US school district directs teachers to lie to parents about their childrens wellbeing

You're right, that would be stupid to assume. Good thing I don't assume that?

Difference being that a student's grades are directly relevant to their education (and their time in school), whereas their identity is a personal matter whose disclosure should be left at the hands of the student.

If a student feels that their parents would be physically and / or verbally abusive towards them if they discovered they were transgender, that is more than enough grounds for the school not to disclose that information to their parents. And as I said, this is the reason this sort of policy exists. Are you saying that the school should disclose their identity in these situations, even if it's against the wishes of the student and even if they will receive abuse for it? That's akin to enabling abuse.

And it’s also a good thing that I don’t assume that parents always know and care about what’s best for their child, and recognise that there are exceptional cases.

Sorry but that’s ridiculous. It’s parents who are responsible for looking after a child’s interests

This is why it is parents who decide which school their child goes to, or indeed whether to just educate their children at home themselves instead.

It is also parents who pay the fees or taxes that fund the school

Even important things related to healthcare like giving children vaccinations at school can’t be done without parental consent.

Yet parents don’t need to be consulted and can be deceived when it comes to socially transitioning their child to a new gender? It’s beyond stupid. And it’s no wonder more and more courts are judging this to be illegal.

Being responsible for looking after a child's interests is not the same as deciding what those interests are.

This varies, actually. In most European democracies, homeschooling is far less common than in the Anglosphere, because it's either almost totally illegal or is subject to restrictions that effectively mean homeschooled kids have to be taught more or less the same content that they would be at school.

Non-parents also pay taxes that fund schools. Not that it's relevant, because democracy does not operate on the basis that those who pay more tax get more of a political say.

Again, this varies depending on age and jurisdiction. In the UK, strictly speaking children are considered "Gillick competent" to consent to most medical treatments, including vaccinations, once they turn 12. The caveat is that they're required to show they understand what the treatment is for and any potential downsides. For an individual patient-doctor relationship, this is workable, but for a school distributing large numbers of vaccines, it's usually just easier to get parental consent instead.

In many if not most cases, they aren't going to be consulted/informed either way. If a child doesn't want to come out to their parents, then they'll likely only come out at school if they believe that the school won't tell their parents without their consent. If not, they'll just stay closeted or only come out very privately to friends.

How far does this go, by the way? Should schools be required, for example, to inform strictly religious parents about whether or not their child broke their Ramadan fast, or ate non-kosher food, regardless of the child's wishes?

And it's these cases why rules like this exist to begin with. If the student is happy for the school to discuss this with their parents then there is no issue. If the student does not want to disclose this to their parents, either because of fear or abuse or otherwise, then the school should respect that decision as it's a matter private to the student and not relevant to why they are in school.

In situations of physical abuse, yes, it's probably better to ask why the parents have custody of their children, but not all situations involving abuse are serious enough to justify removing custody. Removing custody itself is also an extremely lengthy process and may even make life worse for the child involved. This idea of 'just remove custody' is extremely simplistic and utterly absurd when you could just not tell the parents something that the student doesn't want them to know about.

Now the fact its about the student electing to identify as a man is rather beside the point, its more interesting that schools in the US seem to have taken it upon themselves to cut parents out of the loop on issues that can charitably be described as having a bit of an impact on them and their ability to raise a child. I have not a clue if UK schools have taken this perverse idea of what parents do/do not need to know to such lengths (such as schools were ever given that authority in the first place) but it is interesting to see the rather dubious way American society seems to be regressing. We all know that their politics has moved away from the usual spectrum of colours to simply being black and white in how polarized it is but the idea of bringing that into the classroom comes across as rather queer to say the least.

Do schools have any business hiding these sorts of thing from the students parents? Or anything concerning their child for that matter? One might simply be a geriatric but aren't schools meant to be there to educate kids, as opposed to teaching them the art of obfuscation and how to lie about fairly consequential things from their parents. Now, if there's actually a safeguarding risk, that points to a rather deeper problem than simply hiding things, but that seems to be a rather different topic.

Suffice it to say, it's interesting that schools and the like tend to start foaming at the mouth about the idea of medicating children, or giving them nuts for that matter, without parental sign off but lying about their mental health, in this context, is okay


* yes 'libs of tiktok' is a delightful source. No, i don't particularly care whether its considered a rabble rouser for the right as, for good or ill, Raichik does happen to be somewhat more willing to spill embarrassing facts for these various organisations even if her followers make the somewhat ill considered decision to use that as an excuse for illegal acts, like the unfortunate events with Boston childrens hospital, hysterectimies for children and the subsequent bomb threats directed at them

Outside of this, the school has no business keeping such matters private to the student and deceiving parents in order to do so. If it were a university full of adults then that would be fine, but we're talking about minors who could be as young as 4 or 5 years old. This is a serious issue pertaining to not only the social development but also the mental health of the child - in fact it's a very strong statistical indicator of whether or not a child will consider or attempt suicide. This is entirely relevant to their time in school, even more so than just their academics, and so it's even worse than something like lying about their grades. The even more problematic part of it is that schools are being guided to take matters into their own hands and help the child to socially transition, assuming that this is going to be the appropriate course of action in all cases, disregarding the fact that the parents may not agree and that this could potentially do more harm in the long term. So it's no wonder that lawsuits are arising all over the US in respect of this, and it tends to be parents rather than school districts winning them.

Is there any other situation outside of the LGBT issue where we would consider it appropriate for schools to intentionally deceive parents about issues pertaining to their child? (Not just fail to tell them something, but intentionally deceive them? And not just in exceptional cases of abuse, but as a general rule?) Or are you just somehow committed to affording special status to the LGBT issue?

The school should only disclose private, non-school related matters about their students if there is a strong justification for doing so, e.g. the student's life is at serious risk. Social transitioning doesn't fall into that category, nor does simply being transgender (even before social transitioning). Parents shouldn't have an automatic 'right' to know absolutely everything about their child, people have a right to privacy. The fact that parents might disagree with social transitioning isn't relevant either, it's not for the parents to decide whether their child should be transgender or not. We're talking about people who could be 16 years older or more.



Their gender identity, sexual orientation, relationship status and religious beliefs or practices (or lack thereof) are four examples where the school should not disclose information about a student to their parents unless the student gives consent to that (or, as above, if the student's life is at serious risk). Whether they end up "deceiving" the parents or just refusing to tell them about it is neither here nor there, I don't think it makes a difference.

I'm going to use a personal example since I'm curious to hear what you think. When I was at school my parents didn't know I was bisexual, but some of my school friends and teachers knew. I didn't tell my parents because I just didn't want to, it was private for me and I didn't want to talk to them about it at the time. Not that it ever happened, but if the school told my parents about this I would have rightfully been pretty ****ed off. It had no relevance to my academic life at school. You seem to be of the belief that the school should have told my parents, if asked, but why? Why should my parents have had that right, and why should it have come above my right to privacy?

The school should only disclose private, non-school related matters about their students if there is a strong justification for doing so, e.g. the student's life is at serious risk. Social transitioning doesn't fall into that category, nor does simply being transgender (even before social transitioning). Parents shouldn't have an automatic 'right' to know absolutely everything about their child, people have a right to privacy. The fact that parents might disagree with social transitioning isn't relevant either, it's not for the parents to decide whether their child should be transgender or not. We're talking about people who could be 16 years older or more.

Their gender identity, sexual orientation, relationship status and religious beliefs or practices (or lack thereof) are four examples where the school should not disclose information about a student to their parents unless the student gives consent to that (or, as above, if the student's life is at serious risk). Whether they end up "deceiving" the parents or just refusing to tell them about it is neither here nor there, I don't think it makes a difference.

I'm going to use a personal example since I'm curious to hear what you think. When I was at school my parents didn't know I was bisexual, but some of my school friends and teachers knew. I didn't tell my parents because I just didn't want to, it was private for me and I didn't want to talk to them about it at the time. Not that it ever happened, but if the school told my parents about this I would have rightfully been pretty ****ed off. It had no relevance to my academic life at school. You seem to be of the belief that the school should have told my parents, if asked, but why? Why should my parents have had that right, and why should it have come above my right to privacy?

No, I don't particularly think that your school should have told your parents. It's not the schools business and they have no reason to get involved in the matter. But what they certainly shouldn't have done is gone out of their way to actively conceal that information, mislead your parents into believing that you were not bisexual, and decide for themselves that they need to take particular actions as a result, such as helping you find partners of both genders or whatever. What they should have done is just left the issue alone and carried on as if it had nothing to do with them.

We're not talking about a school just "not disclosing" information because it's not their business. We're talking about a school actively and intentionally choosing to hide information or even lie to parents, and then to take matters into their own hands as to how the issue should be dealt with (i.e. helping to enact a social transition) regardless of whether the parents believe that's in that child's best interests or not. They're two entirely different things.

I suppose the question is quite simple. In your opinion, who is most important in this scenario?

The wishes of the parents?
The wishes of the student?

The school in this case is siding on the student. The consequences of disclosing information to parents are likely to result in harm to the student. For example submitting their child to organisations who proport to rid people of their homosexuality.

In the UK parents have a legal duty to keep their children safe. When that comes into question, schools and authorities have power over parents and in all cases, the well being of the child is put first and is centre stage in any decisions. Parents do not have the legal right to dictate or pressure their children to be as they would wish.

Why? Why should the schopol have not done that? It's personal information that only I should have control over. The school shouldnt disclose that information to anyone, be them my parents or otherwise, without my consent. Whether they do that by saying "I dont know" or "He is straight" doesnt matter to me, it is not information that parents should have an automatic right to know even if they ask the school about it.

Because it’s not just about what matters to you. If you’re at school then you are a minor under the guardianship of your parents. That means that what matters to them also counts.

You might not particularly care what the school does, as long as they don’t disclose the information to your parents. But for a school to achieve that by lying to your parents, deceiving them, and most crucially, making up their own minds about subsequent actions they need to take regarding it is an undermining of the rights that parents have.

Schools need parental consent for even the most basic of things, like publishing photos of the children in their marketing material or taking them on a local field trip. It’s highly inconsistent with that principle to say that they can help a child transition to a new gender without similar consent.

These are not comparable examples because they are cases where parental consent is genuinely important. Parents are responsible for knowing where their child is and ensuring that their child isn't in an unsafe place or situation, so permission for field trips is clearly appropriate. Photographs of children are also a form of personal identifiable information that can identify not just the child but also the parent(s), even their extended family, so it therefore relevant to both the child and parent(s) to give consent to this.

But who are you to decide when parental consent is “genuinely important” and when it isn’t? (Unless you yourself are the parent of that particular child)?

You might feel the need to give a special status to the LGBT issue but not everyone does. If schools can freely deceive parents about this then there’s no reason why people couldn’t come up with other arguments in favour of the school deceiving parents on other issues too.

Not to mention the fact that, as I said, we’re not just talking about a child simply “being LGBT”, we’re talking about a school helping a child to socially transition, and intentionally making sure it’s without the knowledge of the parents. That’s a very different matter from the school just not telling parents that their child is bisexual.

Who are you to decide that parental consent is always important and always necessary?

I don't see what difference "deception" makes. I can expand the personal example I gave, suppose the school I went to had an LGBT club that I was recommended by one of my teachers so I could learn more about my sexuality and talk to other LGBT students. And again suppose my parents asked about this but that teachers "deceived" them by saying I wasn't bisexual and didn't go to the club. So what? You'd no doubt be against this, but why should my parents have been told?

The parent of a child is in fact a very important person to insist that their consent is necessary for something like social transition.

If you’re happy for schools to do something to your own child without your consent that’s fine; not when it comes to everyone else’s!

Deception makes a difference because it is intentional, and it effectively overrules parents, who no doubt do not want to be deceived. The school is in no place to do that.

Since the children are minors, it is ultimately up to parents and the school to decide what is in their best interests, not the children themselves. That only changes when they become adults. Parents rank higher than schools in that hierarchy.

No it's not. Changing one's pronouns and the name people refer to you is not something a parent should have to consent to, it's not something a parent should decide for their child.