA, which covers educational entities that receive

federal funds, applies whenever students are asked to submit to

any

survey, analysis or evaluation that seeks private information

about

the student, such as political affiliations, sexual activity,

illegal activities or religious beliefs. The PPRA allows parents

to

inspect their children's instructional materials and requires that

schools obtain "written parental consent" before schools engage in

such programs as mental health screening.

Legitimate questions remain about whether such tests really help

students achieve healthier lifestyles. TeenScreen, for example,

has

an 84% false-positive rate. This means that 84% of teens diagnosed

as having some sort of mental health or social disorder are, in

fact, perfectly normal teenagers. Furthermore, although the CDC

insists that there is no danger in asking students highly

suggestive questions about sex, drugs and suicide, most parents

prefer to decide the timing and content of such a sensitive

discussion.

Helping America's teens make positive, healthy and responsible

lifestyle choices is a worthy goal, but it must start with parents

within the home. If the schools are to be part of the process,

they

must ensure that parents are fully informed and involved at every

step of the way. In turn, parents should demand that they be

notified about mental health evaluations and that the evaluations

not be given unless they have provided express written permission,

which is required under federal law. Parents should also be

provided an advance copy of the screening questionnaire in order

to

make an informed decision about whether they want their child to

be

screened.

Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author W.

Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties

organization that provides free legal services to people whose

constitutional and human rights have been threatened or

violated.