Parents Warned About Calif. Bill on Student Sex Surveys

CNSNews ^ | May 23, 2003 | Robert B. Bluey

[scripter]

CNSNews.com) - Parental rights advocates in California are claiming victory for stalling an Assembly bill that would allow schools to survey students on topics like sex and religion without written parental permission.

Although the legislation would simply require parents to "opt out" rather than "opt in" where the questionnaires are concerned, a pro-family group is warning that the bill opens the door for homosexual activists to leave their mark on students from kindergarten to high school.

The bill's sponsor, the California Safe Schools Coalition, argues that it's needed to get a better sampling of students on a wide range of issues. The measure, introduced by Assemblywoman Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) in February, was stalled Thursday after Assembly Republicans opposed the bill.

The Campaign for California Families, which opposes the bill, is asking California families to write their legislators about the bill. The group's executive director, Randy Thomasson, said parents should be outraged.

"It's a very deceptive bill that destroys parental rights, puts the burden on the parents and pushes invasive sex surveys on little kids," he said. "The Democrats don't believe in parental rights. They believe children are sexual creatures, and they want to unleash the homosexual 'desires' of little children."

The biggest change resulting from the bill would come with anonymous questionnaires. Under current law, schools need to inform parents in writing and obtain written permission when asking about sex, family life, morality or religion.

But under Hancock's bill, schools could administer questionnaires anonymously as long as they informed parents in writing, allowed them to review the material and gave parents an option to decline participation. The bill also deletes the reference to "family life."

In addition, schools would be permitted to survey students on the topics of school safety, school violence and "prohibited discrimination" without having to notify parents.

According to an Assembly analysis of the bill, the tough opt-in language was added in 1994 after a controversy related to a standardized test.

Calls to Hancock's office and the California Safe Schools Coalition were not returned. But Christopher Daley, co-director of the Transgender Law Center, said his organization supports the bill because it would identify schools with students who are in need of help.

" A bill like this is going make it much easier to collect accurate data from a broad range of students," Daley said. "It's going to make sure that everyone's experiences are being included."

The Transgender Law Center assists students in many urban districts but is unable to reach rural schools, Daley said. Students in those schools would benefit if the organization had better data from surveys, he added.

For example, the California Healthy Kids Survey - a questionnaire focusing on topics from alcohol and drug use to sexual behavior and school violence - only has a 52 percent participation rate across the state, according to the Assembl y analysis.

Thomasson warns that while these surveys might appear harmless, interest groups distributing them often have ulterior motives. If the bill passes, he said groups like the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Teachers Network could ask questions such as, "If you have never slept with someone of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer that?" or "Is it possible you merely need a good gay experience?"

"When kids can't even read, write or compute properly, the schools shouldn't be pushing social engineering of any type," Thomasson said. "These children belong to their parents, they do not belong to the state. And the state has no right to invade the sanctity of the home and push the parents off of the ir throne."

Daley said he sympathizes with parents who worry about surveys given to their children, but he also cautioned parents to look beyond the parental rights issues and recognize the anti-homosexual agenda of groups like the Campaign for California Families.

He speculated that Thomasson simply didn't want to face the truth about students' feelings on homosexuality.

"I have some fears that their concerns are motivated by something other than parental control. They really don't want effective research that may run counter to some of their beliefs," Daley said. "Local control is easily preserved with this bill. All it does is remove inefficient administrative barriers."

[scripter]

Had a difficult time getting the formatting right on this one. You may see some weird spaces in the article from the copy/paste.

[scripter]

FYI ping for any Californians.

Homosexual Agenda Index

Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search

All FreeRepublic Bump Lists

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Is anybody in Sacramento doing anything about the budget crisis?

All the damn legislators are pushing their favorite causes instead of taking care of the really serious business! Meanwhile the Manure just piles higher !

calgov2002:

calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. 

calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. 

Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register

[LiteKeeper]

SITREP

[zook]

There's federal law on this; the Hatch Act and the Buckley Ammendment theirto.

[scripter]

Hey LiteKeeper. I've seen your SITREP before but haven't been able to figure it out... What's it mean?

[Paleo Conservative]

The measure, introduced by Assemblywoman Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley)...

Shouldn't that be Assemblywoman Loni Hancock (L-Berkeley)?

[longtermmemmory]

by forcing parents to opt out, the parents will have EXTREME pressure to not opt out because the opt out form will be PERMANENTLY placed in the child's PERMANENT record and the teacher will be instructed to emphisize the PERMANENT nature of this PERMANENT short sighted decision.

[Ruth A.]

With conservative and/or religous families opting out the results are skewed, too. These polls have no business in schools or being given to children.

[heleny]

the California Healthy Kids Survey - a questionnaire focusing on topics from alcohol and drug use to sexual behavior and school violence - only has a 52 percent participation rate across the state, according to the Assembly analysis.

52% participation provides plenty of data, especially in a state as large as CA.

Those opt-out forms get forgotten, lost, etc. Besides, the children might feel peer pressure not to turn in a signed opt-out form in certain cities. Aren't the liberals always concerned about children's self-esteem? (not!)

Opt-out forms are usually vague or poorly written. We had an awful opt-out form for the scoliosis test (lift you shirt and bend over, so a nurse can see if your spine is straight) in 7th grade, but nobody could tell whether a parent's signature meant permission for the test was granted or denied.

Basic sex ed. throughout K-12 in CA already defaults to assumed permission unless the parent denies permission in writing, I think, and the children have no power to decide for themselves. I remember I had to ask my parents for a note to let me be excused from the annual sex ed. session in 6th grade, because I didn't know until after my 5th grade session that we could be excused from it.

[heleny]

ask questions such as, "If you have never slept with someone of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer that?" or "Is it possible you merely need a good gay experience?"

Gross! These surveys could be used to pollute children's minds; the homosexuals constantly need to recruit new victims, and such pollution might just ruin a few more children.

Most young children won't understand the meaning of such a question, which will result in flawed data. Older children who do understand are also old enough to feel "too cool" to answer surveys accurately, so that may give bad data, too.

In high school, some of my friends were randomly selected for a survey about drug use. They claimed to have used all sorts of drugs we had never seen or even heard of except in Health class, since we thought it would be fun to skew the data.

[ladyrustic]

Some other likely school poll questions:

Do you feel that your parent(s) treat you well, or at times do you feel abused?

Do your parents spank you?

Do you ever feel hungry?

Do you feel like you need help with your home situation?

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Ernest,

I alerted you to David Limbaugh's column and my commentary at The gay sword of tolerance because you alerted me to this thread which contains the following related lines in the main article above:

Thomasson warns that while these surveys might appear harmless, interest groups distributing them often have ulterior motives. If the bill passes, he said groups like the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Teachers Network could ask questions such as, "If you have never slept with someone of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer that?" or "Is it possible you merely need a good gay experience?"
"... the schools shouldn't be pushing social engineering of any type," Thomasson said. "These children belong to their parents, they do not belong to the state. And the state has no right to invade the sanctity of the home and push the parents [out of their needed societal role]."

Questions such as those underlined above are designed to confuse kids, thrusting incidious suggestions upon innocents that would snare more than a few as I point out at my response to Limbaugh. This is not what parents are expecting educational tax dollars to teach their kids. I pray you see the significant connections. If so, please ping your list to the other commentary.

Thanks.

-Av

[John Jorsett]

"If you have never slept with someone of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer that?" or "Is it possible you merely need a good gay experience?"

I'd like to see the reaction to the question,

"If you have never slept with someone of the opposite sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer that?" or "Is it possible you merely need a good straight experience?"

Bet that'd tee off some people.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Your modifying the questions to heterosexuality plays still into the hands of the societal destroyers.
This is the point I tried to make to Carry_okie in number 7. In number 3 I limited my scope for a specific reasons.

It is politically simpler for us to combat all the despicable attrocities if you keep the majority's eyes on the easiest to recognize affront.

"You who are eager to destroy all childhood innocence are despicable and need to be driven out of the education business." PERIOD!

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Oops, that's numbers 3 and 7 in the other thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/916959/posts

[DLfromthedesert]

All your children are belong to us: Loni Hanford (B-Berkeley)

[FITZ]

Is there a gun in your house?

Do your parents vote Republican or ever talk like Conservatives?

Do your parents always use seatbelts?

[GrandMoM]

BTTT