Wednesday, June 19, 2024
61.9 F

    Latest Posts

    Setting Brushfires of Freedom by Don Jans

    An Open Letter to the CVUSD School Board and Administrators with Formal Request for Scientific, Medical, Legally Substantive Response to Each Item

    We the People of Ventura County [email protected]

    Sent by email to: Dr. César Morales, Ventura County Superintendent of Schools [email protected]
    Lisa Salas Brown, Ventura County Associate Superintendent, Educational Services [email protected]
    Dr. Consuelo Hernandez Williams, VC Associate Superintendent, Student Services [email protected]
    Karen Sylvester, President, CVUSD, Trustee Area 1 [email protected]
    Lauren Gill, Vice President, CVUSD, Trustee Area 5 [email protected]
    Rocky Capobianco, Board Clerk, CVUSD Trustee Area 2 [email protected]
    Cindy Goldberg, Member, CVUSD Trustee Area 4 [email protected]
    Bill Gorback, Member, CVUSD Trustee Area 3 [email protected]
    Mark McLaughlin, Ed.D., CVUSD Superintendent [email protected]
    Sheri Fehlman, CVUSD Executive Administrative Assistant [email protected]
    Kimberly Gold, CVUSD Coordinator of Communications, Community Engagement [email protected]
    Lisa Miller, Ed.D., CVUSD Assistant Superintendent, Student Services [email protected]
    Kenneth Loo, CVUSD Assistant Superintendent, Instructional Services [email protected]
    Kate Potter, CVUSD Senior Administrative Assistant [email protected]

    We are writing to address the decision of the CVUSD school board to adopt the Teen Talk sex ed curriculum last year, which is now actively being taught to the children of this district. After reading some of the curriculum, the worksheets and especially the recommended reading resources found within Teen Talk, we have a series of observations and questions for the board. We formally request specific, substantive, scientifically documented, legal responses to each individual item.

    • Teen Talk curriculum and its recommended reading resources encourage high risk sex acts for minors before the age of consent. The legal age of consent in California is 18 years old. This means that it is a crime in California to have sexual intercourse with a person age 17 or younger. Having sex with a minor can result in prosecution for a crime – typically for statutory rape, per Penal Code 261.5. California does nothave a Romeo and Juliet law. This means that it is illegal for anyone to engage in sexual intercourse with a minor – even for a minor to have sex with another minor.[1]
    • California Penal Code 288PC sets forth the crime of lewd and lascivious acts with a child, commonly referred to as child molestation. A “lewd act with a minor child” is defined as either:
      • touching a child for sexual purposes,
      • or causing a child to touch him/herself or someone else for a sexual purpose.

    A conviction is a felony punishable by 3, 6 or 8 years in state prison.[2]


    Yet these very behaviors are actively encouraged, described in detail, normalized and incited by the Teen Talk curriculum and its recommended reading materials.[3]


    Why is CVUSD actively engaged in endorsing & teaching sex ed curriculum with resources that normalize, incite and describe illegal prosecutable sex acts with and between children? Has an analysis been done of how this curriculum holds up to strict legal scrutiny and liability of the school district, and is such a report available for parents?


    • Teen Talk is brought to us by Planned Parenthood, whose history should be of concern to all who are engaged in the battle against racial discrimination. Please research Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a self-proclaimed eugenicist, with a stated goal of decreasing the birth rate of black children. This is particularly frightening during these challenging times of escalated racial injustice.” –Kathy Ireland [4]The Santa Barbara school district is not the only district in California or the nation grappling with these issues. On May 20, 2018, Orange County’s School Board voted down by 6-1 the Teen Talk Curriculum due to “community opposition and controversy over medical inaccuracy.” And the Orange County Registerwrote, “Concerning medical accuracy, CHOC Hospital pediatrician attended the meeting and stated: ‘In reviewing Teen Talk, students are not being told medically accurate statistics regarding the effectiveness of condom use in anal sex. They are not being told the truth that anal sex is the highest risk behavior for transmission of HIV and other STD’s especially since condoms are not FDA approved for anal sex.’” The article further states, “Education Code 60002 says, each district board…shall promote the involvement of parents…in the selection of instructional materials.”[5]

      We formally request in the spirit of inclusivity, which has been a publicly stated goal of the CVUSD school board, a public forum to review the state-approved curriculum HEART (Health Education and Relationship Training)[6], with a side-by-side comparison to Teen Talk.The Heart Curriculum meets all state requirements, addresses all the issues of sex education, HIV protection, STDs, making informed decisions, includes parents interviews, honoring of oneself, sexual orientation, gender expression, gender ideology, negative stereotypes, pornography, sexting, legal age of consent, sex trafficking, negotiating skills, and much more. The Heart Curriculum does not have a political or ideological objective and protects all students from intrusions & injustices.[7]

    Has CVUSD evaluated the roots of Teen Talk and it’s connections with Planned Parenthood and their founder Margaret Sanger in light of her stated goal of decreasing the birth rate of black children and how that relates to concerns about racial injustice – and if so, is this evaluation available for parents and the community to review?


    Ten Ways CA Sex Ed Curricula Fail to Protect Students that HEART Gets Right:


    The HEART curriculum more fully aligns with the CA Ed Code objective of healthy youth than other curricula. Here are ten examples:


    1. HEART emphasizes primary protection (risk avoidance—delaying sex until at least the legal age of consent) per guidance of CHYA and the CDC. HEART does comprehensively teach secondary prevention (risk reduction) as required, but first place is given to risk avoidance as the only medically certain safe path by teaching healthy relationship where kids can have “fun without sex.”.
    2. HEART teaches the truth about the laws protecting minors—minors can’t ‘consent’ to sex. Other curricula teach or infer that minors can ‘consent’ to sex but the law clearly doesn’t allow this—sex with an unmarried minor is always a crime.
    3. HEART discloses the risks of condom use. Authorities advocate condom use because this will reduce overall teen pregnancy and STIs. At the individual level, however, teens are not taught by other curricula that the risk that still remains is more than they would want to be exposed to.
    4. HEART reveals the fundamental lesson of STIs—the human immune system cannot protect against casual sex. The number of STIs continues to grow, especially those without a cure. HEART teaches the only real safety is faithfulness to a single partner, or living as close to this as possible.
    5. HEART teaches the link between certain STIs and certain cancers. HPV, for example, is a risk for cervical, anal-rectal, or mouth-throat cancers, depending on where the infection occurs.
    6. HEART presents information about ways STIs are harder on girls with the CDC’s “10 Ways STDs Impact Women Differently from Men.” The list includes “pelvic inflammatory disease,” a common STI complication and a cause of infertility and ectopic pregnancy.
    7. HEART better protects males who have sex with males (MSM). New HIV infections have significantly declined in the general population but have tragically persisted at around 26,000 per year among MSM. The guidance being given hasn’t worked. HEART provides full CDC guidance for MSM.
    8. HEART teaches the consequences of abortion. HEART recognizes a woman’s right to abortion, but does teach the risks. Abortion, particularly with multiple abortions, has consequences that are often overlooked.
    9. HEART acknowledges gender dysphoria but shares information that 98% of cases resolve by adulthood and that patience under the guidance of parents is the safest path.
    10. HEART supports marriage by presenting the advantages of marriage over the growing trend of cohabitation. Studies show marriage, for example, is the best protection against poverty, even better than a college education. Marriage, once practiced by all income classes, is becoming a lost dream for many poor women. There is a media message of growing sexual promiscuity—that everyone’s doing ‘’ The fact is that since the early ‘90s kids are starting sex later, doing it less, with fewer partners, and teen pregnancies have steadily fallen. This is a trend that needs support and encouragement and HEART promotes and teaches the message of ‘kids getting better.[8]


    Orange Unified School District Trustee Brenda Lebsack wrote in regards to their board’s
    decision to reject the Teen Talk curriculum “due to reservations about medical accuracy

    and realizing we needed more community input to comply with Education Code 60002, where it states “Each district board.. shall promote the involvement of parents … in the selection of instructional materials. Our desire in OUSD is to have curriculum

    that is medically accurate and inclusive for all students. The goal of comprehensive sex education is to increase knowledge so students can make well informed decisions concerning their sexual health. That goal will be met, but not through Teen Talk.”[9]


    Are CVUSD meeting notes and/or minutes available for the board’s analysis and comparison of state approved sex ed curriculums and what compelling factors led CVUSD to adopt Teen Talk over and above other qualified curriculums such as HEART, in light of parents and the community’s outspoken opposition to Teen Talk?


    • Pacific Justice Institute reports that the [Teen Talk] curriculum materials included graphic descriptions of vaginal, oral, and anal sex, along with material on homosexuality—all of which, many parents felt, is too “adult” for their teen and pre-teen children. Cupertino Union School District admitted on its website that it would be very difficult for parents to opt their children out of portions of sex ed courses that they considered inappropriate.[10]Merriam-Webster definition of pornography: material (such as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement; the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction.[11]

      Psychiatrist Caroline Giroux of Davis Medical Center identifies that: “Exposing children to pornography  should be forbidden and better regulated,  as  it is violating their spiritual boundaries and evolving beliefs around  body,  sexual development and  intimate  relationships, in a similar way that direct sexual abuse on their body does. If this trauma is not identified and processed promptly, the survivor runs the risk of reenacting as an attempt to resolve what once left him or her powerless, or of even engaging in similar criminal behaviors. Or  one may  trivialize what is considered sacred by many, hence squandering delicate,  soulful  facets of  one’s  self, engaging in promiscuous, high-risk sexual activities.  In a study by Lin et al, sexually explicit media exposure in early adolescence was strongly related to three risky sexual behaviors—early sexual debut, unsafe sex, and sexual partners—in late adolescence, and this relationship was very close to causal. The association was dose-response, such that using more modalities of sexually explicit media led to a higher probability of being involved in risky sexual behavior later in life. In summary, exposure to pornography is not trivial. It can have traumatic effects leading to significant distress, disruptive behaviors, compulsive sexuality and even suicidal attempts.” [12]


    Please describe how CVUSD views the distinction between illegal and harmful pornography as compared to scholastically and scientifically driven sex education appropriate for minors in a classroom setting; particularly related to the exploration of explicit high-risk sex acts included in Teen Talk’s resources which veer sharply from discussion of biological realities and into the real of being highly objectionable to the majority of parents and the community.


    • The CDC reports that: 21% of all new HIV diagnoses were among young people (aged 13-24) in 2018.[13] A Children’s Health Orange County hospital pediatrician recently gave testimony specifically in regards to the Teen Talk curriculum and I quote: “students are not being told medically accurate statistics regarding the effectiveness of condom use in anal sex. They are not being told the truth that anal sex is the highest risk behavior for transmission of HIV and other STDs especially since condoms are not FDA approved for anal sex.”[14]


    Why is CVUSD teaching a sex ed curriculum introducing children to high risk sex acts as normal and acceptable, while withholding the vital scientific data pointing to the associated risks which include life threatening, incurable, irreparably harmful disease? Would this board feel equally good about encouraging children to smoke while withholding the science on risks related to smoking?


    • Carolyn Ross, M.D, on Psychology Today notes that: “The earlier a child is exposed to sexual content and begins having sex, the likelier they are to engage in high-risk sex. Research shows that children who have sex by age 13 are more likely to have multiple sexual partners, engage in frequent intercourse, have unprotected sex, and use drugs or alcohol before sex.”[15]AB 329, (the California Healthy Youth Act) in section 51937 states that: parents and guardians have the ultimate responsibility for imparting values regarding human sexuality to their children.[16]

      Injecting sexually explicit content into the school room violates these children’s Constitutionally protected right to privacy – and violates their sacred space, surrounding how they choose to engage or not to engage with this subject. They have the right to privacy in the process of exploring such deeply personal, fundamentally spiritual and undeniably intimate matters, at the time that they and their parents deem appropriate for them as individuals, in keeping with their “inalienable human right to pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy.” – per the California Constitution.[17]

      Forcing & endorsing their introduction to – and engagement with – explicit sexual material in a public place, in the presence of their classmates – friends, strangers & potential bullies alike – in a context of intense peer pressure, without personal privacy or parental presence, strips them of essential human rights, violates their emotional integrity and may be viewed as an act of hate or hate speech towards a child who is put into an intensely stressful or traumatic situation by trusted educators meant to protect them. The implications are lifelong both emotionally, socially and psychologically. The endorsement of this curriculum and its recommended reading resources by the school board, administrators and teachers – who are considered trusted guides and role models for children – conveys intrinsic affirmation and holds powerful sway over children’s formative processing of the acceptable nature of these behaviors.


    Why is CVUSD engaged in grooming children to view high-risk sex acts as acceptable at an age when it is illegal for them, and carries extremely high risk of HIV, HPV, oral and anal cancer, depression, drug and alcohol abuse and suicidal ideation?


    By doing so you are fundamentally violating their Constitutionally protected right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


    • The NIH reports in the paper Maturation of the Adolescent Brain that there is an “immature and impulsive behavior and neurobehavioral excitement during adolescent life. The adolescent population is highly vulnerable to driving under the influence of alcohol and social maladjustments due to an immature limbic system and prefrontal … According to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a major cause of death among the teenage population is due to injury and violence related to sex and substance abuse.” The NIH goes on to report “Because adolescents rely heavily on the emotional regions of their brains, it can be challenging to make what adults consider logical and appropriate decisions. Particularly significant changes occur in the limbic system, which may impact self-control, decision making, emotions, and risk-taking behaviors …. Recently, investigators have studied various aspects of the maturation process of the prefrontal cortex of adolescents. The prefrontal cortex offers an individual the capacity to exercise good judgment when presented with difficult life situations. The prefrontal cortex, is responsible for cognitive analysis and the moderation of correct behavior in social situations. The prefrontal cortex is one of the last regions of the brain to reach maturation …. The fact that brain development is not complete until near the age of 25 years refers specifically to the development of the prefrontal cortex.”[18]


    Why is CVUSD implementing curriculum grooming children into behaviors that are a major cause of death among the teenage population? Would you train children in ‘consent to’ and ‘how to’ use fentanyl because “it feels good & they’re going to do it anyways”, regardless of whether it causes injury and death? How this is any different?


    • Federal law defines child abuse and neglect as follows:
      • “Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation”; or
      • “An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.”


    • An estimated 10% of K–12 students will experience sexual misconduct by a school employee by the time they graduate from high school. Such misconduct can result in lifelong consequences for students including negative physical, psychological, and academic outcomes. To prevent incidents from occurring, school districts are tasked with complying with Title IX, a federal law that provides guidelines for prevention efforts and responses to school employee sexual misconduct in K–12 schools. Key elements of Title IX guidance include requirements for 1) comprehensive policies and procedures, 2) prevention efforts, 3) training for staff, students, and parents, 4) timely reporting, 5) thorough and coordinated investigations, and 6) effective response. Taken together, these six elements are intended to reduce the risk of school employee sexual misconduct and eliminate mismanagement of cases when misconduct does occur.

    Where can parents and the community find the current CVUSD compliance policy for Title IX?

    • Dordulian Law Group reports that: Sexual abuseis on the rise in schools, impacting students and athletes of all ages. A recent study issued by the U.S. Education Department confirmed that reports of sexual violence in schools rose more than 50% between the 2015 and 2016 school year. That dramatic increase has rightfully caused parents to be outraged, with many taking steps to increase vigilance in an effort to keep their children safe. Sexual abuse can be particularly traumatic for a child when it happens in an educational setting that should always be a safe space, like at a school or on a sports team. In 2015, a staggering 3.5 million students in 8th – 11th grade reported sexual contact with an adult.[19]A Case Study of K–12 School Employee Sexual Misconduct: Lessons Learned from Title IX Policy Implementation published by the U.S. Department of Justice notes: Parents send their children to school relying on school employees to serve in loco parentis— taking on the physical and legal roles of the parent while the child is at school (Hogan & Mortimer, 1987). Further, the federal Title IX law requires that schools protect children from sexual discrimination and harassment by school employees. However, school employee sexual misconduct, the sexual abuse and misconduct of K–12 students by school employees, is estimated to affect 10% of our nation’s students (Shakeshaft, 2004).

      Despite state and federal laws requiring prevention efforts, prompt reporting, thorough and coordinated investigation, and prompt, effective response, researchers have identified a number of common loopholes that may hobble school districts’ implementation of policies and requirements.

      As of 2014, 46 states had mandatory reporting laws that require school employees to report suspicions of child abuse, including sexual abuse, by any adult (parents, family members, and school employees) or other students; 43 of those states have defined penalties for not reporting (GAO, 2014). Despite these laws, school employees are apprehensive about reporting school employee sexual misconduct to authorities for a variety of reasons, including the potential stigma and loss of reputation for the school or district, as well as fear of legal repercussions and liability for monetary damages (Grant, 2011; Hendrie, 1998; Shoop, 2004). Thus, despite clear policies and laws requiring reporting and potential legal consequences for failing to do so, only an estimated 5% of school employee sexual misconduct incidents known to school employees are reported to law enforcement or child welfare personnel, (Corbett, Gentry, & Pearson, 1993; Finkelhor, Hotaling, & Yllo, 1988; Kenny, 2001). A 1994 study in New York State found that only 1% of the 225 cases superintendents disclosed to researchers were reported to law enforcement or child welfare and resulted in license revocation (Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995).

      Many of the unreported cases were handled in unofficial ways; school administrators sometimes seek to avoid the consequences of reporting by entering into confidentiality agreements or negotiating private settlements with offenders (Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1994; Shoop, 2004; Stein, 1999). Furthermore, collective bargaining clauses often allow for scrubbing of personnel files, so no record is left once an offender leaves the system. These practices, allowing known sexual predators to quietly leave the district, potentially to seek work elsewhere, have become known School Employee Sexual Misconduct: Title IX Policy Implementation September 15, 2017 5 as “passing the trash” or “the lemon dance” (Hobson, 2012). With no criminal conviction or disciplinary record, predators can obtain new jobs—and move on to other victims. On average, a teacher-offender will pass through three different districts before being stopped, and one offender can have as many as 73 victims in his or her lifetime (GAO, 2010).[20]

      “It’s important for parents to realize that the majority of sexual predators aren’t strangers, but someone close to the child and the child’s family. Whether it’s a coach, teacher, clergy member, family friend, or even a close relative, most childhood sexual abuse is committed by a familiar face,” says Detective Castillo. It’s also important to remember that sexual predators are notorious for seeking out positions (whether as a professional or volunteer) that allow them access to children. Granted, 95% of coaches, teachers, clergy, volunteers at religious institutions, etc. are likely upstanding citizens. But parents need to be aware that there’s no standard model for a sexual predator. A predator can be any of age, gender, socioeconomic status, etc.,” says attorney Samuel Dordulian.

      “One major problem I consistently encounter with parents is their tendency to automatically view these individuals as sort of noble citizens. They don’t appreciate the potential predator instinct any random coach or teacher … could have. I often tell parents about a case I was involved in as a Deputy District Attorney, where a teacher openly admitted that he chose the profession in order to have unlimited access to children. … It’s not by accident that these people became teachers or coaches or clergy, it’s by design,” says Dordulian.

      “Not only do predators groom children to earn trust, they also groom parents/guardians – oftentimes they will target kids who come from broken homes, without established support networks, and do their best to fill that void in the child’s life,” says Detective Castillo. “They’ll shower the child with gifts, praise, etc. And it’s a methodical process that can span weeks, months, or even years. Once there’s a mutual comfort level established, and a sense of trust, that’s when the predator will likely make a move. And it won’t necessarily be a sexual act initially. Predators often test the waters slowly – it might be a massage or a hug at first, and then progress into viewing pornographic images or videos. Once that behavior becomes normalized, the predator will move on to more aggressive acts,” says Detective Castillo.[21]

    In light of the rise in child sex abuse scandals in schools,[22] and continuing school policies in this district reducing parental knowledge of children’s presence at school or off campus, and/or their access to confidential medical procedures such as abortion,[23] how can parents know whether their children are being subjected to sexual exploitation, abuse,[24] or life threatening medical procedures & take appropriate care for their wellbeing? Given the fact that predators groom children to earn their trust, seek out professions allowing them unlimited access to children, and use pornography as a gateway to engaging in sexual exploitation and abuse, how can CVUSD justify selecting a curriculum which infuses sexually explicit materials which meet the definitions of pornography[25] into a school setting, removing essential accountability and safeguards, when other curriculums are available that meet state requirements and do not introduce content that violates clear boundaries with material unsuitable for minors? The very act of a teacher or administrator discussing and introducing materials including explicit sexual acts and terminologies with students constitutes abuse and crosses legal and ethical boundaries. Examples of non-contact abuse include: showing pornography, exposing a child to sexual acts, making them masturbate, forcing a child to take part in sexual activities or conversations.[26]


    • The outcomes of many behaviors highlighted in the Teen Talk curriculum and it’s recommended reading resources;[27] such as anal sex, oral sex, sex with same-sex partners, “blood play”, “tasting menses and urine”, giving one another “golden showers” (ie. Being urinated on) – are, as documented extensively by the CDC, significantly increased risk of STDs, HIV, depression, mental health disorders, teen pregnancy, abortion and infertility.[28] [29] By introducing these subject matters so far outside the scope of simple sex education – ie. explaining how the human anatomy functions – and by disregarding the traditional worldview held by the vast majority of the community: which is that children deserve an age of innocence in which to develop and grow in an environment free from sexual exploitation – you are actually achieving the opposite of being inclusive. You are ostracizing, isolating, intimidating, traumatizing, and discriminating against, and harming a large percentage of the families represented in your schools. This is dangerous, non-inclusive, and largely disregards the health and wellbeing of children by withholding known science alerting students and parents to the intrinsic risks associated with the behaviors being introduced to their young and formative brains.[30]


    Has CVUSD evaluated the sex acts described and encouraged in TT reading resources such as: anal sex, oral sex, sex with same-sex partners, blood play”, tasting menses and urine”, giving one another golden showers” (ie. Being urinated on), in light of their associated medical and psychological risks, increased fatality & suicide rates, and criminality, and provided this information to parents and students so they are fully aware of the risks?

    • The United States Department of Justice in their Citizen’s Guide to U.S. Federal Law on Child Pornography states: “Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age).  Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.  Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.[31]

    Please provide a legal evaluation of the Teen Talk curriculum and each of it’s recommended reading resources in regards to potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2251- Sexual Exploitation of Children (Production of child pornography), 18 U.S.C. § 2251A- Selling and Buying of Children, 18 U.S.C. § 2252- Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors (Possession, distribution and receipt of child pornography), 18 U.S.C. § 2252A- certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2256- Definitions, 18 U.S.C. § 2260- Production of sexually explicit depictions of a minor for importation into the United States.

    • Children who tend to bully others can now say, “hey, this is just what we learned about in class, what’s the big deal?…..” putting their peers who are uncomfortable discussing such highly personal matters in a tremendously stressful state, escalating a sexually charged atmosphere in what should be a safe and secure learning environment, and exploiting that heightened inability to “just say no” which has long been safeguarded by parents and teachers who honored the age of innocence – recognizing it’s profound importance to the longevity, health, vitality, and wellbeing of our communities. Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity.  A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive.  Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant; any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.”


    Has CVUSD evaluated the potentiality for an increase in sexually charged bullying, intimidation and violence related to injecting these sexually explicit materials into children’s conversation in the classroom and into their relationships with one another? If so, where can parents and community members find this evaluation?

    We the People of Ventura County














    [14] accurate-unlike-teen-talk/

    [15] https:// prepared-the-effects-early-exposure-sexual-content








    [23]  Code: BP5113 Absences and ExcusesAt the beginning of each academic year, notifications shall be sent to the parents/guardians of all students, and to all students in grades 7 through 12, informing them that school authorities may excuse any student from school to obtain confidential medical services without the consent of the student’s parent/guardian. (Education Code 46010.1)”











    The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of Citizens Journal


    - Advertisement -


    5 3 votes
    Article Rating
    Notify of

    Oldest Most Voted
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    Jeff Schwartz
    Jeff Schwartz
    1 year ago

    Here’s the problem. Any system run by government becomes a “political” system. Therefore, any school system run by government eventually turns into a “political” school system. More and more parents and families are becoming fed up with the government school system. Each person has their own complaints and recommendations for government schools. The government schools will never satisfy everyone, because by its very nature, a one-size-fits-all approach can never satisfy everyone. Given the influence of teacher’s unions and other political factions, it should be no surprise that public satisfaction regarding our schools continues to plummet. The answer is simple: let’s move as quickly as possible towards the ideal of an absolute separation between education and state. We can speed that process along by making it easier for parents to pull their kids out of government schools. Let’s give every taxpayer a full tax credit towards the taxes they are already paying that go to government schools, provided that the taxpayer does not use such schools. That extra money that the taxpayer gets to keep will stimulate the economy, create jobs, and pay for private education alternatives to government schools.

    1 year ago

    Excellent and very informative data. Thank you for sharing. Hope CVUSD is listening.

    1 year ago

    Massive, excellent research! Do these educators even have a conscience? Grateful for the EXPOSURE!

    Michael A…
    Michael A…
    1 year ago
    Reply to  Renée

    Ridiculous, embarrassingly poor research!!

    No wonder we need a new school curriculum. Look at the uneducated, unscientific, sophomoric crap that comes straight from the mouth of someone “educated” by the old curriculum. Looks like the idiots from Mississippi have infected our school system.

    Thanks for being the poster child for the uneducated, Renee. And take that accent off your name you frigging foreigner. Americans don’t believe in foreigners from shithole countries trying to infect our pure white language. You people do everything you can to corrupt my God-fearing, pure, white, Christian country but us Patriots will fight to the end to save this once-fine country from fascists like you.

    CJ P
    CJ P
    1 year ago
    Reply to  Michael A…

    Michael, please present your research and let’s have a respectful discussion:

    CJ P
    CJ P
    1 year ago
    Reply to  Michael A…

    Who do you consider to be a “foreigner” in the United States of America?
    And how do you define “you people” as stated above? When you say “my” country do you intend to communicate that you define and have the final say on what constitutes patriotism or good citizenship? What is your criteria? And lastly, what in the comments above specifically incites you to use the term “fascists like you”?

    Latest Posts


    Don't Miss


    To receive the news in your inbox

    Would love your thoughts, please comment.x