School is Out on Home Education - and States Should Take Notice

Educational choice is a hot button issue in the realm of childhood education, and the homeschooling choice is gaining in popularity, particularly with parents who wish to take active responsibility in their children's education.

One of the primary issues surrounding home schooling in the United States is one of parental rights. Parents have a right to teach their children values and to prepare them to become self-sufficient and productive members of society. While this preparation, often referred to as 'socialization,' is one of the most commonly cited concerns about the homeschooling movement, research shows that home-educated adults are doing exceptionally well academically, civically, and socially.

Today an increasing number of parents are teaching their children at home, effectively saving the state thousands of dollars each year while parents spend their own funds on curricular resources, without so much as even a tax deduction for those expenses. This method of education is extremely economical for the state, and student results reveal that they are academically far surpassing their public school counter-parts.

Aaron Block, J.D. Candidate 2011 Regent Law, examined the results of the home schooling movement in America in his recent work for Juvenile Law. He makes the case that both states and the federal government should adopt public policies that proactively support parental rights especially as they relate to home education. He describes both the history and the present day success of home schooling and the various reasons why parents are returning to it. Then his work considers alarming international trends to ban home education and limit parental rights.

Finally, he suggests what lawmakers should do to protect parental rights and home education within the United States, arguing that based on fundamental parental rights, the higher academic achievement, and the cost-saving effects of home schooling, states should protect if not promote home schooling as an alternative to public education. At the very least, states should allow home schooling as form of school choice. His final article is forthcoming.

Can Families Rely on a Court to Protect Children From Strip Searches?

Parents and students do not check their constitutional rights at the school house door, yet the law in the area of student strip searches is not helpful to families, as Andrew Miles (Regent Law 2010) found in his research on this aspect of juvenile law. His article, Students Being Stripped of Their Rights at the Schoolhouse Gate, examines whether the best interests of the child are served when public school officials are permitted to strip search students in order to provide a safe educational environment. What he found would bring alarm to any parent.

In order to comprehend this problem, an understanding of the status of juveniles in the eyes of the law is important, and Miles provides a comprehensive overview while including a knowledge of how courts have dealt with students’ claims of unreasonable strip searches by school officials. Schools have indeed strip searched numerous students in numerous settings for an array of reasons in schools across America – yikes!

“The study of juvenile law presents two interrelated questions: what rights are recognized by the government for juveniles and how are those rights are treated under the law? Unlike animals, human children have a relatively long period during which they are vulnerable and completely dependent on adults.”

Miles expresses his dismay in what he characterizes as “the Supreme Court shirked its duties,” by opining that the law on student strip searches was not clearly defined at the time one student, Savana Redding, was searched, “instead of taking the opportunity to clarify the factors it had left unclear” in a previous similar case. Miles argues that the Supreme Court fails to protect young Americans who still have an interest in privacy, even if this interest is lessened by virtue of their juvenile status.

Parents seriously need to be informed on this area of law – for the sake of their children’s privacy and personhood. Read Andrew Miles' article here, and find out why every family should teach their children to request parental presence at ANY necessary opportunity – especially when that child is about to be subjected to a strip search!

Gender Identity as a Social Construct Does not Support Family Restoration

Research reveals that the more an environment (including the school environment) affirms, endorses, or normalizes homosexual or bisexual behavior the more of those behaviors there will be in that environment.

For decades, critical legal studies have argued that gender is a construct of society, rather than a quality that is linked to biological fact. Curriculum that denies gender differences and seeks to level those distinctions particularly regarding sexuality is actually destructive to families.

When that factual denial begins at a young age in educational material, the results may be more complicated than a society may be prepared for. A study by Dr. Trayce Hansen, a California psychologist, reveals that curriculum dramatically affects how students shape their own decisions, and thus their lives. For a full overview of this work check out the article below, posted by the Ruth Institute.

Impact of Proposed School Curriculum Addressing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

by Dr. Trayce Hansen, Psychologist and Ruth Advisory Board Member

In May 2009, the Alameda Unified School Board was considering the adoption of a new curriculum for K-12 that would promote acceptance and normalization of homosexual and transgender behaviors under the guise of anti-bullying. A group of concerned parents asked me to review and comment on the proposed curriculum and its impact on children. Despite the evidence of potential harm, and over the strong objections of many parents, the board adopted the proposed curriculum. 

Environment is primary factor in development of sexual preference and gender identity
Decades of research confirm that sexual orientation and gender identity are not inborn but are primarily shaped by environmental influences during childhood and adolescence. The proposed school curriculum will affect the sexual preference and gender identity formation of some children exposed to it because it teaches that all sexual and gender variations are equally acceptable. Sexual preference and gender identity formation are fragile developmental processes that can be disrupted and altered by environmental influences such as the lessons in the proposed school curriculum.

Sexual Orientation is not inborn
Many people continue to believe that sexual orientation is inborn, although that is not true. Extensive, worldwide research reveals that homosexuality is predominately influenced by environmental factors. For instance, recent large-scale studies compared rates of homosexual behavior in sets of identical twins. If homosexual behavior were inborn, every time one identical twin was homosexual, the other identical twin would also be homosexual 100% of the time. But this is not what the research revealed. Rather, every time one identical twin was homosexual the other twin was homosexual only 10% or 11% of the time. Homosexual behavior is clearly not genetic.

In fact, an accumulation of extensive research utilizing millions of research subjects finds that environment, not genetics, is the main factor in the development of non-heterosexual behavior. (To review these research studies see references 1-4 listed below).

Societies which endorse non-heterosexual behavior elicit more of that behavior
For a well-known example of the environmental effect on sexual behavior, consider ancient Greece and Rome where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. That was not so because men in those societies were born with a “gay gene,” but because human sexual behavior is malleable and culturally influenced.

Research reveals that the more an environment (including the school environment) affirms, endorses, or normalizes homosexual or bisexual behavior the more of those behaviors there will be in that environment. The proposed curriculum would teach children that it doesn’t matter with whom one has a romantic or sexual relationship. Such a lesson will lead some children to engage in homosexual relationships they might never have considered were it not for the school’s social endorsement. In fact, we’re already seeing a general increase in non-heterosexual behavior as a result of the media’s affirmation.

Non-heterosexual behavior leads to increased risk of psychological and physical disorders
Sadly, the research is also clear that individuals who adopt non-heterosexual lifestyles are more likely to suffer from a host of negative outcomes including psychiatric disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide attempts, domestic violence and sexual assault, and increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened lifespan. Schools should not affirm and thereby encourage young people to adopt lifestyles more likely to lead to such devastation.

Gender Identity Disorder is a psychiatric disorder that should not be normalized to children
The proposed school curriculum also teaches that transgendered lifestyles are a healthy and acceptable alternative to the norm. That is not true. Many transgendered individuals suffer from a psychiatric disorder known as Gender Identity Disorder (GID) that is recognized by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disorder in need of psychological treatment. The proposed curriculum encourages transgendered behavior by teaching, for instance, that males who dress, behave, and live as females are completely normal....
Read the rest of this article here .

A Government Should Not to Tear Apart a Family Because of Educational Choices

Swedish 7-year-old Dominic Johansson, homeschooled by his parents, was seized by Swedish police from a plane just as the family was about to leave the country for a new life in India. Having chosen to be personally responsible for the education of their only child, the Johansson’s opted to home school Dominic. Rather than see the benefits of parental involvement in their child’s life, Sweden has chosen to strip the parental rights of those moms and dads who education their own children. This cannot be in little Dominic’s best interests. Read the entire article below. The Johanssons need to have their family restored, due to the recent actions of the Swedish government. The Home School Legal Defense Fund (HSLDA) suggests that calls are needed to reunite this homeschooling family.

From the HSLDA e-lert service…

Calls Needed to Reunite Homeschool Family

Dear HSLDA Members and Friends: We recently told you about the plight of the Johanssons, a Swedish family whose only child, 7-year-old Dominic Johansson, was seized by Swedish police from a plane just as the family was about to leave the country for a new life in India. After investigating the facts surrounding the case, HSLDA President J. Michael Smith wrote to Swedish officials to protest this action.

Read his letter >>

Read the response from Mr. Berglind, minister of public affairs for the Swedish Embassy in Washington >>

Citing confidentiality concerns for not commenting on the Johansson case, Mr. Stigland noted that a county administrative board in Sweden is reviewing how it was handled by local officials. In a telephone conversation with HSLDA, Mr. Johansson confirmed that he has been in contact with the county administrative board. “They told me that they are looking into the case to determine if anything was done improperly,” he said. And at a meeting with the social workers on Tuesday, October 6, Mr. Johansson was told that he and his wife would only be allowed to visit their son at the social workers office once every two weeks for a maximum of two hours. What does Sweden hope to gain from such an aggressive action? The situation is tragic. It is deeply troubling that a Western democracy would go to such lengths to prevent a homeschool family from simply trying to leave the country. Dominic has been traumatized, and his mother has been hospitalized several times because of the depression this incident has caused. Yet the social workers persist in keeping custody of Dominic. When Mr. Johansson asks why, they reply “Because it’s better for him.” According to Mr. Johansson, both he and Dominic have been subjected to psychological and other testing with results showing no valid reason for continued separation of the family. In light of this aggressive behavior and because the Swedish parliament is poised to impose draconian regulations on homeschoolers, HSLDA is asking its members to contact the Swedish Ambassador to the United States. Swedish Ambassador Jonas Hafström can be reached:

By email: ambassaden.washington@foreign.ministry.se

By phone: 202-467 2600 By fax: 202-467 2699

Visit Swedish embassy website >>

First, we ask you to request that the Swedish government return Dominic to his family. The social welfare agency has taken custody of Dominic, and they have the power to return him to his parents. Request that they do so immediately.

Second, inform the ambassador that homeschooling allows children to thrive academically and socially. Valid research has demonstrated that homeschooling is a mainstream educational approach that works. Tell him that the world doesn’t need any more countries like Germany that repress freedom in education, and that a person should be permitted to opt out of public education because of philosophical or religious convictions. In his letter to Mr. Smith, Mr. Stigland noted that since Sweden is a state party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the starting point for children is Sweden is the “…best interests of the child and the child’s right to be heard….” Mr. Stigland noted that social services have an obligation to “intervene and remove a child from the family if the child’s health and development are endangered.” Mr. Stigland noted that a child should be returned home as soon as possible if it was “in the best interests of the child.” Of grave concern to HSLDA is Mr. Stigland’s citation of the legislative history of the Education Act which says: “The legislative history of the current Education Act states that home schooling in isolated cases, mainly in the lower grades, might be an acceptable substitute for education if a particular external circumstance exists. Examples of such are: if the child lives in a sparsely populated area or needs special care. Legal practice shows that the situation also arises when parents for other reasons, such as philosophical or religious, want to educate their children at home. In connection with the new Education Act, these rules are now being reviewed.” The act is indeed being reviewed and the proposal is even more draconian. The proposed language would remove philosophical or religious convictions as valid reasons to home school. The new law would allow homeschooling only in “extraordinary circumstances” (read: never). If the proposed Swedish law passes it would become as bad as in Germany where homeschooling is effectively banned. Mike Farris recently said in his address to the World Congress of Families, “Any nation that severely restricts the ability of parents to choose alternative forms of education, including home education, in the name of creating national unity, cannot call itself a free nation. Freedom necessarily requires the individual to have the liberty to think differently and believe differently than programs instituted by the current rulers of any nation. Educational freedom is the cornerstone for all freedom of thought and conscience.” HSLDA encourages its members to communicate their concerns to the Swedish Ambassador. We hope that his influence may help correct an injustice and also pave the way for better laws for homeschoolers in Sweden HSLDA thanks its members and friends for their ongoing support. It’s when all homeschoolers join together that we are most effective advocating for homeschool freedom in America and abroad. Read the HSLDA article: “Sweden—the Next Germany for Homeschoolers?”

Education, Parenting and Family Restoration

Ninomania, found at http://ninomania.blogspot.com, the preeminent Scalia blog (Nebraska Law Professor Richard Duncan at http://professorduncan.blogspot.com) by Regent Law Professor David Wagner, offers his (and Justice Clarence Thomas’) thoughts on education, particularly in light of a recent school speech case, Morse v. Frederick, 439 F.3d 1114 (2009) which Professor Wagner fondly euphemizes as “the Bong Hits case.”

Family restoration, I believe, can begin when parents take responsibility for their child’s education. Read what Wagner (and J. Thomas) have to say about in loco parentis and public education. I look forward to Professor Wagner’s essay….

“Many decisions worth commenting on are coming down right now, but I am currently crashing on an essay about education and the Constitution, and so will not be able to comment fully, if at all.

This is awkward for me, because on the off-chance that I have any readers, I owe it to them to comment case by case, and also because this essay is about the constitutional position of home-schooling, yet I am becoming increasingly convinced of the view of public schooling in America expressed -- solely -- by Justice Thomas in the Bong Hits case (available at http://www.law.cornel.edu/supct/html/06-278.ZC.html) Perhaps this helps, more than it hurts, any possible theory concerning home-schooling, but my larger point today is: I do not understand why Truth-Tellers on the Court are like Vampire-Slayers in the Buffyverse -- only one at a time.”

David Wagner 4:41 PM June 22, 2009,

http://ninomania.blogspot.com

Testimony at a General Assembly Health and Education Committee

In February I was asked to testify at a General Assembly Health and Education Committee hearing on behalf of the Virginia Family Foundation where I serve on its Marriage Commission with others from around the Commonwealth. This bill would add marriage education to family life education already being taught in Virginia’s public high schools.

My testimony was joined by others from varying political ideologies, as well as the Virginia’s National Education Association, all in support of amending the curriculum to cover the benefits and challenges of marriage. That hearing offered a unanimous vote in favor of the proposal. Last week the bill was passed by the complete General Assembly, and will soon become law. A positive reference about the benefits and responsibilities of marriage will now be included in the public school’s Family Life Education guidelines.

When teens are educated in numerous other personal relationship and sexual issues, this is a modest but important step in educating the next generation about the value and benefits of marriage, particularly when they may not have any good examples of that foundational cornerstone of society.

The full update on this and other family life legislation can be read below:

---

Victoria Cobb, President Friday, January 27, 2009 Victory Alert: End of Session Thank You! Dear Lynne: It’s hard to believe that tomorrow is the last official day of the 2009 General Assembly.  Many important victories have been won in both chambers and some good legislation is on its way to the Governor’s desk.  Just 45 days ago, these victories were mere drafts of bills on the desks of legislators.  Through the Family Foundation’s advocacy and legislator contact from concerned citizens like yourself, many pro-family bills have passed the chambers – some even with unanimous or nearly unanimous votes. As you are probably well aware, The Family Foundation has five core principles upon which we advocate in the legislature: Life, Marriage, Religious Liberty, Constitutional Government, and Parental Authority.  To put our 2009 victories in perspective, we received major victories in 4 of the 5 principles. ·        Life:  A bill that creates a Choose Life license plate, the purchase of which would provide a percentage of the revenue to Pregnancy Resource Centers throughout Virginia, awaits Governor Kaine's signature. ·        Marriage:  A positive reference about the benefits and responsibilities of marriage will now be included in the public school’s Family Life Education guidelines.  This is a modest but important step in educating the next generation about the value and benefits of marriage.  This guideline improvement was a recommendation of The Family Foundation Marriage Commission. ·        Constitutional Government: A bill increasing budget transparency has passed which will allow citizens to better see where their tax dollars are being spent. ·      Parental Authority: A bill was passed requiring schools to provide parents a summary of what is being taught in public school Family Life Education and to be given the opportunity to review the curriculum so they have the information necessary to either allow their children to stay in the class or opt their child out. While we are pleased with the successes we had this year we understand that there are still many obstacles to making Virginia more family friendly, including an upcoming Veto Session in which we may see a veto threat against the Choose Life license plates.  So while the 2009 General Assembly is for the most part over with and we prepare for veto session, we are already working on our plans for 2010. I would like to thank each of you who took the time to contact your legislators during this past session.  Our email alert system generated nearly 25,000 emails to legislators this year alone!  Your action does make a difference, and we at The Family Foundation are always encouraged by your response. Thank you for allowing us to represent you in the General Assembly.  We take the responsibility very seriously, and look forward, with your help, to continued success!

Be My Valentine - have the HPV Vaccine, sweetheart

“Be My Valentine” takes on new meaning when we inoculate little girls for a virus only contracted in sexual contact – which vaccine is now mandated under Virginia law. Parents may want to consider how to empower their little girls age 9-12 and their teens to make good sexual decisions that last for a lifetime.

The law mandates the Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine for middle school girls, and is characterized as a vaccine that may help prevent cervical cancer. The mandate impliedly assumes sexual activity among very young girls. Age nine and up, in fact. While most nine year old girls are still much more interested in climbing trees, Virginia and many other states want to give our little girls a Valentine – the HPV vaccine. The thinking is to encourage inoculation early before these little girls become sexually active. Sexually active nine year olds? Most parents still do not encourage their 19 year old unmarried daughters (or sons for that matter) toward an active sexual life, knowing the host of concerns and dangers (physically, emotionally, socially and professionally) that could enter their child’s world as a result. Kids may know them all too well also.

Parents and kids who have thought through and talked through the holistic nature of sexuality were relieved when the bill was amended to allow parents and their little girls to opt out. “Although health care providers have hailed the vaccine as a major breakthrough in the prevention of cervical cancer, there has been an undercurrent of concern about young girls being vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease.”

According to the CDC, cervical cancer is caused by what’s now considered a type of common virus, human papillomavirus, or HPV. Genital HPV is contracted by sexual activity involving genital contact (intercourse is not necessarily required), is easily transmitted, so any exposure can put a non-carrier at risk. In fact, according to the CDC, the only way you can totally protect yourself against HPV is to avoid any sexual activity that involves genital contact. A brochure produced by pharmaceutical giant Merck explains that the CDC recommends a few things that can be done to decrease chances of contracting HPV, two of the foremost of which are limiting sexual partners, and staying in a long-term relationship with someone who doesn’t have HPV.

This vaccine is being offered to assist in diminishing the likelihood of cervical cancer, but it wrongly assumes all girls and boys will have sex in their teens – or at least have sexual contact. It is premised on the ideology that the only way to live is to expect to be sexually active at a very young age, and more than likely, not in a secure stable environment that will constitute a lifetime relationship. Furthermore, it assumes young girls cannot or will not think thru their own sexuality with any sense of morality or emotional consequence of sexual encounters. It assumes natural instinct and biology always control over personal common and moral sense. It essentially assumes promiscuity.

Moreover, this drug carries grave concerns. Women and girls have died after taking the vaccine. To read the full story, go to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325470,00.html?sPage=fnc/health/sexualhealth

According to PharmaLive, the website that calls itself the pulse of the Pharmaceutical Industry, GlaxoSmithKline’s form of the vaccine, CERVARIX, and Merck’s GARDASIL are doing a head-to-head trial of their drugs to compare immune responses. These HPV vaccines are just one year old, and still being studied. The vaccine wards against only 4 of the nearly 100 HPV strains. Yet, people are dying over this mandatory vaccine. A state mandate that kills its citizens ought to be reconsidered immediately.

Yet ten states have subjugated family strength and a sense of personal responsibility on the part of teens. A culture saturated with sexuality reaps outcomes never before imagined. Essentially, the HPV vaccine for girls effectively serves to further exploit children by more than pharmaceutical companies. My law students at Regent University realize their decisions reap consequences, personally and professionally, for them and their families. Laws we decide to adopt may also have unintended consequences.

Adults, particularly moms and dads, must be encouraged to be responsible for the children they love by believing in them as much more than succumbing sexual beings. Character building is the stuff parenting is made of. Jumping to the assumption that a little girl will certainly become sexually active and therefore likely to contract HPV, and therefore more likely to contract cervical cancer is focused on cutting off the problem at the earliest age, rather than empowering teens to make good decisions based on sound reasoning that is not controlled by mere sexual instinct. Somehow we lull ourselves into thinking sexual activity is void of anything but physical consequences, or we’ll make it so. This legislation is the latest attempt to strip responsible individuals of their own decision making and autonomy. There are still teens and adults who have chosen to have the safest sex possible – with their awaited marriage partner only. Little girls and little boys can and do chose to save sexual encounters until marriage. Recent statistics show that those who are sexually pure before marriage will be sexually faithful during marriage, and reap a divorce rate of far under the national 40% average. The HPV vaccine and supporting legislation will not reap marital fidelity, but further family breakdown.

When states endorse early sexuality these issues are forced on kids who aren’t even ready to think about sex. Peer pressure on kids to become sexually active is already burdensome in high school, yet this mandate has moved toward pushing middle school sexuality, revealing our deeper moral void. Law makers hope to empower Virginians to be decent and honorable and healthy, yet they pass laws that strip us of the ability to be personally responsible. In his commentary on education entitled The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis noted that we create individuals with no moral core when we strip them of the values required to make a good decision. “…Such is the tragic-comedy of our situation – we continue to clamor for those very qualities we are rendering impossible… drive… dynamism…self-sacrifice…creativity. In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the gelding be fruitful.” Gardisil is not saving our little girls – its killing them.

Professor Kohm teaches and publishes on matters of family law at Regent Law. Her latest book, Family Manifesto: What Went Wrong with the Moral Basis for the Family and How to Restore it, has been released by W.S. Hein Co.

Children’s Education is Battleground for Marriage

Whether state’s vote to protect marriage next week, or to endorse an alternative, that question will actually be fleshed out and fought out in private and public education. Children will be the object of an alternative lifestyle education.

Though there is no mention of education, schools or curriculum in any of the ballot initiatives in California, Florida, Arizona, or Connecticut, student education will be the first area where citizens will see a difference in whether marriage is respected, or altered.

As a general rule, there is nothing in most state’s education code that requires schools to teach anything about marriage. Even the decision about whether to offer comprehensive sex education is left up to individual school districts in California, for example. What state law does require in most jurisdictions and districts is that in schools which do offer sex education, they also must teach respect for marriage and other types of committed relationships.

Districts have taken different approaches, as you will see in the three articles below. The first is a California current perspective; the second a new lawsuit filed in Vancouver, BC alleging a human rights complaint that the curriculum discriminated against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students; the third about what’s already resulting from the Massachusetts judiciary deciding for marriage alternatives. In that state, residents have not been given an opportunity to have their voices heard on marriage, and likely will not.

As a parent, your vote next week on marriage could protect the best interests of your child when you send him or her off to school.

Articles below reprinted from:
email: joshua@imapp.org
web: http://www.marriagedebate.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prop 8 Battle Rages Over Whether Gay Marriage Would Be Taught in Schools
Los Angeles Times
Jessica Garrison
October 18, 2008

It was supposed to be a 90-minute excursion, a noontime field trip for a group of San Francisco charter school students and their parents to see the kids' lesbian teacher marry her partner in a wedding performed by Mayor Gavin Newsom.

But after the event was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle and picked up by cable television and the Internet, the first-graders at Creative Arts Charter School found themselves at the center of the hottest battle in the campaign over gay marriage: the question of whether failure to pass Proposition 8 would result in widespread classroom discussions of same-sex unions.

Supporters of the constitutional amendment, under which marriage would be defined as only between a man and a woman, contend that if Proposition 8 does not pass, gay marriage will be taught in public schools. "We are already seeing that happen," said Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Yes on 8.

The opposing side insists that this is fear-mongering and notes that there is no mention of schools or curriculum in the language of the proposition.

"They just made something up in order to scare people and change the subject," said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

To buttress their case, Proposition 8 supporters point to a legal decision out of Massachusetts, where same- sex couples have been able to wed since 2004. After a second-grade teacher in Lexington read a book to her students that included two princes marrying, the parents of a child in the class sued the school district.

The parents, devout Christians who oppose gay marriage, contended that the teacher had read the book to her class "for the express purpose of indoctrinating them into the concept that homosexuality and marriage between same-sex partners is moral." This, they said, intruded on their "right to direct the moral upbringing of their own children."

A federal court dismissed the case, finding it without merit, and earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the dismissal, letting the lower court's ruling stand.

The child's parents will be featured in a new Proposition 8 ad that will begin airing this week.

School districts and the California Department of Education, meanwhile, are getting a steady stream of calls from the media and parents wanting to know whether gay marriage will be taught in schools if Proposition 8 is defeated.

The answer, it turns out, is slightly more complicated than can be captured in the 30-second television advertisements put out by both sides.

There is nothing in the state education code that requires schools to teach anything about marriage. Even the decision about whether to offer comprehensive sex education is left up to individual school districts.

What state law does require is that districts that offer sex education "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."

Districts have taken different approaches.

The Los Angeles Unified School District offers ninth- graders a "Life Skills" class that deals with a variety of issues, including personal identity and relationships. A district spokeswoman said marriage is not a specific part of that curriculum but could come up as part of classroom discussion.

In Fresno , meanwhile, district policy is that teachers do not address the subject of gay marriage in the classroom; students who ask about it are told to raise the issue with their families, according to district officials.

Hilary McLean, spokeswoman for Jack O'Connell, the state superintendent of public instruction, said she was unaware of any district that had changed its curriculum as a result of the California Supreme Court's May ruling allowing same-sex marriage.

Still, recognizing how politically potent the issue is, the Yes on 8 campaign has made it the center of its television advertising campaign.

"Mom, guess what I learned in school today?" a little girl says in one spot. "I learned how a prince married a prince."

As the girl's mother makes a horrified face, a voice says: "Think it can't happen? It's already happened. . . . Teaching about gay marriage will happen unless we pass Proposition 8."

In response, the No on 8 side put out an ad called "Proponents of Proposition 8 Are Using Lies to Scare You."

As television screens flicker Big Brother-like in the background, a voice says: "Prop. 8 will not affect teaching in schools."

To counter that, the Yes on 8 side issued a blast e- mail last week titled, "Who Is Really Lying," which accused the No on 8 side of wanting gay marriage to be taught "at the youngest possible age."

In San Francisco, Newsom said he didn't know the schoolchildren would be attending their teacher's wedding, and a spokesman for the mayor said he does not endorse the idea of children leaving school to go to weddings -- no matter who is getting married."

First-graders should be in class during the day," said Nathan Ballard, communications director for Newsom.

BC Gay Couple Files Human Rights Complaint Against School Board
Vancouver Sun
Janet Steffenhagen
October 18, 2008

The two men responsible for the creation of a new social justice course for B.C. high school students have filed a human-rights complaint against the Abbotsford school district for its decision not to offer the course this year.

Murray and Peter Corren say the district discriminated against students at W. J. Mouat secondary when it cancelled Social Justice 12 despite more than 90 students wanting to take it. They've asked the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal to intervene.

Social Justice 12, an elective for senior students, was created as a result of a contract the province signed with the Correns in 2006 to end a long-standing human rights complaint that the curriculum discriminated against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students.

Abbotsford officials say they're reviewing the course because of parental concerns, and the board has not yet decided whether it will be offered in future. The Correns say the parents who have complained are objecting to content dealing with sexual orientation, gender identity, homophobia and heterosexism because of their religion, but B.C. schools are required to be secular.

Abbotsford school superintendent Julie MacRae refused to comment on the case, saying only that she is confident of a fair hearing.

Earlier, Education Minister Shirley Bond said boards have a choice about whether or not to offer elective classes, but Murray Corren said the Abbotsford situation is different because the course was offered and then pulled. "It would have been an entirely different matter if the course had never (been) offered," Murray Corren added.

If Gay Marriage Is Allowed, Will Schools Promote It?
National Public Radio
Alex Cohen
October 23, 2008

In California, how voting on one ballot question would impact education is being hotly debated.

Next month, Californians will vote on Proposition 8. If passed, the ballot measure would ensure that only marriages between a man and a woman are valid.

For the past two weeks, supporters of Proposition 8 have been running an ad featuring a young girl who brings home a book called King & King.

"Mom, guess what I learned in school today," she says in the ad. "I learned how a prince married a prince, and I can marry a princess!"

The ad was based on the real-life story of Robin and Robb Wirthlin, a Mormon couple living in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal. Two years ago, their son's second-grade teacher read King & King to the class.

"It was very confusing to him," the Wirthlins say. "We had to sit him down and explain that as a family, we value a different way of thinking about marriage."

The Wirthlins complained to the school and eventually sued.

A U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "public schools are not obliged to shield students from ideas which are potentially offensive to their parents." Two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Wirthlins' case.

Around that same time, a group of public school first- graders in San Francisco took a field trip to City Hall where their teacher, Erin Carder, got married to another woman.

When Carder emerged from City Hall, she says, she was surprised to find her students there, tossing rose petals.

"They know I was out of school for a week to take my honeymoon," she told a reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle. "I just can't believe that they came today! I feel really blessed!"

The trip was optional and was organized by parents, not by the school. But supporters of Proposition 8 cite this story and the Wirthlins' case as proof that the gay marriage initiative could affect California 's schools.

Opponents of Proposition 8 liken the tactics of their opponents to the ones used to defeat former presidential candidate John Kerry. "There is no other way to describe what's happening here except that the 'No on 8' side is being swift-boated," says Kate Kendell of the "No on 8" campaign.

She argues that Proposition 8's defeat will have no affect on education -- a message that's been echoed by Jack O'Connell, California 's superintendent of schools.

"The 'Yes on Proposition 8' ads that I have seen are misleading, inaccurate and they are really irrelevant," he says.

O'Connell says if Proposition 8 is defeated, that will have no bearing on the state's education code. "There is no requirement, no mandate for any school in the state of California to have this [gay marriage] required as a course."

Recently, the "No on 8" campaign has been touting O'Connell's endorsement in radio and TV ads of their own.

Kendell says she's saddened to see kids dragged into this political battle. But, she adds, it's easy to see why that's happened.

"There's probably no more protective part of human nature," she says, "than when a parent feels like they need to protect children."

Proposition 8 is one of 12 initiatives Californians will vote.