GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTSCHAPTER 71. PUBLIC SCHOOLS Chapter 71: Section 32A Sex education; policy regarding notice to parents, exception Section 32A. Every city, town, regional school district or vocational school district implementing or maintaining curriculum which primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues shall adopt a policy ensuring parental/guardian notification. Such policy shall afford parents or guardians the flexibility to exempt their children from any portion of said curriculum through written notification to the school principal. No child so exempted shall be penalized by reason of such exemption. Said policy shall be in writing, formally adopted by the school committee as a school district policy and distributed by September first, nineteen hundred and ninety-seven, and each year thereafter to each principal in the district. A copy of each school district's policy must be sent to the department of education after adoption. To the extent practicable, program instruction materials for said curricula shall be made reasonably accessible to parents, guardians, educators, school administrators, and others for inspection and review. The department of education shall promulgate regulations for adjudicatory proceedings to resolve any and all disputes arising under this section. Return to:
|
Yet another case of high handed school districts and schools doing what they want....
In other words, by denying the father's request the principal and superintendent broke the law - yet they had the father arrested.
I'm sitting here shaking my head and being thankful I do not live in Massachusetts....as is my husband who is originally from there.
| California Lawmakers Renew Push for Same-Sex Marriage |
||
| City: Sacramento, CA – | ||
| California Assemblyman Mark Leno, a gay lawmaker from San Francisco, has introduced legislation which would redefine marriage in the state to include same-sex couples. AB 19, titled “Gender-Neutral Marriage,” would significantly alter state law and policy by stating that marriage is merely “a civil contract between two persons.” As part of the accompanying legislative findings, the bill relies on court decisions in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts, as well as Canadian court decisions. Several moderate lawmakers have joined conservatives in opposing AB 19, especially in light of the fact that in 2000, California voters decisively approved Proposition 22, which unequivocally states that only a marriage between a man and a woman is recognized in California. By contrast, supporters of AB 19 insist that the issue is too important to be left to the voters, and should instead be decided by judges and legislators. The President of Pacific Justice Institute, Brad Dacus, commented, “AB 19 is a blatant attempt to thwart the will of the people of California. The voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 22 in order to preserve the valuable institution of marriage.” AB 19 is scheduled for a key hearing in the Judiciary Committee this week. PJI urges all concerned citizens to contact their elected representatives and voice their opposition to this and similar efforts to undermine traditional values. |
||
| *********************************************************** This is an excellent website and they also pursue matters in other states too. They have to be contacted by the people with the problem.
|
||