1971+Valent+v.+New+Jersey+State+Board+of+Education


 * Summary of the Case . ** A teacher cannot refuse to teach a curriculum set by the school board, as they set the standards and rules on curriculum matters. However, a group of Catholic parents objected to sex education being taught as part of the curriculum and requested their children be excused. Their request was denied by the school board, who insisted that “their course on Human Sexuality did not, would not, and could not be offensive to any religion, belief, or doctrine,” arguing that such a class is needed and beneficial for students and, therefore, parents should not be able to excuse their child or children from participating.

The court sought to determine whether allowing students to be excused from the class would cause harm to the state, the school, or the children involved. In addition, they wondered if excusing students would cause the class to be unsuccessful in the future? The burden of proof was upon the defendants -- the New Jersey State Board of Education. They presented their facts claiming 70% of the Junior Chamber of Commerce members thought that sex education was a good idea. (Legal, Inc, 2010) Their response:..."If majority rule were to govern in matters of religion and conscience, there would be no need for the First Amendment. The First Amendment, and particularly the 'free exercise clause,' was adopted to protect the one percent, one individual, one person, who is sincere in a conscientious religious conviction. In conclusion, the court noted: “If educators are not careful about what they compel, parental discipline and respect will diminish as the great sovereign state forces its way into the home as a foster parent." ("Landmark court cases," 2004)

Recently a law was vetoed by Utah’s Governor because it stated that schools could only teach abstinence. Many people were upset by his veto, making it evident that the topic of sex education is important to students, parents and the community at large.
 * Impact On Education Today ** : This case supports the fact that parents have a voice in their child’s education and that religious convictions influence the role parents play in deciding a school’s curriculum. Even though some parents may neglect their prerogative to teach sex education doesn’t mean the state can teach it better. Most parents are competent in their ability to guide their children in important matters and areas of life.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1971177114NJSuper63_1171