How was your child born? Why does the school care?

[Mommy22alyns]

No, really. You can't make this stuff up.

 

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/06/04/school-application-criticized-for-birth-questions/?hpt=us_bn7

 

ROSEVILLE, Calif. (CBS13) – An elementary school has drawn criticism for asking intimate questions about how its students were delivered during birth on its application form.

The enrollment application for the Dry Creek School District asks a number of detailed medical questions about prospective students, but the question that asks whether the child was birthed by “vaginal delivery†or “C-Section†caught parents’ attention.

For the C-Section option, the application asks for the parent to explain why the procedure was performed.

“I really don’t feel think the school asking if the child was delivered vaginally or by C-Section is appropriate,†said Heather, a mother of two.

Heather said the questions on the application surprised her, and she can’t see a reason that the school would need that information. She said she’s been trying to get an answer for two weeks about the matter, but no school officials have responded to her requests.

“What’s next? This is an invasion of our privacy,†she said.

A number of scientific studies in medical journals have concluded that the method of birth delivery cannot be linked to intelligence.

Heather said she spoke with other parents about the application and learned school officials don’t seem to follow up on the question.

“We had someone that we know write ‘purple,’†she said. “Nobody contacted them about it, because these questions aren’t actually relevant to enrolling the child.â€

CBS13’s requests for comment from the district superintendent were not answered Friday.

 

[Veritaserum]

:001_huh: I could see asking if the child was premature or had any known medical issues that might affect educational needs, but vaginal or c-section and why is quite intrusive.

[Aelwydd]

I bet you it's probably part of an effort to gain statistics on large numbers of children, in order for health agencies like the state health department, and the CDC, to see if there's any correlation between complicated births, and for example, learning differences.

 

I doubt the questionnaire is mandatory. Sort of like how demographic questions about race and sex are always voluntary on employment applications.

[shinyhappypeople]

I remember seeing that question when I enrolled DD1 in kindergarten. You also have to have a dentist sign a form confirming that the child has had a dental exam. I think it's a good idea for kids to go to the dentist, but that has NOTHING to do with education. Schools set themselves up as gods and presume the right to know all sorts of information that's none of their business.

[shinyhappypeople]

I bet you it's probably part of an effort to gain statistics on large numbers of children, in order for health agencies like the state health department, and the CDC, to see if there's any correlation between complicated births, and for example, learning differences.

 

I doubt the questionnaire is mandatory. Sort of like how demographic questions about race and sex are always voluntary on employment applications.

 

IIRC, the form didn't indicate that the birth questions were optional. The dental health form is mandatory. Actually, though, I think parents have until first grade to submit the form. Can't quite remember the details on that.

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

When I first read this a while back, it made me think of the new questions required for a passport. I think in that case it was to determine if you were a citizen, but didn't have a birth certificate. California has a large Hispanic community, both legal and illegal. With the state's budget problems, perhaps they are trying to screen for children not in the state legally?

[shinyhappypeople]

When I first read this a while back, it made me think of the new questions required for a passport. I think in that case it was to determine if you were a citizen, but didn't have a birth certificate. California has a large Hispanic community, both legal and illegal. With the state's budget problems, perhaps they are trying to screen for children not in the state legally?

 

:confused: I'm not sure what connection method of delivery has to do with immigration status.

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

:confused: I'm not sure what connection method of delivery has to do with immigration status.

 

With the passport questionnaire the method, witnesses, doctors, any religious happenings accompanying the birth were required, as part of proving that the applicant was indeed born in the country.

 

I connected the two as possibilities because they sounded similar, that's all.

[shinyhappypeople]

With the passport questionnaire the method, witnesses, doctors, any religious happenings accompanying the birth were required, as part of proving that the applicant was indeed born in the country.

 

I connected the two as possibilities because they sounded similar, that's all.

 

Oh, I see.

 

In California, you don't have to prove that a child is here legally in order to enroll them in public schools.

 

But that's a whole 'nother thread...

[Aelwydd]

Ha! I was right!

 

Superintendent Mark Geyer said Monday the question was meant to identify if a child was at risk for health issues like diabetes and seizures and to help understand learning disabilities.

 

 

Research from a few years ago indicated the way a child was born could affect both, but Geyer said newer studies show the factor may not be as important as once thought.[/Quote]

 

 

 

The questions have been removed. I don't think anyone was denied matriculation, due to refusing to answer the questions though. It sounds like something that nobody in the school district actually read or reviewed anyway, got promptly filed away, in vague anticipation of some future research group requesting the data for retrospective studies.

[AnitaMcC]

My kids were hatched... :p

[Tarreymere]

Purple. I like that.

[LittleIzumi]

Purple. I like that.

:iagree: I think mine was more of an aquamarine.

[Ann]

I know that when students are given and educational assessment by a school psychologist the parents are asked about the pregnancy and birth. I always thought it was part of the child's background and a piece of the puzzle.

[Renai]

I know that when students are given and educational assessment by a school psychologist the parents are asked about the pregnancy and birth. I always thought it was part of the child's background and a piece of the puzzle.

 

Yeah, when my daughter spent a month in public school, I was going to have her evaluated. They also had questions about pregnancy and birth in that paperwork.

[m0mmaBuck]

My children were spawned in a government lab....

[Maverick_Mom]

Nobody else got a visit from Mr. Stork?! I must be special. :D

 

 

When I registered ds for school, there was a question about the mode of delivery. There was also one asking if he was breast-fed or bottle-fed. I so wanted to write "Jack Daniels through a straw" but restrained myself. ;)

 

I ignored any question I felt was intrusive or irrelevant, and no one said 'boo' about it.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Maverick_Mom

[Night Elf]

Shoot, I think I'd feel snarky and attach my labor & delivery story that is quite graphic with all the details. Maybe I would highlight where I screamed and had my eyes shut so tight that I had double vision for about half an hour after she was born. I'm not sure if that affected her brain cells but I'm sure as heck positive it affected mine! :tongue_smilie:

[Maverick_Mom]

Shoot, I think I'd feel snarky and attach my labor & delivery story that is quite graphic with all the details. Maybe I would highlight where I screamed and had my eyes shut so tight that I had double vision for about half an hour after she was born. I'm not sure if that affected her brain cells but I'm sure as heck positive it affected mine! :tongue_smilie:

 

Sure, why not? If they're going to ask such personal questions, give 'em something interesting to read! :D

[Pamela H in Texas]

My 3 and 4 year old are going to HeadStart for preK at the school this fall. I could not believe how intrusive the questioning was and told them so. I would not have followed through had it been a biological child I had a choice regarding! So that was just the original set of paperwork after the application (which also was more in-depth). Then, I had "interviews" for each boy. Two hours per kid to speak to three women and MORE questioning. One was all about physical health, another all about mental/emotional issues.

 

JFWIW, I do feel much more confident having these little guys in HeadStart than I did having their sister and another five year old in preK last year. I feel it's much more supportive and going to be a positive thing. Seriously, between preK, daycare, and HeadStart, I'm glad we're doing HS, at least with these kids. But it's still VERY intrusive.

[SailorMom]

Saying this as a Californian (we don't live there now, but I was raised there and lived there for 26 years, and all the fam is there) who loves the natural beauty and climate of her state...

California is going insane. Not everyone, of course :D The physical ground may not be falling into the Pacific, but the state is so left - almost everyone is already swimming...

The state thinks EVERYTHING is its business.

[Mommy22alyns]

Ha! I was right!

 

 

 

 

 

The questions have been removed. I don't think anyone was denied matriculation, due to refusing to answer the questions though. It sounds like something that nobody in the school district actually read or reviewed anyway, got promptly filed away, in vague anticipation of some future research group requesting the data for retrospective studies.

 

 

Good. But it's still idiotic that people think the method of a child's birth is going to cause learning problems. And diabetes? Seizures? WTH does that have to do with c-section or vaginal?

 

Reiterated from the original:

 

A number of scientific studies in medical journals have concluded that the method of birth delivery cannot be linked to intelligence.

[SweetMissMagnolia]

omgoodness---another thing I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF!!!!! crazy....... :glare:

[Murphy101]

I had to take one of my teens in to a neurological specialist a few months ago and the first two pages where nothing but questions like that.

 

Was I happy to be pregnant? Were there any deaths of close loved one while I was pregnant? Was he a vaginal or c/s? Were there complications? Did I have pain relief during labor? What kind? Was the labor long or short? Was it traumatic? Was the father at the birth? Was he breastfed or bottle fed! On demand or schedule? For how long? Was he circumcised shortly after delivery, within a month of delivery or later?

 

And those are just the ones I rememeber. It was seriously 2 pages of those type if questions.:glare:

[Aelwydd]

Good. But it's still idiotic that people think the method of a child's birth is going to cause learning problems. And diabetes? Seizures? WTH does that have to do with c-section or vaginal?

 

Reiterated from the original:

 

A number of scientific studies in medical journals have concluded that the method of birth delivery cannot be linked to intelligence.

 

It's not "idiotic." Obviously, there was enough of a question among smart, educated researchers to design and implement studies in the first place.

 

You do not see where hypoxia during birth, or pulmonary hypertension, or any other situation where there's reduced oxygen to the brain, might have led physicians and researchers might wonder if that could carry over to learning disabilities later on? It's good to know that population studies seem to show no strong link between the two, but I hardly think that the question is idiotic.

[Murphy101]

It's not "idiotic." Obviously, there was enough of a question among smart, educated researchers to design and implement studies in the first place.

 

You do not see where hypoxia during birth, or pulmonary hypertension, or any other situation where there's reduced oxygen to the brain, might have led physicians and researchers might wonder if that could carry over to learning disabilities later on? It's good to know that population studies seem to show no strong link between the two, but I hardly think that the question is idiotic.

 

It is idiotic.

 

The question is not, Did your child experience reduced or loss of oxygen during pregnancy or delivery? If so, why and how?

 

The question is was it a vag or c/s delivery and why?

 

The first might be lead to discovering interesting outcomes.

The second is idiotic, whether asked my supposedly smart researchers or not.

[DarlaS]

It is idiotic.

 

The question is not, Did your child experience reduced or loss of oxygen during pregnancy or delivery? If so, why and how?

 

The question is was it a vag or c/s delivery and why?

 

The first might be lead to discovering interesting outcomes.

The second is idiotic, whether asked my supposedly smart researchers or not.

 

:iagree:

 

It won't get them the information they need.

[Veritaserum]

When we had our oldest evaluated for ADHD, I did answer a number of questions about her pregnancy and birth. In that context (medical) I felt that that information was relevant. The doctor was looking for fetal distress or birth injuries that may have impacted her development negatively.

 

I would feel less safe about disclosing medical information on a school form. I do see Rebekah's point about possible connections to events during a birth and learning disabilities. I can see why that information would be useful from a public health perspective. I can also understand that putting the questions on a school form may be the most practical way of gathering data on a large number of children.

[Mommy22alyns]

It is idiotic.

 

The question is not, Did your child experience reduced or loss of oxygen during pregnancy or delivery? If so, why and how?

 

The question is was it a vag or c/s delivery and why?

 

The first might be lead to discovering interesting outcomes.

The second is idiotic, whether asked my supposedly smart researchers or not.

 

 

Yes, exactly. Thank you.

[mommaduck]

I wish someone would note if there are triggers in side content on these links. Another article was linked on the side that just about made me throw up and did make me hold my little one tighter.

[Ginevra]

My dd14 just had a "physical" because she's entering private school in the fall. She was totally baffled between the questions on her questionairre and the others that they were asking her (although I do understand why they were asked as far as assessing emotional health). She said, "Why did they ask if I had any friends?" There were lots of other questions that I personally feel is none of their darned business, but it doesn't incense me that they asked:

Does anyone in your family own a gun?

Do you drink carbonated beverages regularly? Milk?

Do you ever drink alcohol or use medicines just to relax?

Does anyone in your family threaten you?

And on and on. I found all those questions to be annoying. Do they really uncover many abused children, drug-using children, at-risk children, etc. through the "physical" required for sports? Sheesh. :tongue_smilie:

[shinyhappypeople]

Saying this as a Californian (we don't live there now, but I was raised there and lived there for 26 years, and all the fam is there) who loves the natural beauty and climate of her state...

California is going insane. Not everyone, of course :D The physical ground may not be falling into the Pacific, but the state is so left - almost everyone is already swimming...

The state thinks EVERYTHING is its business.

 

:lol:

 

True. But, I'm one of the exceptions, honest!

[Education Explorers]

Saying this as a Californian (we don't live there now, but I was raised there and lived there for 26 years, and all the fam is there) who loves the natural beauty and climate of her state...

California is going insane. Not everyone, of course :D The physical ground may not be falling into the Pacific, but the state is so left - almost everyone is already swimming...

The state thinks EVERYTHING is its business.

 

It is not just a "California Thing." Other states are treading into private areas that they really don't have any "educational" reasons to be prying into. New Jersey was about to do the same type thing by allowing schools to survey students "voluntarily" as long as they had notified parents in writing to prior to giving the survey. Notice that they were NOT requiring parental permission. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/A3500/3242_I1.PDF Lucky for families in NJ, the Assembly pulled the bill after it had passed the Senate. http://ricochet.com/main-feed/New-Jersey-Decides-Not-To-Ask-Children-Weird-Voyeuristic-Questions

 

Is it just me, or is our whole country going completely insane? How can the masses be so indifferent to these intrusions? I know, I know, ignorance is bliss.

[stripe]

With the passport questionnaire the method, witnesses, doctors, any religious happenings accompanying the birth were required, as part of proving that the applicant was indeed born in the country.

 

My reading of this form was this was for people whose parents applied for their birth certificate way after birth, and other situations, not for everyone.

 

When I sought health care during my last pregnancy, I was asked if the pregnancy was planned about 5 times. Then I was asked if I actually planned it or if it was a happy accident. None of your business! Then I was asked if I'd ever beenr raped or threatened at about every opportunity, including at the hospital after birth about five times. I am all for helping women out of abusive relationships but it was ridiculous! And I think not everyone who's ever been raped needs to feel compelled to discuss it with any health care worker who asks, esp if she's out of that relationship.

Edited June 23, 2011 by stripe

[Dmmetler]

I hit the questions about pregnancy, childbirth, and delivery during an evaluation of my DD. Then they had to ask me what HELLP syndrome was.:banghead:

 

I can see that my DD being born prematurely and the fact that I'd had to be on medication to prevent seizures throughout pregnancy as a concern-but the C-section was a minor part of the total package, to say the least.

[Heatherwith4]

This irritates me on many levels. First, it's none of their business! Second, DS5 had a very traumatic birth, and he and I almost died. Shockingly enough, I don't like to be reminded of that any more than what I already am. Not only that, but he's a pretty smart five year old, if I do say so myself, and I would not want him to be labeled otherwise, bc he was born by emergency C-Section.

Geez, I would make the *worst* public school mom ever.

[2cents]

I think I'd probably like the person who wrote in "purple.":lol:

[Aelwydd]

It is idiotic.

 

The question is not, Did your child experience reduced or loss of oxygen during pregnancy or delivery? If so, why and how?

 

The question is was it a vag or c/s delivery and why?

 

The first might be lead to discovering interesting outcomes.

The second is idiotic, whether asked my supposedly smart researchers or not.

 

No, it isn't. In gathering data for a study of that magnitude, details such as why a c-section was performed helps a researcher understand if a condition existed before birth, or was perhaps caused by the birth.

 

Example: a pregnant woman's baby is found to have a severe case of IUGR (intra-uterine growth restriction), meaning very small for gestational age. The baby does not do well during stress tests, and so a c-section is planned, in order to prevent too much stress via vaginal delivery.

 

However, after the c-section, the baby suffers from pulmonary hypertension, a situation that is not uncommon with c-sections. The baby requires oxygen, and has poor Apgars originally, of 2 and 5.

 

When the child is 4 years old, he is dealing with developmental aphasia, and later on, dyslexia.

 

So, a researcher, who is looking to determine if the culprit is the mode of birth, cannot review that case, and say with certainty that the learning disabilities were caused by the birth, or the condition prior to the birth. IUGR usually involves some form of decreased oxygenation. So does pulmonary hypertension.

 

This is called confounding factors, and it means that in a well-designed study, the researcher will have to make adjustments in how he or she weighs the data, or simply eliminate cases like this altogether. Otherwise, the data pool is "dirty," in that any conclusions drawn from the statistical results are suspect, since the researcher did not account for cases of learning disabilities that were caused by something other than a mode of birth.

 

So, simply asking, "How was your baby born," does not give a researcher enough information to do so. He may find, for example, that a higher rate learning disabilities are associated with c-section births; but can he draw conclusions that it is method of birth what is responsible for this increase, from that comparison alone?

 

No; because c-sections are often performed for health indications that existed prior to the birth, and these reasons may actually also be the reason for a later learning disability, and not the mode of birth, itself.

 

There are just as many questions raised in vaginal births, and the circumstances surrounding them. That is why I don't see this questionnaire as some nefarious plan by the state to delve into the privacy of ps families. It's more likely the brain child of some geeky, and somewhat socially awkward number crunchy analyst who is trying to gather enough data to support an epidemiological study.

 

But, to the original point? I hope I have explained the nature of research well enough to show that it was not at all "idiotic" to request more differential information.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Aelwydd

[Night Elf]

But, to the original point? I hope I have explained the nature of research well enough to show that it was not at all "idiotic" to request more differential information.

 

I do understand your point. What I disagree with is that these questions are being asked on a school form that needs to be completed before the child can begin school. At least that is how all the paperwork was presented to me when I placed my children in school, more than once. Those are medical questions and I believe that type of data should be collected from a medical source and it should be anonymous. Those specific questions are not just being asked to gather facts for a population. There are names attached to those forms AND those forms are placed in the child's permanent school file that follows him/her from Kindergarten through 12th grade. Someone in the school feels it is beneficial to have that information. Is it really in the best interest of the child? And if it is, is it really in the best interest of every single child enrolled in schools? If that data is so important to evaluating children for special needs, why can't those forms be filled out when the need arises?

 

And I don't buy the idea that it is done because it is a place where a large number of children attend. Large number of children attend amusement parks too, but that would be absolutely outrageous for that information to be expected from such a place. Why is a school any different? I believe it's different because it's a government run facility and they can do pretty much anything they want to do.

[mommaduck]

My dd14 just had a "physical" because she's entering private school in the fall. She was totally baffled between the questions on her questionairre and the others that they were asking her (although I do understand why they were asked as far as assessing emotional health). She said, "Why did they ask if I had any friends?" There were lots of other questions that I personally feel is none of their darned business, but it doesn't incense me that they asked:

Does anyone in your family own a gun?

Do you drink carbonated beverages regularly? Milk?

Do you ever drink alcohol or use medicines just to relax?

Does anyone in your family threaten you?

And on and on. I found all those questions to be annoying. Do they really uncover many abused children, drug-using children, at-risk children, etc. through the "physical" required for sports? Sheesh. :tongue_smilie:

 

Some of those questions, I knew many kids that would lie to avoid problems. Honestly, I don't believe these questionaires "find" anything.

[Aelwydd]

I do understand your point. What I disagree with is that these questions are being asked on a school form that needs to be completed before the child can begin school. At least that is how all the paperwork was presented to me when I placed my children in school, more than once. Those are medical questions and I believe that type of data should be collected from a medical source and it should be anonymous. Those specific questions are not just being asked to gather facts for a population. There are names attached to those forms AND those forms are placed in the child's permanent school file that follows him/her from Kindergarten through 12th grade. Someone in the school feels it is beneficial to have that information. Is it really in the best interest of the child? And if it is, is it really in the best interest of every single child enrolled in schools? If that data is so important to evaluating children for special needs, why can't those forms be filled out when the need arises?[/Quote]

 

Well, all of that's relevant to the question of how to conduct a study ethically. And, also what are the potential benefits of the study? Due to the resistance of parents, who were not informed prior to being asked this information, why it was being sought, I would argue that the school district violated some ethical lines there.

 

As regards to how it may benefit potentially benefit a child, a population study, is by its nature, geared to give you the "big picture," and therefore help physicians and health providers and public health departments and so forth, gain the evidence they need to base standards of practice on. I guess you'd have to weigh if it benefits your individual child. I'd argue that large population studies are the basis of most medical practice and therapies. At some point, if you've received medical treatment or a drug, you and (your child) have benefited from studies others have participated in, or whose health information has contributed to.

 

And I don't buy the idea that it is done because it is a place where a large number of children attend. Large number of children attend amusement parks too, but that would be absolutely outrageous for that information to be expected from such a place. Why is a school any different? I believe it's different because it's a government run facility and they can do pretty much anything they want to do.

 

But do amusement parks have to find ways to care for children with moderate to severe learning disabilities? It seems pretty obvious to me why the school district would participate in such a study. If the study revealed a strong association or causal link between birth modes and learning disabilities, then special education teachers, speech pathologists, and so forth, would have a potential diagnostic tool to help identify "at risk" students before they begin to have real problems.

 

Again, I understand that the nature of this board seems to always regard what ps schools (and by default, the government) do as suspicious and part of a nefarious attempt to zombify the public, and I don't know what else. (I say this only half-teasingly.)

 

But, instead of continuing to point out the obvious (to me) intentions behind such information, please someone explain to me what ps staff were really planning to do with a boat load of mostly poorly written birth stories? What evil purpose could they accomplish with that? I highly doubt it was to instill a birth fetish in the children.

 

Or being fed into a satellite data system that could track the whereabouts of unsuspecting ps mothers, through sophisticated vaginal/c-section scar scanning technology.

 

Although the latter would be kind of cool.