Tuesday, November 01, 2011

Parental Rights and the Public School

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The girl accused of stabbing two classmates at Snohomish High School recently was known to have violent tendencies---yet the school couldn't do anything to protect the other students. Not even notify parents.

Something is very wrong with this.

In 1996, Barry Loukaitis killed 2 of his classmates and a teacher at Frontier High School in Moses Lake.

Court cases that followed showed that Loukaitis had exhibited threatening behavior before the shooting.

Other cases, from Springfield Oregon, to Columbine High School have had a common thread. The school knew the there was a problem but couldn't alert others or even take precautionary actions.

How did we get to this point? What has led or driven us to this obsession with student rights and student privacy?

Judith Billings, former superintendent of Public Education, told the Seattle Times this past weekend, "It's a difficult situation, there's no two ways about that, and it's much more common than people are willing to admit."

But why are people unwilling to admit to the complications that is killing and injuring students?

Along with the right to free education, according to Washington State and federal administration codes and laws, children also have a right to privacy.

Too much privacy. But, why?

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Revised Code of Washington and Washington's Administrative Code Title 392, according to the Times, provide this level of privacy to every student.

But why does each student require this level of privacy? Excluding their own parents. Restraining school districts from parental notification on important issues pertaining to the child's safety.

In fact Nathan Olson, spokesman for the state's superintendent of public instruction, says schools can't disclose information about a student's educational needs, health issues, behavioral problems or even most criminal convictions.

Five months before the accused girl stabbed 2 of her classmates at Snohomish High, this same girl had threatened to kill another student's boyfriend.

She had been given counseling at Kirkland Psychiatric hospital and declared "safe to return to school." Parents and students were unaware of the potential danger.

This is clearly a multifaceted problem---a catch 22 for the schools.

Kristen Foley, spokeswoman for Snohomish schools, says the district is reviewing its policies and procedures "to make sure that students' legal rights, as well as their legal rights to an education are protected."

Reviews are always conducted when bad things happen. However, it seems it may be time for more than a review.

In recent years, student privacy and autonomy from parents has become a major issue. A child's privacy "rights" has evolved to a point where parents are, for the most part, excluded unless the child owes the school a fee or is in legal trouble.

While there are certainly family situations that dictate that a child is protected from abuse or some extreme family dysfunction, the vast majority of children do not live in that kind of situation.

More than a generation ago, secular progressives began in earnest to indoctrinate children with the secular progressive worldview, as opposed to a more conservative, perhaps Judeo-Christian one held by many parents.

Since the 1980's most of us know the UN has aggressively pushed a global agenda, with policies and procedures that undermine parental authority, transferring authority over the child to the state or its agencies. All this under the guise of protecting children and their "rights."

These so-called "rights" are enforced against the parents and include "fundamental" rights to "privacy," "freedom of thought and association" and the "freedom of expression," all designed to undermine parental authority and elevate the state.

Public education is the epicenter of the movement. The facilitator.

In 2008, Planned Parenthood Foundation's "Stand and Deliver: Sex, Health and Young People In The 21st Century" was rolled out---with passion.

It became the hinge point for an acceptable cultural and moral transformation among the young---the students. By implementing this program in public education, they were able to define Judeo-Christian values and morality as repulsive and regressive, undermine parental authority while mandating so-called comprehensive sex-ed for children. To keep the kids safe.

"Stand and Deliver" has hardly kept them safe. Our kids have been oversexualized and their innocence stolen by a force of evil presenting itself as an angel of light.

Perhaps unintended, but none the less deadly, the separation of children from their parents influence, necessary to accomplish "Stand and Deliver," is putting children's lives in physical danger.

Until parents reclaim public education or completely abandon it, it will roll on under its deceptive banner of "safety for kids" while destroying the very children they profess to be helping.

Both legislation and policy followed the resolve to steal the hearts and minds of the young, while re-educating them in the ways of progressive relativism, all under the lie of "protecting" the children.

Now we are reviewing our policies and procedures.

We need a fundamental re-set of our priorities and our beliefs. Not a review.

May God help us.

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.


  1. Wow. What an eclectic mix of unrelated stuff.

    The girl had been under therapy and medicated but had lost her medications due to cut backs in state funding. The problem is because we the people stopped caring enough to help those in need.

    The root of the problem is no further away than your closest mirror.

  2. Oshtur, you amaze me. You really do seem like an intellectual person. Yet, even seeing your name posted assures me some obtuse perspective that reaches the absurd. You have done it again.

    Do you not pay attention to history. The schools are the problem. The public school system was an experiment and it is a disaster. It does not take a rocket scientist....well maybe it does.....to see that.

  3. The root of the problem is that violent juveniles are allowed to act out without repercussions. Parents are not notified that this child could be a danger to their own child or even a teacher. If parents were informed, then they could makes decisions on how to protect their child.

    That is a parents primary responsibility, after all. Good work, Gary.

    Craig in Lacey

  4. Oh please. Only the most third world of the third world nations don't have public education. What we lack here in the US is respect for education. I know parents that are oblivious as to what their kids are even taking in school. let alone making sure they are keeping up and doing well.

    Now higher education, high school and above - some very successful nations have made that elective and supported by the parents. Take Japan where 'high school' at a public institution costs about $3000 per year per child and twice that at a private.

    Wouldn't that be nice? Let those who have lots of kids pay to educate those kids themselves? No more bonds, no more levies, no more property tax for those without kids?

    (oh and if you think I'm serious and that all sounds good to you then lots of self reflection is in order)

  5. What we lack is a respect for authority and the sure knowledge that violent behavior will be met with severe consequences. I agree we also lack parental responsibility to set rules for their kids and enforce them if they misbehave.

    If the parents are unwilling or unable to do so and their child injures or kills someone, they as well as the child should pay the price.

    Not notifying other parents or students to the danger a particular person represents is irresponsible at the least and criminal at the most.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.