Sacramento Democrats passed a bill allowing teachers to lie by omission the mental health problems of your children. The bigger question is what else are they lying about? Did they tell the parents that over 50% of California high school graduates do not qualify for either the UC to State College system?
“LJC makes a first claim of relief via the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming the state is depriving parents of their right “to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” LCJ claims secondary relief from First Amendment concerns that religious parents’ beliefs are violated by the ban, and third claim of relief from the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which they say requires schools that “receive federal funds must guarantee parent access to student education records.”
Can you trust someone who uses a State law to lie to you? This is why we need school choice—if they lie you can leave.
California school sues over ban on K-12 schools notifying parents of gender changes
Soon before the lawsuit was filed, entrepreneur Elon Musk announced he is moving the headquarters of X, formerly known as Twitter, and SpaceX from California to Texas in response to the law.
By Kenneth Schrupp,The Center Square,7/17/24 https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/california-school-sues-over-ban-k-12-schools-notifying-parents-gender
(The Center Square) – California parents and a school district filed a joint federal lawsuit against the state over its new ban on public schools notifying parents of students’ gender change requests.
Soon before the lawsuit was filed, entrepreneur Elon Musk announced he is moving the headquarters of X, formerly known as Twitter, and SpaceX from California to Texas in response to the law.
The lawsuit, filed by Liberty Justice Center on behalf of Chino Valley Unified School District and several parents, claims the state’s new law, AB 1955, violates the U.S. Constitution and federal records law.
Chino Valley was the first California school district among many more to adopt a gender change notification policy, requiring parents to be notified within three days if a student is involved in violence, talks about suicide, or requests to identify with or participate in programs or use school facilities that are for a gender different from what is on their birth certificate or official records.
Chino’s policy was partially upheld and partially blocked by a state court’s preliminary injunction — through a lawsuit from California Attorney General Rob Bonta — finding the district could continue requiring notification for when a child requests to change any information contained in the student’s official or unofficial records. The court ruled that the clauses on requesting to be treated as the other gender or use the sex-segregated programs, activities or facilities of the other gender would be on hold until a full trial. Chino updated its policy in March to reflect the injunction, leaving that case in limbo as both sides seek summary judgments with regards to the case’s mootness under the new policy.
Two months later, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond sponsored and introduced AB 1955, which quickly made its way through the legislature as an and received the governor’s signature as a law to stop “forced outings.”
In its lawsuit, LJC defends the necessity of notification policies and unconstitutionality of the state ban.
“Transgender and gender nonconforming students suffer from increased psychological, emotional, and physical harassment and abuse, and that transgender youth experience an abnormally high number of suicidal thoughts and make an abnormally high number of suicide attempts”, wrote LJC. “PK-12 minor students, most of whom are too young to drive, vote, or provide medical consent for themselves, are also too young to make life-altering decisions about their expressed gender identity without their parents’ knowledge.”
LJC makes a first claim of relief via the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming the state is depriving parents of their right “to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” LCJ claims secondary relief from First Amendment concerns that religious parents’ beliefs are violated by the ban, and third claim of relief from the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which they say requires schools that “receive federal funds must guarantee parent access to student education records.”
Because AB 1955 did not have an urgency clause, it does not take effect until Jan. 1, suggesting it may be some months before the federal district court considers the case.
The California school system discourages teachers from sharing any information with parent about their child’s school activities. Parents are not notified when homework is not completed, when the student does not attend school, when the student leave school early, when the student bullies other students and so on. What does one more ban matter?