By Janet Stephenson
A bill that supported parent rights in sexual education was proposed, but shot down in committee, on January 15, 2020 in a 5-2 decision. This bill, SB 673, would have allowed parents greater access to the new sexual education curriculum that is being introduced and change the procedure for parental control from an opt out to an opt in, requiring that parents actively give consent through a signed consent form.
The parents that were for SB 673 weren’t opposed to sexual education. Current health classes already have sexual education, but the new curriculum that is being proposed in California is more graphic and more descriptive to the point of pornography. That is why these parents wanted greater control over when their children are exposed to graphic learning materials. They wanted to have the clear choice of reviewing materials that were going to be taught to their children, and the opportunity to opt their children out if they believe that the materials were not age appropriate at that time. When it comes to something so sensitive in their child’s education, the schools have a responsibility of clearly informing parents what is going to be taught, and to give them the proactive right to approve the curriculum for their children. An opt in process would force the schools to provide more information to parents and would be more transparent, instead of sneaking the classes past parents through a fine print notice or failing to provide it in a language that they can understand. However, this kind of transparency is something that the state simply doesn’t want to do.
According to Tami Martin of Equality California, changing from an opt out practice to an opt in practice would deprive children of sexual education. But how could it be that some students would be deprived of the new sexual education curriculum if this bill passed? Wouldn’t the same parents who chose not to opt out, also be the same parents to opt in? Well, the answer to that is no. Currently, parents aren’t fully informed about what their children are being taught or that they have the right to opt their children out of parts of the sexual education curriculum without it hurting their child’s grade.
Without that knowledge, children are effectively being taught against the parents’ rights to raise their families according to their own cultures and belief systems when it comes to sexuality. However, if the policy is changed to an opt in, parents will be made aware of what is about to be taught, and when, because it will require their signature. This is what people like Tami Martin don’t want to see. Parents might insist on knowing what is in the new curriculum, and on finding out, might opt their children out of those classes. It seems that those opposed to SB 673 prefer to trick parents so that their children learn the new sexual education curriculum without their overt knowledge. Those opposed would rather sneak the new curriculum in, than allow parents to make informed choices through a transparent process, and the families that this attitude particularly discriminates against are those whose parents don’t speak English as a first language. Parents who aren’t fluent in English might not be able to understand the fine print about opting out in the myriad of papers that their children bring home at the start of school. An opt in process would highlight their rights and allow them to ask questions.
The intent of those opposed to SB 673 have been clear in their comments and positions; they simply don’t trust parents to raise their children. The state has developed certain criteria for normalizing sexual behavior that is in opposition to many cultures and faith practices, and they are determined to teach them to children of these families, whether or not the parents object. One way to do this is to keep the curriculum under the radar and prevent parents from actively participating through an opt in process. There is no rational argument to be made for a lack of transparency in introducing a new, more sexually graphic curriculum to our schools without active parent consent, other than imposing this curriculum with as little parent intervention as possible. In the eyes of the state, parents don’t know what is best for their children, and cultural and faith practices within the home which relate to sexuality are to be disregarded with disdain. Senator Scott Wilk, one of the two who voted for the bill was right, California is becoming our own private Animal Farm.
