comment: >
  
  gonna go for an unpopular opinion here: the nuclear family itself is a deeply toxic and bullshit structure that enables horrifying amounts of abuse. placing a whole-ass human being under the complete and near-unquestioned legal authority of another based solely on happenstance blood relation is a setup ripe for issues, and we see this again and again with child abuse, forced religious indoctrination, anti-vax, horrific abuse of lgbtq kids via conversion therapy, denial of needed medical care, etc. and we've really only barely begun to unpack and acknowledge all the patriarchal bullshit packed into the concept as well, the way the structure (and the way everything orbits around the structure) was/is used to control women via finances
  couldn't tell you what the replacement would look like, but child-rearing wasn't always structured this way and the current structure is garbage. on a fundamental level i do not trust anybody with the sort of authority a parent is legally granted over a child
context: I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing
  When I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide
  Similarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content
  None of this is new >
  
  
  None of this is new
  
  What's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing. >
  
  Teachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. 
  I think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. 
  I think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce. >
  
  I am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. 
  The only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.
  Also if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t…. >
  
  I think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is "age appropriate" is the same thing as "censorship".
  Certainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever.  However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors.  
  For example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book "Gender Queer" because it depicts graphic pornography.  Is that tantamount to censorship?  It's a tough question for sure.  
  Having this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot. >
  
  I cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. 
  With the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment.  
  My argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. 
  It makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.
  Also, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it. >
  
  Idk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. 
  Also, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.
  It's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility. >
  
  "It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented."
  You proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. 
  Do you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever? >
  
  I proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.
  It's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.
  So too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay. >
  
  "It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented".
  These are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. 
  For what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game.  I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating. >
  
  An inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless. >
  
  If Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it? >
  
  As a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child. >
  
  
  I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life.
  
  .
  
  I wish this was the case for circumcision between like 1950-1990
  Doctors were recommending that shit
  
  So you mean you wish that WASN'T the case for circumcision between 1950 to 1990? It seems that what you're saying is lots of circumcisions happened because doctors were convinced it was a good idea, but you believe it was a bad idea. That would mean you do not want people to blindly trust medical professionals because they're fallible. >
  
  Circumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it. This is not a globally recognized practice - get you head out of the US’s butt. >
  
  
  Circumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it.
  
  You could say the same about any number of topics/issues in public schools, both in the past and today. Which brings us back to the OP's question. >
  
  Everything boils down to informed uncoerced competent consent.
  My children (at their current ages) are not competent enough at their current ages / mental maturity to do a great many things (play with matches, get tattoos, buy a house, examples ad hyperbole etc)
  Until they are able to 1. Be fully (as possible) informed or provided with the appropriate information to make a decision, 2. Are under no duress for the decision (i.e. someone is threatening them. Etc) 3. Are mentally competent enough to understand the ramifications of their decisions,  and 4. Willingly want to do something after all factors are weighed.
  It is my job as a parent to take those decisions on. 
  This will be interpreted different in many households. But the parents should be the ones ultimately responsible for their children's well being.
  That being said, as the child matures they gain more autonomy. How much is difficult based on the individual. My daughter for instance is extremely independent. Not distant or removed, but she definitely makes a large amount of her own decisions, whereas my younger son cannot.
  This is an area with so much Grey that making universal rules is almost impossible. Which is why, I think, society defaults to "until they're an adult the parents rule ". >
  
  This ignores the role of schools though. Parents cede some of that responsibility to teachers, much like they cede some responsibility to doctors, coaches, and other people with positions of authority and teaching wrt ones child. Each of these people will be slightly different from the parents, will have different values and incentives, and will be responsible for more than just one set of parents' children. 
  Each of these people are functionally agents of the parent, the parent is entitled to some assurances from the agent, but cannot command specific conduct in every facet of the agent's job, (not least of all because that would be impossible). So the question inherently becomes, how do we ensure that all parents are assured that their parents are not being abused and that each parent's responsibility for child rearing is being discharged within reason. 
  It's just not feasible to say "let the parents handle it" unless a parent wants to take back responsibility for every part of their child's life >
  
  I don't disagree with this. This would be in the massive amounts of Grey areas. There's so much nuance to this. >
  
  I sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long. I have to say this is one of my favorite topics. Because I think. We have become way too indulgent in this view that parents are the be all and end all when it comes to raising children.  I have four children but while they are my children, they are also citizens, friends, students, colleagues, etc. that is to say I do not have a monopoly on who they are.
  I personally am cynical enough to believe that this view is a spinoff of the idea of radical individualism. And I view radical individualism, as smokescreen for the wealthy and powerful to increase their wealth and power. That is, it is part of an attempt to make people less aware that they are part of a society and the community.
  I also feel like I need to call out what I see is one of the greatest disservices. That is when parents are allowed to homeschool their children or send them to religious schools. If as an educated adult, you want to believe in bullshit, magic, hocus-pocus, that I suppose is your prerogative , but I view it as almost a form of child abuse to subject your child to that. 
  While this is not completely unproblematic the French, especially during the revolution, you children as creatures of the state first and foremost. I think you by state you mean the community and society at large, I generally agree with that sentiment. So I have a huge issue with this absurd. Focus on parental rights, which is a cynical way to manipulate voters into voting for morons like Ron DeSantis . >
  
  
  I sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long
  
  Me too honestly. I've just been thinking about this for weeks now and the more I thought about it the more tangled the thoughts became until I had to vomit my thoughts all over the post, and I think the conversation is missing most of it.
  The rest of your post raised the kinds of points I was interested in thinking about, the role of children as a member of society vs as an instrument of their parents' will. >
  
  Its a great topic.  I myself have been almsot physically assaulted when I tell a parent that I think they are doing a disservice homeschooling a kid or sending him or her to some fundamentalist school.  
  And I honestly view it ad an attempt to isolate people from the collectove institutions that used to make us citizens, ie members of a political body …. >
  
  I find it really telling how these pushes for “parents’ rights” in schools both 1) really glorify ignorance, and 2) only apply to parents who fit a very specific social and political mould. Nobody going to a school board meeting to scream about parental rights seems to give a shit that a lot of other parents would really like their kids to get a comprehensive education, including on LGBTQ+ topics. 
  Parents shouldn’t get to keep their kids in perpetual ignorance in an effort to ensure that their kids never develop opinions that may contradict their parents. >
  
  I hate to break it to all the right-wing parents on here, but children are individuals and you cannot control every single aspect of who they are and who they will become.  If they are gay, they are gay and all you will accomplish by subjecting them to your homophobic attitudes is to cause them to hate themselves, and probably ruin any chance of having a good relationship with them when they are adults.
  Children also get to choose their own political and social beliefs and are capable of forming them at a fairly young age.  My sister and I always had more liberal views than my parents did when we were growing up.  The funny thing is my parents’ views evolved over the years and they no longer vote Republican,  mostly because they are so turned off by the book-burning, witch-hunting, anti-science, Capitol-storming nature of today’s Republican Party. >
  
  Parents scream "indoctrination" at schools.....all the while indoctrinating the shit out of their own kids.  When students project crazy attitudes at school, it's 99% learned from their parents.  Signed, An exhausted teacher >
  
  They want their own brand of indoctrination. But they dont consider their ignorance and bigotry indoctrination, they consider it the "truth". >
  
  Well, of course they do. Which I think is kind of the whole point here.
  And before I go further, I'm assuming you're a Democrat (or sympathic to Democrats broadly) like myself.
  If a die hard Republican majority took control of our local school board and started teaching in history class that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, what would you and I think? We'd think they were crazy! And rightfully so. But the school board would firmly and truthfully believe that they are teaching real history and we are the crazy ones. Now, you're responding to my comment right now going "but we are right, Trump lost! How can there be a dispute here?" 
  But, and this is my main point, the actual truth doesn't matter in this situation. Of course our truth is the actual truth. But in this scenario the guys teaching the lie control the levers of state power. So the lie will be taught as truth and the truth will be taught as a lie.
  What this comes down to is a matter of state power and how it's exercised. And we always need to remember that the other side can and will exercise state power at some point in a highly competitive Democracy, such as we have here.
  Which is why I think this question is so complicated. Parents need real levers of control over their children's education, because at some point many of us will need to use those levers to defend our kids from fucking nut jobs who happen to be running the state that day. 
  This is a Democracy. We need to be mindful we don't build a state empowered to wreck our own and our children's lives because an idiot won an election. >
  
  I get what you are saying, but that is not the greatest example. The election wasnt stolen. This is not something that can be spun, it is strictly a conspiracy theory. No credible professional in any capacity anywhere agrees with that regardless of political party. It just didnt happen. It's not something that is historically debated. There is no debate, it did not happen. Public schools teach historical facts. Now, one can choose to focus something (ie schools focus or lack thereof on historical injustices) but schools curriculum's wont allow for something that is made up, to be taught. You cant focus on something that doesnt exist. Homeschool sure, or a private school sure, they can teach fictitious stuff (religion, conspiracy theories etc), but not in public schools. No state official in any state will teach something that is 100% false in a public school. And this would trickle down to the local level, which ultimately answers to the state. No state official would be on board with that. They arent. That's just a fact.
  But again, I do get that parents should have a good amount of control over their kids. I think that is already the case. Parents get the final say in anything and everything. Heck in my day permission slips were the norm, and they still are. You dont want your kid learning something, boom sign a permission slip have them excused. Done. Not a problem. Parents already have those levers of control. They arent getting taken away.  It's all a contrived moral panic over nothing, used to get votes and consolidate power. It does nothing beneficial, except to promulgate fear, ignorance and hate. It's a big nothing burger.  If you go down this rabbit hole, then what's next? Should public schools be allowed to teach kids that we didnt really land on the moon, that 9/11 was an inside job, that Bill Gates experiments on African kids?
  Now, I also agree that it is quite complicated because the issue might be one that cannot be preempted with a permission form. If the class is going to discuss LGBTQ issues on a specific day for example, then it's real easy, permission forms sent out sign or dont sign boom, done. But it one of the kids textbooks has two men or women as parents, is that something that had to be preempted with a permission slip? You have to sign a permission slip for the whole school year because the textbook has pictures of same sex couples? That textbook will be used all year long, not just on a particular day. What if there are interracial couples in the book and somebody takes issue with that? Whats the overton window here? Maybe the racially mixed couples would not have been acceptable 40 years ago in kids textbooks and parents would have complained but it's ok now, and any complaints would ne negligible. I suspect the same sex couples may still raise eyebrows now (not as much as before) but in 40 years it will be the norm. This is all very dicey, and it seems as if unfortunately, ignorance and bigotry take time to dissipate. Tough pill to swallow for minorities, in this case LGBTQ (especially the T) to basically say, "hey you all are not even close to being accepted by the mainstream so people will continue to be suspicious and view you all as pedophiles, just as they used to do with the L's G's and B's but in time they will accept you more. Sorry but you all have to wait it out." But hey, they burned witches for thousands of years, so it's a cruel fact of reality that ignorance takes extremely long to be diminished, although with the advent of modern technology access to information is readily available so that is speeding up the process and providing a bulwark against ignorance and all its accompanying maladies. >
  
  
  No state official in any state will teach something that is 100% false in a public school. And this would trickle down to the local level, which ultimately answers to the state. No state official would be on board with that. They arent. That’s just a fact.
  
  What a silly thing to say. I mean just off the top of my head everything related to Christopher Columbus and Native Americans was outright lies taught to Americans in schools to push European and American (read:white) exceptionalism. State officials are partisan and human. They will approve factually wrong things that fit their political agenda. >
  
  Certainly lies, lies by omission. They paint a rosy picture and mention only the things that make the person look good but dont mention the genocide, that went along with the person. They do not concoct fabrications up as part of the curriculum, and if they do say something false, they will be called out on it. In today's day and age with the readily available information most of us have, we will not suffer foolishness for very long. Lies will be called out. So again, they may be partisan and human and may spout of inaccuracies, but it will not be tolerated on a systemic level. How could it? The teacher spouting off lies can quickly be fact checked with one basic google search. How do you or I know the truth about Christopher Columbus? That information that came to us, how did that information come out? >
  
  If you want full control of your child, then you need to homeschool them. By dictating that your child can't learn X Y or Z you are taking X Y & Z away from my child and other people's children.  I don't want my child's education to be stunted because someone else is a bigot and/or a homophobe. 
  Why does YOUR limited world view have to be my child's problem? >
  
  Teachers are meant to educate. They are not meant to serve as second parents. >
  
  We are though. The government has basically put us in a position to be second parents. I wish that I could just educate my job would be 100% better if I was just an educator. However, now I feed the kids in my classroom because a parent forgot or cannot afford breakfast and snack, I have to make sure that students have appropriate winter clothes to wear outside (because parents do not provide them), I have to council them etc. I wish I could just teach however, parents have pushed the buck to us. >
  
  The things you list don't make you a second parent only someone who is responsible for a child's safety and well-being within specific hours and/or under specific limitations.  This is in the same way that a coach is not a second parent, nor a police officer, etc.
  Also, is it you personally or thr school that provides the missing lunch and/or breakfast?  
  When I was young, which is some decades ago, if we didn't have the attire to be outside, we were kept inside (a form of punishment for elementary school kids).  We weren't allowed to go outside from junior high on. 
  A minor (17 or younger) who was at risk of injury from being overexposed to the elements going home from school was not simply allowed to walk home. >
  
  I think the term "parent" needs to be defined then, because 
  
  someone who is responsible for a child's safety and well-being
  
  is pretty close to what I would say. Even adding on the specific limitations and timeframes still means that, within those frameworks, the teacher is at least sometimes acting as a second parent. >
  
  You know that in loco parentis doesn't just apply to teachers.  It applies broadly to virtually anyone entrusted with children as part of their job, even as volunteers.  It never means that they are a "second parent" only that they bear responsibility under specific periods of time and under certain limitations.  That is in contrast to a "parent" who is a parent at all times, regardless of their presence.
  Here's a case to explain the difference: let's say a child gets picked up by police, is injured, or is in an accident.  Can they call a child's teacher to have them engage in the situation, perhaps make medical decisions?  Can they release a child from a hospital to their teacher?  Does a teacher have a right to be informed by medical personnel or by the police of the given situation?  
  Here is something to note: When a child is sick at school, they call parents to take the child home and provide care for the child.  The teacher doesn't have a role once the child leaves the school.  The parent still has a role while the child is in school and away from them. >
  
  Is being a parent to you merely legal custody? You’re not describing any actual acts of parenting, just the legal ownership of the kid. >
  
  Generally the issue is that young kids cannot possibly be fully responsible for themselves so some other adult needs to make decisions for them, including deciding which "influences" they are exposed to.
  Historically it has been seen that government, church, councils, doctors or schools aren't perfect in this role as they don't have a singular focus on the needs of any specific child.  In general a "good parent" will care a lot more, know a lot more and do a lot to help their kid than any state employee.  On the other hand, there are also clearly "bad parents" that do all sorts of harm so they need to be monitored, mitigated and sometimes policed. 
  The general idea is to resist the temptation to forever expand the role of teachers, doctors and so on as the moment parents view the teachers as part of the problem, all sorts of barriers go up and any "progress" will be limited at best.  Only when there is an immediate and serious problem should the state overrule the views of parents.
  The current battleground seems to be about the move away from "teaching" heteronormativity, many parents want that presented to their kids as "normal", "proper" and "natural".  But frankly I'm not surprised at all by that as we live in a world where things like the theory of evolution, abortion rights or vaccine effectiveness are still contested. >
  
  
  The current battleground seems to be about the move away from "teaching" heteronormativity, many parents want that presented to their kids as "normal", "proper" and "natural". 
  
  Mainly because it is.  When the hell did we shift from "being not normal is perfectly fine and doesn't devalue a person" to "everything must be presented as normal no matter how much of an outlier it is"? >
  
  We didn't.
  Similar to CRT, they need to create an imaginary boogeyman. 
  Remember the fake outrage of the "litter boxes" for "children who identified as a cat"?
  Just like CRT brainwashing it was simply made up. >
  
  
  Terry McAuliffe's infamous gaffe, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach”,
  
  He was right. I am the parent of 3 kids. 23, 21 & 19.i also actually live in Maryland and I thought he was right when he said it.
  Schools should be giving kids a lot of information so they find out who they are.  Parents should stay out of the way. 
  I raised my young adults. They are amazing. But I am not foolish enough to think that was all me. They had teachers who inspired them. Coaches who changed them.  Directors who made profound impacts on them. And make no mistake my kids are amazing.  I tell that to anyone who will listen.  
  When I was in high school I was a year ahead in science. And this group of guys in high school gave me a lot of problems about me not belonging in that class. The teacher said "well, she is obviously smarter then you because not only is she here she has 100% right now on the class". Every single person I ever met has a story about their favorite teacher.  That teacher was my chemistry teacher. All summer he worked for a drug company and every fall he returned to teach high school chemistry because teaching was his passion. He made more in 3 months then he made in 9 months teaching. That didn't matter
  Btw. My son and oldest is a Chemical Engineer.  That love of Chemistry and that teacher....I shared with my kids.  My youngest is getting her degree in public health.  She wants to work with the CDC. 
  Parents need to stay out of education. Most of them we know couldn't even help with homework during lockdown and now they want to tell teachers what to teach? >
  
  This is excellent!! Love your thoughts. >
  
  Think of some of the idiotic fellow students you encountered when you were in school. The ones who were jerks to teachers, just ‘cause they could. Do we really want to give them the power to dictate to professional educators? >
  
  Leaving fringe cases out of it, no teacher is going to love or care for a student like a parent would.  Teachers see 30 kids for 9 months, then the see another 30.  It is a job.  They don't exchange more than a few measured words one on one with any child on a given day.
  Parents have their heart and soul tied up in their kids.  They have known them from day 1.   You could give a teacher all the education in the world and they will never know a child like the parent who watched them grow from birth.
  School choice is again an underutilized answer.  It allows the people who know and love their children the most to have greater input in the betterment of the next generation. >
  
  And yet it's still parents throwing hissy fits over their children being exposed to knowledge. >
  
  You can use fringe cases to mischaracterize parents, and you can do the same for teachers.  Best to stick to the >95% of people under the normal curve. >
  
  The public education system still has an obligation to the 5% of children with negligent parents. >
  
  And parents have an obligation to the 5% of children with negligent teachers.
  Like I said, in 95% of cases, parents are the ones who are there for their kids, while there is a long list of teachers come and gone never heard from again. >
  
  Negligent teachers get replaced with good teachers. Negligent parents can spend 18+ years screwing up their children. >
  
  Unless they're absurdly negligent, not really. >
  
  Well as said above even a negligent teacher is only with a kid for 9 months. >
  
  I think that's beyond what we need to ask. A bare minimum required for a shared resources is toleration of others who use the same resources. Talking about Parental rights is just avoiding the topic of tolerating the existence of different people. >
  
  Most of these can be reframed as ‘right of the parents to keep their kids from learning things’. Which is a whole lot different from the right of a parent to teach their children, a right that no one challenges. 
  They can learn evolution at school and 6000 year earth at church. Then decide. They can learn to treat classmates of other races equally at school, and learn bigotry at home. They can learn about different sexualities in health class, and gods plan for marriage in Sunday school. 
  Ideas can harm a social group if they get a foothold  but contradict that group’s ideology. But ideas don’t hurt the individual - adult or child. Only the actions. Ideas can be considered and tossed aside. 
  Parents have basic obligations to provide for their childrens health and well being, so things like “pray the cancer away” is covered by that. But there is and should be limits to government intrusiveness into personal lives as long as the children are unharmed (admittedly hard to define or prove). Parents have the right to homeschool or use religious schools, so they can “protect” their children from government approved ideas if they feel that need. The right to religious freedom is fundamental to the US, so you have the right to raise your kids Amish, or Hasidic, or evangelical Christian. 
  The mental health points are a red herring imo. We don’t know how to prevent mental health issues. Maybe it’s helicopter parenting, maybe it’s social media, maybe rap music or video games should be totally banned like the last generation said. Or maybe it’s really not that simple. But hey, since we never heard much about mental heath issues centuries ago, maybe we should just put them all to work at 14, right? No? >
  
  Would you accept the reversal if a school wanted to teach a young earth theory and just leave it to patents tho teach them otherwise on their own? >
  
  Young earth theory is a religious theory so no, not appropriate. Religious instruction belongs in religious schools. >
  
  Teacher here: in my opinion, parent rights end where their kids rights begin. Especially, kids who are upper middle school aged and beyond. We have an endless problem with modern day parents and them being helicopter parents or bulldozer parents. Kids have some level of privacy when they walk into my room because they are human beings. The biggest thing in my experience is kids telling my they are being abused in some way. If a parent is the one abusing the kid I am not going to go to the parent about that abuse. I am a mandated reporter and I will report my finds to the proper authority. Parents have 0 right to know about this in my opinion. Similarly if a kid wants to go by a nickname at school and tells me that, I do not need to tell the parent or get permission from the parent to call a student by their preferred nickname. Kids of any age can choose these basic things about themselves.
  About the curriculum: Parents are also dumb as fuck. I don't mean that offensively, but I have had so many parents not even know what a pronoun is so I don't think they should be deciding curriculum. Parents need to trust that teachers have gone to school to create and write curriculum and there is a science to our pacing guides and how we teach the way we do. Just because you passed 12th grade does not make you qualified to design K-12 curriculum. 
  Finally, the "Just think of the children crowd" only want one thing... To exert control over their kids. Very rarely do they have the children's best interest at heart or they think they do but they are too pigheaded to think about the consequences of their actions by controlling their children. As an aside, the ones who scream the loudest about the children are the ones most absent from PTA meetings, parent teacher conferences, and the school board. Children's educations are seriously in danger. I am very concerned about the abilities of the next generation to even be able to do simple jobs because we have bent to the will of parents so much there are no consequences for children who are failing. >
  
  I'm with you on a parent's rights end where the child's rights begin.  I'm cautious on teachers taking alot of latitude individually.  You are in fact still an instrument of the "State", you have limited responsibility to the child's overall well being, and teachers can abuse their position.
  Frankly, parents invest a lot more in their children than any individual teacher ever can.  You are a safety net for children of parents who don't.
  I think a teacher withholding from parents when a child says they are homosexual only makes sense when that disclosure is exclusive; if anyone else knows it, especially other students, the parent should be made aware such that they can support them and potentially protect them during those abundent times teachers aren't around.
  To be clear: I think that there are appropriate ages to expose children to aspects of sexuality as a society, regardless of parent wishes.  I definitely believe that it can be stated as a scientific fact that homosexuality is part of normative human behavior and always has been, in spite of parental opinion.  Same goes for evolution, etc..  Going to areas with much less evidence underpinning them should be avoided.
  Society does have a responsibility to its members (including children) and gets more say especially when society is footing the bill.
  
  Parents are also dumb as fuck
  
  Some are, many aren't.  I think one of the changes in dynamic for recent decades is that in a conversation between teachers/admin and parents, more often than ever before, parents have as much or more actual education than the teacher.  That hasn't always been the case.  Back a few decades it was likely that parent's never attended a University and didn't have a Bachelors degree; they were relatively uneducated compared to teachers who had.  Now the odds that a parent has a more advanced major than a teacher is quite a bit higher.  The point is a teacher cannot assume they are the "smartest person in the room."
  Of course, a teacher will most likely have better knowledge of pedagogy, perhaps not current theory, depending on if they have applied themselves on continuing education.  
  I have to take issue that there is a "science to our pacing guides and how we teach the way we do".  I say this watching all of the changes made within education over decades,, the fads that have come and gone, and that we don't seem to be converging on anything that resembles a science.  Further, when looking at approaches used between nations, we certainly can't say there are universal precepts being adhered to, only some best practices that are hopefully developing. >
  
  Parents should understand the difference between protection and control. I can teach my kid to watch for cars crossing the road, for a while I can require him to hold my hand to cross, but eventually I'm not going to be there and he's either going to look or not and get hit by a car or not. I can try to protect him and for a while I can try to control him, but ultimately he is the only one in control of himself. That can be extrapolated to any belief/concept. Eventually, the parent is not going to be there and these Parental Bills of Rights are trying to allow the parent to control those moments too by using teachers and librarians as proxy parents. (It's so ironic to me when people in favor of these "rights" point out that teachers aren't parents. Of course they're not and that's why they aren't responsible for controlling your child the way you want them controlled.) It's just not possible and it's ridiculous that we have politicians pretending it is. I think any parent trying to control every aspect of their child's life is some form of abuse and we've seen real cases of this that have harmed and even killed children. >
  
  Right now I'd say it's a massive grey area and has to be taken on a case-by-case basis depending on what we think is best for the child. However, if parents choose to take sole responsibility for their child (no tax breaks, no taxpayer funded school, no censorship, no using YouTube to babysit then bitching about the result) then I'll be cool with them doing pretty much anything short of killing the kid. >
  
  I guess your question, comes down to "how involved does the parent want to be in their child's life?".
  If the parent believes learning about things like race, gender, etc. Is innately harmful... They should homeschool their child. Monitor their internet search history, keep them away from people who might have different life experiences altogether. That's their right, and responsibility as a parent. 
  It might create a society of kids who can't deal with a rapidly growing and changing social landscape... But that's their choice. 
  An individual parent has no right however to dictate that certain subjects are not appropriate, or that certain people or cultures shouldn't be mentioned or respected... >
  
  Children are not property. The rights of children includes the right to run away from home. This can only be provided socially - as places bankrolled by our collective social fund - and it contradicts directly with a parental claim to demand a child back home. The rights also include open access to information and access to education, which also breaks on social rather than parental lines by way of a similar logic. >
  
  Parents should always have the final say unless the parent is doing something that is directly harmful to them physically. 
  Personally I don't want to try to indoctrinate my own political beliefs into my children, I just want to teach them to be good people and to think for themselves. If a school ever tries to indoctrinate my kids with political beliefs then I'm going to be fucking pissed off and they better stop before I exhaust all other avenues that don't involve violence. >
  
  This gets to the issue that I've been trying to tease out for myself, is there an objective measure for things like "indoctrination" and "harm"? 
  Some parents would say that allowing a child to transition is directly harmful to them, and parents with right-wing beliefs would say that schools are indoctrinating their children with leftist ideology. Whether or not they are, the parents believe it to be true. By your own admission, if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be doing the same thing they are. So are these tactics acceptable, should you be allowed to enforce your beliefs over the school and censor material that you find harmful from the libraries and curriculum?
  I think we should be able to draw the line somewhere, if the schools were raising kids to be Nazis, I think we'd be within our rights to intervene, but everyone has their own line. If there's no way to objectively set some kind of criteria though, then it just comes down to who can throw their political weight around, and for that the kids are going to suffer. >
  
  Things that clearly have a political divide either shouldn't be taught in school at all or if it's something necessary to teach then both points of view should be taught side by side. By harm I mean physical harm, parents should be able to make whatever decisions about their children that they want to as long as the children aren't being physically harmed by it. This would include children transitioning, if the kid decides later on that they aren't trans anymore it's too late they've already done permanent damage to their body, parents should not be allowed to medically transition their children.
  For public schools yes parents should absolutely be able to change the curriculum if enough parents want it or at least have an option where their specific kid leaves the room during certain lessons. For private schools it's a completely different story, if you don't like the curriculum then switch schools.
  If kids are being indoctrinated at school and the parents are upset then the school needs to either rework their curriculum or provide parents with a solution so that their specific kids don't have to listen to all the political bullshit. If they don't do this then they risk violence, fucking around with someone's kid is enough to make even the most mild mannered person become militant. >
  
  
  Things that clearly have a political divide either shouldn't be taught in school at all or if it's something necessary to teach then both points of view should be taught side by side
  
  The problem is this is gradually becoming everything. The idea we could plausibly teach "both sides" of every controversy would turn every class into another evolution vs intelligent design debacle. >
  
  I really don't think it would be as chaotic as what you're picturing. Like with evolution for example, either the parents have the option to have their kid leave the classroom during that time or at the beginning of the lesson the teacher might say something like "we're going to be learning about evolution today. There's a lot of people who don't believe in evolution because the bible said it was created a few thousand years ago, there's some people who believe the earth was created old, and there's various other beliefs about it but today we're going to be talking about evolution because we do have physical evidence of it being true." And then continues the lesson. (That's not really political though) >
  
  It's ridiculous moral panic over nothing.  I agree that parents should be able to get their minor students' records.  But that's about it.  I don't think the schools should be taking a position on LGBTQ other than accomodations as needed.
  A parent can pull their kid out of school if they want.
  I think the right has massively misread the public on this.  What parents were upset about in 2021 was, 1) rightly, school administrators covering up a sexual assualt. And more prominently 2) covid closures, mandates & policies that made no sense & weren't stopping covid.  Parents had no say and THAT was what was messing up their lives & their kids' educations. >
  
  
  I don't think the schools should be taking a position on LGBTQ other than accomodations as needed.
  
  They should be taking exactly the same position on LGBTQ issues that they do on "straight" stuff. Being supportive of students and representing all positively. >
  
  Considering parents ts are 100% legaly responsible for their children's action. They should have 100% control. >
  
  If parents want to ban basic tolerance and facts of life from their children's education, they need to pay up and send their kids to a private Christian school. >
  
  "Parent's rights" are just the latest conservative excuse for censoring educators and libraries.  These assholes would censor the whole world if they could, all in the name of "religious freedom". >
  
  Bingo. It is about "protecting" kids from non Judeo Christian ideas. It's all dog whistles for bigotry and intolerance. >
  
  Our local school system is shit academically. If you can afford to send your kids somewhere else you do. My parents sent me to a college preparatory school for pre-k through senior year. The school had 100% graduation and college attendance rate but was also 99% white and 0% black. My kids are currently in a Montessori program at an out of county public school and we pay an out of county fee, because we wanted more diversity for them and cost of private school is high. Now that my oldest is in 1st grade I’m seeing some books and topics I’m not comfortable with for their age. As well as the educational standards not up to our expectations. We are now on the wait list for a private school. It sucks to have to pay property tax for a failing school and private tuition. 
  We need a voucher system so that all kids can go to good schools. >
  
  Let's get back to protecting kids. "Parents Rights" should only be considered when we're talking about something for the kid requires a responsible adult's participation. That's what parents are for - to protect their children and teach them to be good people. Parent can't do that, we need to come up with a reasonable alternative for the kid, and not the current system that winds up making some foster parents rich and their kids abused and neglected - IMHO of course. >
  
  Parents rights should end the second they start denying reality.
  Don't want your kids taught about the racist origins of many of America's institutions? You really shouldn't have the right to intervene.
  Don't want your kids vaccinated in accordance with modern medicine? You really shouldn't have that right either.
  If the kid wants to be an idiot when they turn 18, that's their problem. Until then, your rights as a parent should never allow you to harm your children or the children of others because of your personal beliefs.
  If I sound mad, I just got reminded that some parents take their children to chiropractors. >
  
  I am annoyed in general how much our notion of freedom goes in hand with a frankly - bonkers - idea that each person/family is entitled to their own special, involiable version of reality. 
  A right to privacy? A general respect to freedom of association? Those make sense, but there's a sort of solipsism above and beyond that which is endemic to our politics, philosophy, religious beliefs, etc. >
  
  No one should be able to supercede a parent's right to raise their children as they see fit. With notable exceptions. Abusing the child, neglecting the child, or withholding lifesaving medical attention that would cause the child irreparable harm or death. >
  
  Is anyone advocating to force these people to send their kids to a school rather than homeschool or pay money for a private school? If not, I don’t see how this is close to relevant. >
  
  I don’t understand. The way you phrased this whole thing sounds like the default position should be that the public school system should control childrens lives and parents should have their influence over their children restricted.  This is probably why so many parents are concerned. >
  
  I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I think my position is that children have some expectations of autonomy, and the question is to what extent. I think parents expecting to have total, dictatorial control over every aspect of a child's life - what they're allowed to learn or who they're allowed to be - is unhealthy and will leave them emotionally stunted adults who never got to develop independence and resiliency. I don't know if parents should legally have their control loosened, but I think that having their control strengthened legally is bad and we should be pushing parents to loosen their grip on the reins instead. >
  
  The way humanity has existed for millennia is going to leave them emotionally stunted?  Interesting take. >
  
  Do you honestly believe that the majority of people haven't been emotionally stunted for most of human history? Even from a Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs POV, most of human history has been about the struggle to just meet our foundational physiological needs- food, shelter, safety, sex. More complex needs like emotional health have been higher up on the pyramid and requiring a level of stability that was out of reach for most people until the last few centuries. >
  
  If everyone is emotionally stunted then no one is. >
  
  Considering a more extreme scenario : On the one hand I think teens should be able to do some things - against their parents wishes - like transition if that really is the medically right / best path for them. On the other hand no matter what happens, parents are still responsible for their kids so I think parents should be involved. It’s a conundrum for me. Luckily I don’t have kids >
  
  You think this because you aren't a parent. >
  
  Parents arent a monolith, they dont all think alike. >
  
  Another non-parent. >
  
  Another non-response. >
  
  
  Any and all medications given to my children I should be informed of.  If a serious medical emergency happens I need to inform the doctors of what chemicals are running around in my child.
  Teachers can call my child whatever they want (with limitations).  Pet names or nick names have always been a thing.  Just remember when you talk with me about them use their given name.
  If my child confides something to a teacher and as a result of the teacher not disclosing it some harm befalls my child....I should have the legal right to sue the pants off the school district and the teacher.  Children transitioning are often bullied.   Bullied children can have serious physiological damage done, suffer depression, and attempt suicide.  Especially if the teacher is aiding/encouraging the child in a behavior that is going to get them bullied.   I am not advocating the teacher turn a blind eye to the bullying.  This will be a fine line for a teacher to walk.
  
  Now from a parents perspective.....I have a child (who is in their 30's now) that was incredibly afraid to come out to us.  When they finally did it was nowhere near as bad as the media made them believe it was going to be.  We are devoutly religious.  I think I said all of 2-3 sentences expressing my disappointment....and only when she prompted me to ask if I had any negative feeling about it.    I think I talked for 2 hours about how I loved them and would never stop loving them and how she could tell me anything.  I have accepted their partner and have included them in the family.  Such as sending them gifts, including them in family outings etc.  
  Children can make mountains out of mole hills.  Especially teenagers.  I would if my child confided in a teacher that teachers response would be to talk to the parents.  At the very least you will find out where you stand with them. >
  
  Your bigger issue is with the teacher supporting your child that’s transitioning, rather than the bullies abusing your child? Interesting take. >
  
  Have you met some of these parents?
  I wouldn't trust them to order off a dinner menu, much less parent a child. Absolutely the village needs to step in. >
  
  Funniest thing about the “parents rights” people is the irony of their small gov ideology >
  
  The "hurr durr smol gov" thing is laughably out of date.  The libertarian side of conservatism has basically been killed off and now the right is perfectly willing to wield government power against their opponents in the same way their opponents have wielded it against them. >
  
  Complete control.
  We need to trust individuals and parents to develop themselves and their children, towards being healthy functioning and independent thinking, individuals. That trust allows people to form their own will, and develop personal responsibility so that the rest of society does not need to be forced to unjustly provide for them.
  First, because it is only under hardship that adults develop themselves.
  And secondly, because there is no way for any government to do this without marginalizing human identity and dignity in any way that isn't tyranny. 
  This requires that the west go back to politics and education based upon objective truth, and pull the religious ideology of secular atheism and secular post modernism, out of socio political entities which are associated with government.
  Without that, there will be no safe spaces for other ideologies, and we will be ruled under and ant hill of a secular tyranny, ran by power politics, which always leads to totalitarianism. We already have pieces of this with progressivism, which is simply ideological fascism, pushing the secular and post modernist religion onto people.
  When family and identity is destroyed, as opposition to parental rights is doing, we head towards a secular marxist communism, which has killed more people in the last 100 years than any other ideology.