
According to a federal judge, public schools--not parents--have the right to control the curriculum to which children are exposed. Joseph and Robin Wirthlin sued Lexington, Massachusetts schools for allowing their son's second-grade teacher to read the homosexual fairy tale, King and King, to the class without prior notice to the Wirthlins. A couple FRC interviewed for Liberty Sunday, Tonia and David Parker, joined the suit when their son brought home a book about families that included two gay adults. Judge Mark Wolf sided with the school, saying, "...Under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become productive citizens in our democracy." Wolf continued by saying that if parents don't agree with the curriculum, they are welcome to send their kids to a private school. "It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation."
Clearly, this is not about diversity but a political agenda. Massachusetts law on homosexual marriages was imposed by judicial decree and is far from settled. The government seems bent on overpowering parents and dictating what's in the best interest of children. At the very least, the Parkers, Wirthlins and others deserved to be informed about the content of the curriculum and to have their kids exempted from lessons that violate their moral beliefs. School administrators argued that the books did not focus on human sexuality but family structures. If they truly believe that, Lexington officials must be living in the very fairy tales their schools are promoting.
It's no wonder America is failing miserably to keep up with international test scores. Public schools are consumed with teaching not the basics reading and writing but the chic and the radical. Both couples will appeal the case to the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, where we can only hope that the inherent authority of parents will fare better.



Comments (2)
You want parents to have authority over a cirriculum? If a class has 20 students, thats 40 parents per class. Do you want the task of getting 40 parents of intermitient availability to all agree on what will be taught?
Look at the thread earlier on this blog discussing libraries. Now extend that to textbooks. If you allow parents to declare that their teachers must avoid anything contriversial, then what is there left to teach?
English: Shakesphere must go, romeo and juliet endorses premarital sex! For the younger classes, no harry potter - some parents consider it highly immoral to glorify magic.
Biology: Goodbye evolution, and all things related to sex.
PE: Swimsuits are too revealing.
See the problem here? Now, most parents are prefectly reasonable people. But not all of them. If you allow parents to have an effective veto on what may be taught, then you force schools to cut anything that is even the tinyiest bit contriversial - and nothing is left.
February 27, 2007 9:52 AM | Comment Permalink
The judge made the right call.
The issue itself is irrelevent. No parent should have a heckler's veto of the curriculum which is approved by duly elected officials.
February 27, 2007 4:16 PM | Comment Permalink