Parents can pull kids from "harmful" classes?

[AmandaM]

http://azstarnet.com/article_1d7c2f31-7d3c-55dd-9a65-27d1b458d1ec.html

From the article:
PHOENIX - State lawmakers gave final approval Tuesday to legislation allowing parents to pull their kids out of classes and lessons they find "harmful."

"Harmful" is broadly defined as sexual, violent, profane or vulgar content - a standard one lawmaker said would lead to parents censoring what their youngsters learn.

SB 1453, which now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, is designed to expand on an existing "Parents' Bill of Rights" which includes the power of parents to direct the education of their child. State law also protects those rights from government infringement unless there is a "compelling governmental interest."

and

"It's very subjective," he said, because that could allow a parent to decide a child need not learn about world history and war in particular. The result, he said, is some children won't learn "the truth" of what happened in the past.

"It would create situations where we can have parents out there who are censoring kids from things that I think are very important to learn about our nation's history," he said.


Obviously any discussion of evolution would fit the "harmful" category for a lot of people, but what would we be MOST worried about parents not wanting their kids to know about, especially regarding history? The Holocaust? Civil War? Bombing of Japan?

[sadhatter]

Wow, this will lead to nothing more than a further move away from education for the united states. Leading to even more prevalence of " no fact only opinion " logic.

The world is an ugly place, full of swear words, violence, and facts that are going to **** you off. Deal with it, condemning your children to ignorance because you have the right to is child abuse plain and simple.

I sit and think, a parent can control ( to a limited extent in normal parents, to an extreme extent in whack jobs.) what their child views on the internet, views on television, and now, learns in school. I have to ask, does the child not have a right to a broad base of information? Or do the parents simply have godlike rights over any aspect of their child's life? Saying a child can not watch a porno is one thing, but taken to the extreme, as in this case, it is simply giving the parents a bit too much control over their children. What happened to having your own life experiences?

[Paul W]

I am a bit more sanguine than others seem to be about this. All parents – including me and mine – have attempted to influence what their offspring read, learn etc – with a total lack of success.

Kids learn, frequently what we are unhappy about them doing so. I did, so why shouldn’t the rest.

[sadhatter]

I am a bit more sanguine than others seem to be about this. All parents – including me and mine – have attempted to influence what their offspring read, learn etc – with a total lack of success.

Kids learn, frequently what we are unhappy about them doing so. I did, so why shouldn’t the rest.

The problem is the more effective the strategy the harder it is going to be for the kid to be able to get any information, especially, in this case scholarly information.

Think of it, if you demand your kid home right after school, monitor and censor his internet access and carefully monitor and censor their television watching, and not allow them over to friends homes that do not believe as you do ( not that out of the realm of possibility for someone who would choose to not have their child go to a science class because it bothers them. ) , this kid is going to find it nearly impossible to gain any relevant scholarly information in regards to any subject you do not want them knowing about. And gives you pretty much unilateral power over how their views are created.

Sure some may overcome this later in life, but a large amount are simply going to become a robot based on your beliefs, further retarding the progress of learning as a whole.

[Mister Earl]

I get the impression that this is more about protecting children from learning about evil science and its demonic evolution.

=\

[madurobob]

Yup - as a parent I reserve the right to pull my kids from any class I think inappropriate. That should be guaranteed everywhere. I don't see this as any different than allowing me to choose what food my child eats (school lunch vs bagged).

Of course, I also think its fine to have schools run standard EOG tests at key points in the K-12 years and make a passing grade mandatory for advancement. If any parent pulls their kid from a line of education key to passing the EOG they need to be prepared with a backup plan.

[sadhatter]

Yup - as a parent I reserve the right to pull my kids from any class I think inappropriate. That should be guaranteed everywhere. I don't see this as any different than allowing me to choose what food my child eats (school lunch vs bagged).

Of course, I also think its fine to have schools run standard EOG tests at key points in the K-12 years and make a passing grade mandatory for advancement. If any parent pulls their kid from a line of education key to passing the EOG they need to be prepared with a backup plan.

This i would agree with. The pragmatic part of my argument would be addressed, but i still feel that the level of control parents are gaining over their children is becoming staggering.

The fact that children seem to have no rights to not have their minds manipulated on a huge level, is a problem to me. Every parent should have some control over their child, a lot of control even, but as technology advance, and " no fact only opinion" gains steam, it seems a dangerous road to be wandering down.

[tesscaline]

Yup - as a parent I reserve the right to pull my kids from any class I think inappropriate. That should be guaranteed everywhere. I don't see this as any different than allowing me to choose what food my child eats (school lunch vs bagged).

Of course, I also think its fine to have schools run standard EOG tests at key points in the K-12 years and make a passing grade mandatory for advancement. If any parent pulls their kid from a line of education key to passing the EOG they need to be prepared with a backup plan.I completely agree with you here.

I have actually exercised the right to pull my child from a class. I did so because the content of the class was scientifically inaccurate and contained a fair bit of scare tactics about HIV and AIDS, and was directed at 3rd graders. I only pulled my child from the class after speaking with the teacher about my concerns, and was met with (yet again, I dunno what on earth was wrong with that school district) "I just teach what the manual says to" as an explanation for the content of the class.

I can see how the ability to pull children from classes that a parent doesn't agree with could easily be abused, and end up denying children proper education, so it would be nice if there were failsafes to protect against that happening. But I definitely agree with having the ability to remove my child from classes that are "harmful" or "inappropriate."

[Lisa Simpson]

I have never pulled my kids from class, even the stupid scare tactics DARE class. I figure those classes are an excellent opportunity for me to teach critical thinking to my children. The benefit was my children didn't think what their teachers told them was the gospel truth. The downside is that teachers don't like students who don't take their word as the gospel truth.

[madurobob]

This i would agree with. The pragmatic part of my argument would be addressed, but i still feel that the level of control parents are gaining over their children is becoming staggering.

I have no idea if Arizona has EOG or similar testing, but its pretty common. But, I'm not sure the level of control parents have over their children has changed much at all in several generations in the USA. I suspect that in that time parents have had just as much (or as little) input into the specifics of their kid's education as they chose to have. There have always been helicopter parents just as there have always been absentee parents.

What is a shame is that Arizona thought this was such a problem that there needed to be a state law. Here in the NC school system I attended and my children attend now there has always been a policy allowing parents to exclude their kids from some classes or some field trips. It just makes sense, and there is no need for a state mandate.

[AmandaM]

But what is inappropriate, and would you trust OTHER parents to make as informed a decision as you yourself made?

The HIV/AIDS lecture -- I can see that, I guess, especially if the information being taught was false.

Would a creationist try to pull her kid out of earth science class because she felt it was harmful to learn that the earth is older than 7000 years, (or whatever it is they believe) ? Is that acceptable? It's certainly argued to be harmful to the blind faith in the book that is required by literalists.

What about history class? That seemed to be the focus of the criticism -- what would be "harmful" in history class?


Also, isn't there a difference between yanking your kid out because of bad information, and yanking your kid out because you don't like the message behind the information?

[Dr. Keith]

What is a shame is that Arizona thought this was such a problem that there needed to be a state law. Here in the NC school system I attended and my children attend now there has always been a policy allowing parents to exclude their kids from some classes or some field trips. It just makes sense, and there is no need for a state mandate.

That's what confused me.

Did the state really need to waste time passing this law?

Were parents being denied the opportunity to pull their children from classes?

I'd be pissed if my legislature was wasting time on this instead of dealing with the mountains of real issues facing states.

>>>places fingers firmly in ears so he can't hear what similarly stupid thing is being discussed locally<<<<<

[Dr. Keith]

But what is inappropriate, and would you trust OTHER parents to make as informed a decision as you yourself made?

The HIV/AIDS lecture -- I can see that, I guess, especially if the information being taught was false.

Would a creationist try to pull her kid out of earth science class because she felt it was harmful to learn that the earth is older than 7000 years, (or whatever it is they believe) ? Is that acceptable? It's certainly argued to be harmful to the blind faith in the book that is required by literalists.

What about history class? That seemed to be the focus of the criticism -- what would be "harmful" in history class?


Also, isn't there a difference between yanking your kid out because of bad information, and yanking your kid out because you don't like the message behind the information?

Parents have always had this right. In an extreme form it is called homeschooling.

What's the alternative, forced education centers?

[tesscaline]

But what is inappropriate, and would you trust OTHER parents to make as informed a decision as you yourself made?No, that's why they end up leaving their children IN these classes instead of pulling them out in protest like I did...

The HIV/AIDS lecture -- I can see that, I guess, especially if the information being taught was false. Not only was it false, but it was being taught to 3rd graders. 8 year olds.

Would a creationist try to pull her kid out of earth science class because she felt it was harmful to learn that the earth is older than 7000 years, (or whatever it is they believe) ? Is that acceptable? It's certainly argued to be harmful to the blind faith in the book that is required by literalists.

What about history class? That seemed to be the focus of the criticism -- what would be "harmful" in history class?Where I lived growing up (a rather heavily Mormon populated community) those things you mention were run of the mill. See, parents have had full right to pull their children out of classes for... Well for as long as I can remember. And yeah, the religious zealots took full advantage of it. And their kids were at a disadvantage because of it. Sucks to be them. *shrug*


Also, isn't there a difference between yanking your kid out because of bad information, and yanking your kid out because you don't like the message behind the information?Well, yes and no. If my kid were having homeopathy taught in science class, with the message behind the information being "anecdotal evidence is just fine, who cares about placebo effects", then yeah, I take issue with that "message" as well.

These things are, by and large, moral judgements. Ones that our children are not necessarily able to make for themselves. In some cases, maybe the damage of a screwed up curriculum can be corrected at home by parents without having to pull a child out of a class. In some cases, maybe the fear isn't just of the bad information, but of the fear being instilled in the child (or other emotion) that may be less easy to counter. As parents, we have to make these decisions, and act accordingly.

[Verde]

I get the impression that this is more about protecting children from learning about evil science and its demonic evolution.



Probably not. Arizona has a small number of pockets of fundy activists, but they are few and far between.

This smells like a bit of posturing to draw attention to a non-existent problem. Looking at the players involved, political grandstanding is just par for the course.

V.

[Verde]

What about history class? That seemed to be the focus of the criticism -- what would be "harmful" in history class?



That Arizona was actually part of Mexico for many years?

Can't hate the buggers if they are us. That doesn't sit well with certain political factions.

V.

[thaiboxerken]

Seems like a stab at sex/reproduction education here. Next, they'll be pushing to have abstinence-only programs taught in public schools.

[Loss Leader]

PHOENIX - State lawmakers gave final approval Tuesday to legislation allowing parents to pull their kids out of classes and lessons they find "harmful."




To a large extent, this already is the law. There will come a point where it crosses some sort of constitutional barrier. The state does have a compelling interest in seeing that children get some sort of education.

Still, you have to hand it to the Arizona State Legislature. Just when you think you've heard the dumbest thing any functioning adult could say, they pass a new law.

[Checkmite]

Not seeing the urgent problem here. As long as it isn't harmful to the child's physical or psychiatric health, parents have the right to raise their children any way they wish - and that includes "censoring" their education, or indoctrinating them to believe that specific teachers, classes, and textbooks are "inaccurate and/or lies" and not to be taken seriously. Someone who grows up having never heard of evolution is not going to be an invalid for the rest of his life.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't agree with you, Checkmite. Such censorship and ignorance results in more Republicans.

[themusicteacher]

Somehow, I think the word "harmful" is really a synonym for "things I might find offensive or don't agree with." Sorry, but sometimes it's a teachers job to challenge your previously held beliefs or say things you don't agree with so long as it's true. I'd like to hear some specific instances that occurred that precipitated this law, where children were being obviously harmed in some manner. I'm betting it has more to do with pettiness and anti-intellectualism than it does with protecting children.

[MikeSun5]

as a parent I reserve the right to pull my kids from any class I think inappropriate.

^^can't argue with that one bit. I'm actually suprised this legislation wasn't in place many years ago. I remember when I was in middle school the teachers gave our parents the option to pull us out of health class when they were going to teach Sex Ed. I remember how my parents actually thought that was funny, that someone wouldn't want their child to learn something.

I thought it was funny, too.... until my 12 year old eyes saw the video of that birth/afterbirth, that is. :eye-poppi Man, that was intense.

[themusicteacher]

Not seeing the urgent problem here. As long as it isn't harmful to the child's physical or psychiatric health, parents have the right to raise their children any way they wish - and that includes "censoring" their education, or indoctrinating them to believe that specific teachers, classes, and textbooks are "inaccurate and/or lies" and not to be taken seriously. Someone who grows up having never heard of evolution is not going to be an invalid for the rest of his life.

So that's the standard? "So long as my kid isn't an invalid, I should be able to censor her entire life from things that I deem to be unacceptable." Yes, we really need more stunted, anti-intellectual, inept idiots running around.

[Travis]

I remember I lost a kid from my science class in the 10th grade when we started learning about the greenhouse effect. Boy his parents sure were mad about that.

[Loss Leader]

So that's the standard? "So long as my kid isn't an invalid, I should be able to censor her entire life from things that I deem to be unacceptable." Yes, we really need more stunted, anti-intellectual, inept idiots running around.



Except for the invalid part, that's the standard. Children belong to parents about the same way as nuclear fuel rods belong to an energy company. So long as they;re not neglected or misused in a way that threatens the public, people can do whatever they want with them.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0406_0205_ZS.html) remains the leading case on the issue.

[Checkmite]

So that's the standard? "So long as my kid isn't an invalid, I should be able to censor her entire life from things that I deem to be unacceptable."

To wit: yes.

Really give this some thought. Say a person, as a child, is kept from ever learning about evolution. Certainly a sad state of affairs; but how is this going to cause them to be "stunted, inept", etc? How many times has your knowledge of the scientific truth of evolution led to greater job performance, gotten you successfully through a dangerous storm, or helped you save money?

[thaiboxerken]

Without learning biology, they will be crippled from going into any medical related careers.

[Travis]

Well pretty much every college I know of has biology as part of their core learning program while an undergrad. I'd imagine not believing in evolution will be quite a hindrance in that class regardless of what their major is. It sure would have been in mine.

[AmandaM]

I didn't realize parents could "opt out" of having their kids in classes. The only thing I can remember as a kid was having mom sign permission slips for me to leave the school grounds.

My question now is: how do you find out that the school is teaching something you have issues with? Tesscaline -- how do you know about the HIV/AIDS class before the kids actually had the class? Does the school send out a "you might want to consider opting out of this class" notice or something? Do they have to alert parents to controversial topics? Or do you as a parent just have to be super vigilant in keeping up with what your kids are learning?

[madurobob]

how do you know about the HIV/AIDS class before the kids actually had the class? Does the school send out a "you might want to consider opting out of this class" notice or something? Do they have to alert parents to controversial topics? Or do you as a parent just have to be super vigilant in keeping up with what your kids are learning?

In my case, a bit of all three. My youngest is in grade school (only just - 5th grade) and we get the weekly "Wednesday folder". In it is a description of what they covered the past week, whats on the agenda for the coming week, and any notes from any of the teachers.

I've never had occasion to consider it, but I know I could send a note back asking my child be sent to the library or something similar during a specific lesson. I doubt anyone would so much as bat an eye at the request.

[themusicteacher]

To wit: yes.

Really give this some thought. Say a person, as a child, is kept from ever learning about evolution. Certainly a sad state of affairs; but how is this going to cause them to be "stunted, inept", etc? How many times has your knowledge of the scientific truth of evolution led to greater job performance, gotten you successfully through a dangerous storm, or helped you save money?

You're being extremely specific but what's at stake here is that you're basically telling your child, "Hey, these people trying to teach you evolution are wrong because I say so and we don't believe in that." So, now they have the view that it's okay to substitute your own opinions for that of true experts in their fields on a completely arbitrary basis. This anti-authoritarian view does, unfortunately, transfer into other spheres of their lives. Your boss tells you to do something a certain way but you think you know better? Screw him. You think you know better how to navigate through a storm than someone who has studied their behavior? Pffffft. Those "so-called financial experts" trying to teach you how to save money so you can retire at an age at which you can enjoy it? Forget it.

These are the same crackpots out there spreading dangerous rumors, lies, misinformation and pseudo-science. They cost us all money with their stupidity when some jackass in the government takes them seriously and funds their nonsense (what has abstinence only education cost "us"?) or when they do something dangerous or illegal and we have to protect/rescue/prosecute them. There are effects to this sort of irresponsible parenting that can be felt for many years later in ways some people can't imagine. You may "own" your child in a legal sense but this sort of morally depraved, anti-authoritarianism does effect other people. So if effecting other people (or costing society monetarily) is your standard, there you go.

[themusicteacher]

Except for the invalid part, that's the standard. Children belong to parents about the same way as nuclear fuel rods belong to an energy company. So long as they;re not neglected or misused in a way that threatens the public, people can do whatever they want with them.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0406_0205_ZS.html) remains the leading case on the issue.

And then they're foisted upon society, like it or not, at 18 and they're just supposed to overcome 18 years of anti-authoritarian crankishness? Yeah, right. Children are under the guardianship of their parents, they are not property. As far as this issue is concerned, willfully withholding relevant information from them with regards to things they will need to be fully functional and responsible members of a free and open society is a sick form of intellectual abuse. There may be nothing to be done about it from a legal standpoint but, as is abundantly clear, the law is little concerned with ethical and moral implications unless there is a powerful lobby behind the cause.

[Loss Leader]

And then they're foisted upon society, like it or not, at 18 and they're just supposed to overcome 18 years of anti-authoritarian crankishness? Yeah, right. Children are under the guardianship of their parents, they are not property. As far as this issue is concerned, willfully withholding relevant information from them with regards to things they will need to be fully functional and responsible members of a free and open society is a sick form of intellectual abuse. There may be nothing to be done about it from a legal standpoint but, as is abundantly clear, the law is little concerned with ethical and moral implications unless there is a powerful lobby behind the cause.


Your rhetoric seems not to recognize the value of pluralism. Our current system admits that nobody has a monopoly on the best possible path to raising a child. Thus, everyone is allowed to do it their way with the exception of some very general constraints.

I'd remind you that many people here believe that religious indoctrination shackles the mind. A society free of religion would, some believe, function better and be more free and more open. But it would be lunacy to insist that parents be restrained from passing their religion down to their children.

Who exactly decides what is "relevant information" under your system? What parameters indicate "fully functional" members of society? What does it mean to be "responsible members" of the community? Most importantly, what definition of "free and open society" allows the state to decide what a parent can and cannot teach his children?

Moreover, I don't think it's "abundantly clear" that the law has little concern for morals. What powerful lobby brought no fault divorce to New York? Which lobbying groups insisted that a person's assets should descend to his children if he dies without a will?

Arizona's law is a dumb waste of time in that it restates a right parents already have. But I don't agree with a single one of your comments.

[GreyArea]

Obviously any discussion of evolution would fit the "harmful" category for a lot of people, but what would we be MOST worried about parents not wanting their kids to know about, especially regarding history? The Holocaust? Civil War? Bombing of Japan?
A lot of this power to pull children from specific classes was already granted last year in that state. That year's SB 1309 was also known as "The Parents' Bill of Rights". A PDF is here (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1309h.pdf). Although I'm not sure if that was the version signed into law, it seems to match what's in the statutes now:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/15/00102.htm&Title=15&DocType=ARS

15-102. Parental involvement in the school; definition

A. The governing board, in consultation with parents, teachers and administrators, shall develop and adopt a policy to promote the involvement of parents and guardians of children enrolled in the schools within the school district, including:
...
2. Procedures by which parents may learn about the course of study for their children and review learning materials, including the source of any supplemental educational materials.

3. Procedures by which parents who object to any learning material or activity on the basis that it is harmful may withdraw their children from the activity or from the class or program in which the material is used. Objection to a learning material or activity on the basis that it is harmful includes objection to a material or activity because it questions beliefs or practices in sex, morality or religion.

And there you have it.

Also see subsections 5 and 7g.

The beauty of this kind of legislation is that it's easier and cheaper for the school to just skip the controversial stuff, debasing the education for everyone. The current bill simply extends these "rights" to parents of children in charter schools and other kinds of schools.

One thing that's interesting is that last year they unnecessarily reiterated the "right" to avoid vaccination, which was already law (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/15/00873.htm&Title=15&DocType=ARS).

As for history class, since one of the introducing members was the notorious Russell Pearce I have to wonder.... Since he's a Mormon, maybe he didn't want kids exposed to the archeologically- and genetically-supported facts of pre-contact North American history.

[tesscaline]

My question now is: how do you find out that the school is teaching something you have issues with? Tesscaline -- how do you know about the HIV/AIDS class before the kids actually had the class? Does the school send out a "you might want to consider opting out of this class" notice or something? Do they have to alert parents to controversial topics? Or do you as a parent just have to be super vigilant in keeping up with what your kids are learning?As Madurobob says, a bit of all three.

In the case of the HIV/AIDS class, there was a notice sent home about the class, explaining the curriculum (it claimed that the curriculum had been on file and freely available for review by parents at the main school district office, but hey, good luck actually finding it... I'm reminded of hitchhikers' guide to the galaxy here).

However, the previous year, I received no notice about the class, so my child ended up in it (transferred schools mid-year, so we missed out on some of the information other parents got). I had to spend copious amounts of time correcting the nonsense he wound up being taught, and some of it I'm really just not entirely sure how well I was able to counter (sadly, this is the sort of problem you run into when you have elementary school level physical education teachers attempting to teach scientific subjects that they don't even understand themselves). For weeks I was fielding anxious questions about things like "what if I get hurt and need a transfusion, will I get AIDS?" -- things that no 7 year old should be thinking about, let alone worrying about.

So I was on the lookout for the class the next year -- being super vigilant, if you will -- to ensure that the curriculum was either a) better or b) something I could opt him out of.

As I mentioned, I did discuss the curriculum with the teacher of the class before making the decision as to whether or not to allow him to be a part of it. The curriculum was not better. It may have even been worse, given what of it I managed to get my hands on. And then, not only did I get the "I just teach what's in the manual" response when I asked about the discrepancies in the material I'd seen, but the teacher demonstrated a severe lack of understanding herself of the overall subject matter. It was really rather disturbing to find out that someone with a college education could not wrap her mind around the idea that HIV is a virus, and while AIDS is not a virus it is a syndrome that is the result of someone having HIV. She simply had no place discussing the subject matter with my child, in my opinion, if she couldn't understand that point herself.

As you can see, I didn't make the decision to pull him out of the class lightly. I researched not just the curriculum, but also the teacher's knowledge and capability before taking any action.

[Cactus Wren]

What about history class? That seemed to be the focus of the criticism -- what would be "harmful" in history class?That Arizona was actually part of Mexico for many years?

Can't hate the buggers if they are us. That doesn't sit well with certain political factions.

I can also easily imagine parents arguing that teaching about slavery or the slaughter of the American Indians is racist against white people.

[fuelair]

I have never pulled my kids from class, even the stupid scare tactics DARE class. I figure those classes are an excellent opportunity for me to teach critical thinking to my children. The benefit was my children didn't think what their teachers told them was the gospel truth. The downside is that teachers don't like students who don't take their word as the gospel truth.Depends (with me anyway) on how the students
don't take their word as gospel truth. No problem with kids who simply make a statement that they have a problem with material or don't agree with it. The ones who want to spend time arguing it, on the other hand.

As an example, one of my current students was unhappy that we were talking about the Big Bang because (usual religious stuff) but after I explained that whatever he thought, the state requires it by putting it in the Sunshine State Standards which we, indeed, are required to teach (I'm oh, so, upset with that :D:D:D:D:D)so I have no option but to pass it on to them, that halted. My wife had the same problem with a child who chose to be obnoxious, which my student didn't. Did not work out well for the child (mother was not thrilled when she found out the child had lied about things the mother had supposedly said.)

[Loss Leader]

I have never pulled my kids from class, even the stupid scare tactics DARE class.


My problem with DARE isn't that the information is untrue, it's that the program doesn't work. I think it's a waste of money and resources, but I don't think I'll pull my children out of it.

OTOH, I did keep my child from attending an event at a preschool where a guy from a local motorcycle club dressed as Santa Claus distributed donated toys to the children.

[themusicteacher]

Your rhetoric seems not to recognize the value of pluralism. Our current system admits that nobody has a monopoly on the best possible path to raising a child. Thus, everyone is allowed to do it their way with the exception of some very general constraints.

I'd remind you that many people here believe that religious indoctrination shackles the mind. A society free of religion would, some believe, function better and be more free and more open. But it would be lunacy to insist that parents be restrained from passing their religion down to their children.

Who exactly decides what is "relevant information" under your system? What parameters indicate "fully functional" members of society? What does it mean to be "responsible members" of the community? Most importantly, what definition of "free and open society" allows the state to decide what a parent can and cannot teach his children?

Moreover, I don't think it's "abundantly clear" that the law has little concern for morals. What powerful lobby brought no fault divorce to New York? Which lobbying groups insisted that a person's assets should descend to his children if he dies without a will?

Arizona's law is a dumb waste of time in that it restates a right parents already have. But I don't agree with a single one of your comments.

I wasn't proposing any sort of "system," I'm not suggesting parents shouldn't be allowed to pass religion onto their kids and I couldn't care less if you agree or disagree with my points. Thanks for putting words into my mouth and totally distorting what I was saying.

Look, we send kids to school to be educated and they may hear some things with which their parents may have some ideological opposition. This is how education occurs - we collect information, even that which may conflict with a belief system, then make decisions based on good information. Certainly, parents may have a "right" under the law to pull kids out of a class but they then forfeit the ability to call themselves or their children educated in any sense of the word. This makes them unable to fully participate in and causes harm to our society. Cranks and irrational anti-authoritarians make life more difficult and more expensive and sometimes more dangerous.

http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/birtherism-expensive

[pgwenthold]

Isn't the goal of this type of legislation not just to "allow students to opt out" of that part, but to protect them from being punished (gradewise) when they do that?

That is the objectionable part I think. If parents don't want their kids learning evolution in biology, keep them out. However, that doesn't mean they shouldn't get a failing grade when they haven't learned it. "My mom doesn't want me to learn that" should not be a reason not to get an F.