PARENTAL RIGHTS: CURRICULUM OPT-OUTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS Tommy Kevin Rogers, B.S., M.Ed. Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS August 2010 APPROVED: Richard Fossey, Major Professor Mary McDonnell Harris, Minor Professor John Brooks, Committee Member Brenda Wojnowski, Committee Member Nancy Nelson, Chair, Department of Counseling and Higher Education Jerry R. Thomas, Dean of the College of Education James D. Meernik, Acting Dean of the Robert B. Toulouse School of Graduate Studies Rogers, Tommy Kevin. Parental Rights: Curriculum Opt-outs in Public Schools. Doctor of Education (Educational Administration), August 2010, 148 pp., 3 tables, 1 illustration, appendices, references, 154 titles. The purposes of this dissertation were to determine the constitutional rights of parents to shield their children from exposure to parts of the public school curriculum that the parents find objectionable on religious, moral, or other grounds and to determine the statutory rights of parents to remove, or opt-out, their children from objectionable parts or all of the public school curriculum as set forth in the statutes of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Many pivotal federal court cases dealing with parent rights and curricular issues, including Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education (1987), Vandiver v. Hardin County Board of Education (1987), Brown v. Hot, Sexy, & Safer Productions, Inc. (1995), Leebaert v. Harrington (2003), and Parker v. Hurley (2008) were surveyed using legal research methods. Specific types of curriculum opt-outs (e.g., sex education, comprehensive health programs, HIV/AIDS instruction) granted by each state were ascertained. States’ statutes and regulations were categorized as non-existent, restrictive, or permissive based on the scope and breadth of each state’s curriculum opt-out statute or regulation. A long list of federal court rulings have provided public schools the right to teach what school boards and administrators determine is appropriate. Parents did not have any constitutional right to opt their children out of public school curriculum. Many states’ legislatures have granted parents a statutory right to opt their children out of certain parts of school curricula. In this study, 7 states had non-existent statutes or regulations, 18 states had restrictive statutes or regulations, and 26 states had permissive statutes or regulations. Copyright 2010 by Tommy Kevin Rogers ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my major professor, Dr. Richard Fossey, for his consistent “above and beyond” guidance throughout my dissertation journey. In addition, I recognize my other committee members, Dr. Mary Harris, Dr. John Brooks, and Dr. Brenda Wojnowski, for their valuable input and collaboration. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Frank Kemerer because stimulating discussions in his education law course led to the discovery of my topic. On a personal note, I would like to convey my sincere appreciation to Pam Spooner, my administrative assistant, who provided help with dissertation edits. Most of all, I want to express my love and gratitude to my family, particularly my wife Bridget, for giving me constant support during the demanding doctoral dissertation process. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ viii Chapters 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 Problem Statement Purpose Statement Research Questions Significance of Study Delimitations Definition of Terms Overview of Methodology Organization of Study Summary 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................................. 14 Common Law and Parental Rights U.S. Supreme Court: Parental Rights and Curriculum Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) Prince v. Massachusetts (1944) Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) Federal Extension of Parental Rights in Education: FERPA, PPRA, and NCLB Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) Protection of Pupil Rights Act (PPRA) No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) Parental Rights and Advocacy Groups: From PTA to PRA Tenth Amendment: Opportunity for Opt-Out Statutes 3. CATALOGUE OF FEDERAL COURT CASES WITH PARENTAL RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS IN PUBLIC EDUCATION................................. 44 Introduction to the Cases Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) iv Boring v. Buncombe County Board of Education (1998) Ryans v. Gresham (1998) Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board (2001) Littlefied v. Forney ISD (2001) Blau v. Fort Thomas Public School District (2005) Federal Cases Addressing Both Parental Rights and Curriculum Issues Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education (1987) Vandiver v. Hardin County Board of Education (1987) Fleischfresser v. Directors of School District 200 (1994) Brown v. Hot, Sexy, & Safer Productions, Inc. (1995) Immediato v. Rye Neck School District (1996) Bauchman v. West High School (1997) Swanson v. Guthrie ISD (1998) Troxel v. Granville (2000) Leebaert v. Harrington (2003) Fields v. Palmdale School District (2005) C.N. v. Ridgewood (2005) Parker v. Hurley (2008) Summary and Conclusion 4. STATUTORY RIGHTS FOR PARENTS TO OPT-OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL CURRICULA ............................................................................ 78 Terminology Classification of States Based on Statutes States with Non-existent Curriculum Opt-Out Statutes for Parents States with Restrictive or Limited Curriculum Opt-Out Statutes for Parents States with Permissive or Broad Curriculum Opt-Out Statutes for Parents Summary and Conclusion 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 107 Findings for the Research Questions Implications for Practice Recommendations for Future Study Conclusion Appendices A. HATCH AMENDMENT, OR PROTECTION OF PUPIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT (PPRA), LETTER ........................................................... 115 B. CALIFORNIA STUDENT EXEMPTION PROJECT: STUDENT EXEMPTION FORM LETTER ............................................................... 118 v C. GENERIC OPT-OUT FORM LETTER ................................................... 120 D. TEXAS JUSTICE FOUNDATION: NOTICE AND DECLARATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ............................................................................. 122 E. CURRICULUM OPT-OUTS: GENERAL INFORMATION AND STATUTES ............................................................................................ 135 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 140 vi LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Comparison between 2003 and 2007 Enrollment in Elementary and Secondary Schools ............................................................................................... 5 2. Opt-outs by Curricular Type: State by State ....................................................... 83 3. State Classifications by Number of Opt-outs ...................................................... 85 vii LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. State opt-out levels by subject area .................................................................. 104 viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A recent plan by President Obama to address students nationwide via the Internet on September 8, 2009 energized the debate over what rights parents have once their children enter a public school setting. Airing the speech to school children created great opposition among some parents across the United States (U.S.). The uproar over the speech was widespread, but in many states where school districts were under pressure from parents, plans were developed to let parents opt-out their children from viewing the speech (McKinley & Dillon, 2009). Some public school districts refused to allow students to watch the speech, while others welcomed the opportunity for students to hear the president (Prabhu, 2009). Independence, Missouri’s school district superintendent Jim Hinson received “more calls than we’ve ever had on an issue” (Keen & Toppo, 2009, p. 1). Hinson confirmed that the speech would not be shown in elementary schools, but individual teachers in upper grade levels could decide whether students should hear President Obama’s speech (Keen & Toppo, 2009). Sarasota County School District administrators in Florida gave permission for teachers to show the speech if it fit into the curriculum but allowed parents to decide whether to opt-out their children. Wellesley, Massachusetts superintendent Bella Wong allowed teachers to make decisions on a class-by-class basis (Silverleib, 2009). In Arizona, multiple options were used by school districts’ officials. For Mesa’s public schools, parents could opt-out for their children only if they contacted the school first, the same policy used for other situations in which parents desired to shield their children from a particular part of school curricula. Other Arizona districts, such as 1 Tempe School District and Prescott Unified School District, demonstrated opposite ends of the dilemma. Tempe officials required all students to watch the president’s speech with no opt-out provision while Prescott’s