This is topic Parents' Rights and Public School--It's Homeschool or Private school for my kids! in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
Look at the list of questions...I don't see how that's appropriate to ask a bunch of kids.
Anyway, I'm quite sure that I'll have to homeschool my kids or find a good private school.
Maybe even get a boat and live in international waters just to be left alone.
Think they'll colonize the moon, soon? Bet there'd be nosy good-for-you government up there, too.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
It's not so much that the court found no fault with the school that bothers me, it's the statement that parents don't have a fundamental right to overrule what their kids learn in school. I believe they do have that right, whether it is recognized or not, and if they want to opt out their child from a particular non-education related lesson, they should be able to. (By that I mean the character and social "education" that schools do, not subjects like math, history, english, etc.)
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I believe they do have that right, whether it is recognized or not, and if they want to opt out their child from a particular non-education related lesson, they should be able to. (By that I mean the character and social "education" that schools do, not subjects like math, history, english, etc.)
We can't, and we shouldn't try to, seperate history and english from character, and there is an extent to which public education has a duty to addreses controversial issues, or education becomes irrelevant to the lives of the students. It was a study-- because, you know, that's how we get information in order to make better decisions-- parents were asked their consent, and the children were not forced to reply.
If the proctors of the study were unclear as to the nature of the questions on the study, then that is another issue. If you don't think that the survey should be in school, period, that's an understandable view; take it up with the school board.
Look there are checks and balences in the public school system. Parents can go to the teacher, the principal or the board if necessary, and its been my experience that all three of these entities are solicitous of parent's requests, and word rather the parent agree with the curriculum than disagree with the curriculum.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Why would parents have a right to overrule what their kids learn in school? A school has a more imporant responsibility to teach kids what the school deems accurate, factual, and important for them to know. It would be irresponsible for them to let kids out of learning certain things just because their parents don't think it is right or important. What if some parent thinks history shouldn't be taught, or algebra is useless? The school can't let kids pass without learning those lessons. If the school deems certain sexual issues to be similarly important, the school has a responsibility to teach it - or, in this case, if the school deems it important to ask certain questions for the sake of properly educating kids, it has the right and responsibility to do so. (That is, unless those questions are violations of privacy, which I don't think is the case here.)
The parent's ability to counter this are twofold: They can teach their kids whatever they want outside of school, and they can switch their kids to a different school. But they don't have the right to demand that a school teach what they want the school to teach.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
But schools haven't been listening to the parents. Wasn't there a case just a few weeks ago where a parent objected to a book that portrayed gay couples and the school told him he couldn't have his child opt out? That they had no obligation to inform him ahead of time?
I'm not saying take out sex education or character education--unfortunately, a lot of parents don't do that part of their job for whatever reason, and the school is the only place they'll get it. But for those parents that DO teach their children, they have the right to remove their children, especially when things are being taught that are contrary to their religious beliefs.
As for the survey, while I am not very comfortable with the types of questions asked, and think they at least border on inappropriate, that is not the core of my problem. Though, I think the school probably should have been clearer regarding the nature of the survey when they asked for consent. My problem is with the broad response of the court. Specifically, this part:
quote:We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I find this ruling extremely troublesome myself.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Tresopax, I'm not sure who you're responding to... it doesn't seem as if you read what I wrote.
I made a distinction between math, history, english and other subjects like them and sexuality/values courses. You seemed to be making a point that parents shouldn't have a right to protest the teaching of those subjects (math, history, english, etc.) as if I had said otherwise. Well, I didn't.
You go on to say that sexuality is the same thing as those subjects (if the school deems it so). Now that is the part that I disagree with. Sexuality being different from biology, that is.
You also seem to be implying that I was saying that parents should set the curriculum in all areas when you said:
quote:But they don't have the right to demand that a school teach what they want the school to teach.
But I didn't say that they should. All I want is for a parent to have the right to remove their child from sexuality and other values lessons if they so choose. I don't think the programs should be removed from schools, as some are needed.
And I think that's what the parents in this case wanted. I could be wrong.
Edited for clarity, I hope.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.
The word "right" is a big deal in a legal opinion, the court just can't go around giving those out.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
But they can go around taking them away?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>the court just can't go around giving those out.
Unless it is prohibited by law, it is a right.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Scott: I disagree. It is not prohibited by law that I travel 30 mph on the local roads, but I do not think it a right; it could be prohibited with relative ease. Rights are those things which trump laws.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:>>the court just can't go around giving those out.
Unless it is prohibited by law, it is a right.
It's not even that I disagree; I think that that's wrong.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The court's statement there is entirely too broad. It could even be interpreted to say that parents don't have the right to NOT enroll their children in public school.
And about rights... that's the question, isn't it? Do parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit? I'm talking about non-abuse issues, here.
Who's really has charge of your children? You? The schools? The government? "Society"?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's a tricky issue, but when a child robs me, needs medical help that he/she can't afford for decision that could have been avoided, or goes on the dole because his or her parent doesn't abide by all of that fancy education, then I have to say that society has a stake in that child.
We are all in it together, that's why there are parent/teacher conferences, back-to-school nights, PTAs and school boards.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Fugu, I agree with you-- I'm not sure how you see we're disagreeing.
If a law is not spelled out in the Constitution, then the administration of that particular behavior or whatever falls to the States or to the People. In this way, the Bill of Rights turns the Constitution on its head, because it specifies which rights the people have access to. One of the founding fathers (Madison? I'm not sure) was adamantly against the Bill of Rights and its implied limitations on what were rights.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I lived in the South during the late 60's and early 70's. I have seen what happens when a large percentage of society opts out of the public education system. It is not a pretty sight. We shriveled up the lives of a whole generation. The answer is not to withdraw from the process. You need to participate fully in that process. Don't "find a good private school". Find a way to improve the pubilc school system in your attendance area. If more than a fringe group opt out, the Nation as a whole will suffer.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Quick terminology:
"fundamental" or "(substantive) due process" rights are those that fugu is referring to. This also includes specific, enumerated constitutional rights such as a free speech, free exercise, etc. A fundamanetal right may only be violated with a "good enough" reason. Determining what is "good enough" is a very complicated process.
In a much more general sense, a right is something which, if violated, can be remedied in law or equity. This would include the fundamental rights, a right to recover damages caused by negligence, a right to money owed to you by another person, and many others.
In practical effect, the extent of a right is defined by the remedy. For example, you have a right not to have your home searched without probable cause. However, if the police search your house and don't find anything, you have no remedy, assuming there was no physical damage to your residence. If they find something to use against someone else, no one has a remedy. Unless the violation was particularly egregious, the officers involved can't really be punished. A court might make a finding that your "right" was violated, but this would have no practical effect.
This means that the right to avoid unreasonable search and seizure has been changed to the right to not have evidence used against you in a criminal proceeding that was obtained through an unreasonable search or seizure of you or your property.
Scott is also right in a very general sense to say that we have the right to do something not prohibited by law, but really this is based on a couple of fundamental rights to notice.
So yes, fugu, you have a right to travel 30 MPH on local roads absent a law to the contrary. You cannot be punished for doing so until such a law is passed. But you don't have a fundamental right to do so.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: It's a tricky issue, but when a child robs me, needs medical help that he/she can't afford for decision that could have been avoided, or goes on the dole because a parent doesn't abide by all of that fancy education, then I have to say that society has a stake in that child.
But society has a stake when certain conditions are met.. when "it" itself has been affected in a profound way. (I didn't understand the phrase: for decision that could have been avoided, though.) But generally, shouldn't the parents have the say?
My supposition is that parents should know when sexuality and values classes are being taught, and given the opportunity for their child to opt out. Honestly, I thought it was already done that way, since that's the way it was in my school...but I attended Christian schools mostly.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, its powers not given to Congress in the Constitution which are reserved to the states or the people, a very different thing.
The Constitution also specifies that the lack of mention in the Constitution does not mean a right does not exist, but it does not say that everything Congress is not given power over is a right, which particularly destroys any notion that a power might be a right.
There are issues with implied limitations on right through the bill of rights, but I think the historical record is fairly clear on its positive application, and furthermore that where it wasn't spelled out, courts were perfectly willing to let Congress and other legislatures legislate what was a right and what wasn't. Without the bill of rights, many rights in it would not have been recognized, at least until much later.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Would you all mind applying the rights/powers/etc. talk to the particular issue? I am having problems understanding the distinctions and how it relates to the issue at hand.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dag: I like the stronger usage of the term and would prefer the weaker changed to a different term (this is just a philosophical desire). I think the different uses confuse the issue such that many people, particularly lay-people, think fundamental rights weaker than they are and "rights" nonexistent but by the lay of the law stronger than they are.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:My supposition is that parents should know when sexuality and values classes are being taught, and given the opportunity for their child to opt out. Honestly, I thought it was already done that way, since that's the way it was in my school...but I attended Christian schools mostly.
From your own article:
quote: The controversy began in 2001 when a volunteer "mental health counselor" at Mesquite Elementary School set out to conduct a psychological assessment test of students in the first, third and fifth grades.
A letter to parents asked for their consent to conduct the study but did not indicate that questions of a sexual nature would be asked. The survey included 79 questions divided into four parts. Ten of those questions were of a sexual nature.
A letter was sent, consent was asked for, if the letter was misleading, that's a completely different issue, but you are approaching the situation as if the school ran rough-shod over the parents expressed wishes.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The school did run rough-shod over the parent's whishes. Those wishes could not be expressed beforehand because the school kept the nature of the situation hidden.
[ November 03, 2005, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
*laughs*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag: I like the stronger usage of the term and would prefer the weaker changed to a different term (this is just a philosophical desire). I think the different uses confuse the issue such that many people, particularly lay-people, think fundamental rights weaker than they are and "rights" nonexistent but by the lay of the law stronger than they are.
But "rights" is actually used far more often in the "weaker" sense, because most of the rights any of us have are of that type.
In addition, most of the rights that get run roughshod over are of the "weaker" type. It's violation of these rights that more often needs to be corrected and are more often the source of injustice. People need to think of them as rights in order to elevate their importance.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:People need to think of them as rights in order to elevate their importance.
There is that word "need" again.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:A letter was sent, consent was asked for, if the letter was misleading, that's a completely different issue, but you are approaching the situation as if the school ran rough-shod over the parents expressed wishes.
Well, I'm sorry for being unclear, then. I think it's good they sent a letter. I also think it's probable that the letter was misleading, but I really don't know.
I guess what I would say is that I'm not so sure that the school shouldn't have won this particular case--I don't have enough information to say that they shouldn't. (Maybe if I read the letter they sent out.) My problem is with the overly broad general statement made by the court regarding the rights of parents.
Is that clearer?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:My problem is with the overly broad general statement made by the court regarding the rights of parents.
Yeah, to me, it sounded as if you wanted another clause in the first Amendment. I mean, what if a parent only wants their child to go to 20 days of school instead of 180? There are homeschools and private schools, and avenues of discussion in the public schools, I don't see the requirement to make up and codify some right that can easily be abused.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I just want the right to say when I have kids that I don't want them in particular classes teaching things I don't agree with. Even though personally, I'd probably let them stay in the class and counter it at home myself. But I believe I should have the right anyway.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
Here in Ontario we are lucky enough to have a parallel system of catholic schools. Now, I am not myself catholic, but since the public system is openly anti-christian, anti-family and pro-homosexual, if I am living in Ontario by the time I have kids, they will be going to the catholic schools. If they haven't all been shut down or emasculated by then, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:*laughs*
Wow. I haven't been treated so condescendingly all day.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
That's just plain weird. I mean the survey thing, not any of the political stuff.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I feel as if there's this trend that says what you believe is so obviously wrong that you have no right to teach it to your children, therefore, we're going to teach your children whatever we like and you have no right to say otherwise.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
mph : Irami is just like that, from what I've seen of his posts in the couple years that I've been here.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
*pats Porter on the head*
There, now you have.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There is that word "need" again.
Yes, there it is. Rights are important, and asserting ones rights when appropriate is an important civic responsibility.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Would you all mind applying the rights/powers/etc. talk to the particular issue? I am having problems understanding the distinctions and how it relates to the issue at hand.
Won't anybody address my question? Please???
is the court saying it's not a fundamental right, whatever that means? Is this as alarming as I find it to be??
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*wedgies AFR*
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Rights are important, and asserting ones rights when appropriate is an important civic responsibility.
The rhetoric of rights never did do anything for me, and I've read enough seminal texts on the subject to call myself reasonably informed.
Tom actually articulated my position fairly well here:
quote: I believe there are no inherent human rights. I believe that we as a people -- as a society -- have resolved to pretend that certain rights exist, and have come together to enforce the recognition of those rights. But there's nothing in nature that suggests that any one individual is truly entitled to anything.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:is the court saying it's not a fundamental right, whatever that means? Is this as alarming as I find it to be??
The court is saying that parents do not have a fundamental (read it as constitutional if that helps) to control what their kids are exposed to at school, at least concerning topics of sexuality.
If the parent has a fundamental right to such control, then there may be a duty for the schools to fully inform the parents in time to exercise this right. This is called "notice." Notice is not an absolute right, but is usually required when a right may not be meaningfully exercised without it. In a situation where the right is to control exposure, the case for notice may be strong.
If a state law gives a parent a right (not a fundamental right) to control such exposure, then there are two implications: 1) Federal jusrisdiction is inappropriate, and 2) notice may or may not be required, and it probably depends on state law.
Where Irami's analysis falls short is that consent for psychological studies is a totally different issue. It's required by independent review boards and human experimentation regulations/statutes. If the informed consent forms were inadequate, then parents may have a right of recovery for that violation. However, those regulations may or may not make the sexual content of the survey something that must be disclosed.
If there is a fundamental right, then even if IRB regulations do not require such disclosure, the constitution might. If there is no fundamental right, then even an error in the consent form wouldn't be actionable.
The question of whether a fundamental right exists also determines whether parents can exclude outside the context of a study.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
What do you call rights that may not be specifically covered in the constitution but should be considered valid? Like the right of a parent to raise his/her child? It's a right they can lose by endangering the child, but isn't it a right nevertheless?
If there's no state law relating to notices, then isn't that a real lack?? Does it not lead to the erosure of parental rights all together?
Is it really not a constitutional right?? Shouldn't it be?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Rights are important, and asserting ones rights when appropriate is an important civic responsibility.
The rhetoric of rights never did do anything for me, and I've read enough seminal texts on the subject to call myself reasonably informed.
Tom actually articulated my position fairly well here:
quote: I believe there are no inherent human rights. I believe that we as a people -- as a society -- have resolved to pretend that certain rights exist, and have come together to enforce the recognition of those rights. But there's nothing in nature that suggests that any one individual is truly entitled to anything.
Seems to me then you would like the distinction I made, which relies not at all on rights being an inherent entitlement.
When people don't assert their rights against a phone company that illegally switched their service, they encourage the phone company to do this to others.
When people cave in to greenmail lawsuits, they encourage them against others in the future.
When people don't go after an insurance company unjustly limiting a claim, they encourage future behavior.
Sometimes one can't assert every little right one possesses. Sometimes one voluntarily chooses not to. But an endemic failure to do so leads to harmful behavior.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I would call it a God-given right, but what is the secular way to say that?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Where Irami's analysis falls short is that consent for psychological studies is a totally different issue. It's required by independent review boards and human experimentation regulations/statutes. If the informed consent forms were inadequate, then parents may have a right of recovery for that violation. However, those regulations may or may not make the sexual content of the survey something that must be disclosed.
Irami's analysis falls short because he thinks that these parents could have resolved this with the school and not the court, and instead of appealing to their rights, get back to talking about their purpose.
quote:I would call it a God-given right, but what is the secular way to say that?
That's the elephant in the room.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
"...certain unalienable Rights..." ?
Gee, no that Declaration specifically acknowledges God. I suppose it had better be declared unconstitutional.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure there is a secular way to put it, Katarain. I've never heard a compelling secular argument for inherent rights, which is why I don't believe in 'em. But I know that some people here DO, and maybe they can help.
I think you can make the argument that it is a right we must assume for the benefit of the continued existence of society -- that if we do not presume that parents have the "inherent" right to raise their children as they see fit, by exposing them to data they wish to control, one of the building blocks of society is replaced by the influence of the state. God doesn't appear in that assertion, but it does make the assumption that parents are automatically entitled to raise their children.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What do you call rights that may not be specifically covered in the constitution but should be considered valid? Like the right of a parent to raise his/her child? It's a right they can lose by endangering the child, but isn't it a right nevertheless?
Yes - courts have recognized many such rights. The rights given in Roe v. Wade and Lawrence are big examples. On the parental rights front, a law that required education only in English was struck down by the Supreme Court.
A fundamental right is a right identified by the Courts as granted by the constitution, even if it's not explicitly granted therein.
quote:If there's no state law relating to notices, then isn't that a real lack?? Does it not lead to the erosure of parental rights all together?
If there's a fundamental right, there doesn't need to be a state law (although many state laws grant rights of greater extent than the Constitution).
quote:Is it really not a constitutional right?? Shouldn't it be?
There is a fundamental constitutional right related to parenting. It's extent is not clearly defined.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:Irami's analysis falls short because he thinks that these parents could have resolved this with the school and not the court, and instead of appealing to their rights, get back to talking about their purpose.
These parents obviously thought that the school's practices were harmful enough that they wanted to make sure other schools would not be capable of subjecting their children to such harmful experimentation.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Tom, You don't believe in inherent rights? How can that be? What sorts?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Irami's analysis falls short because he thinks that these parents could have resolved this with the school and not the court
You don't know that is true.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't believe in inherent rights at all. I believe that some invented rights are more useful fictions than other rights, and I'm certainly willing to defend the existence of those fictions, but I don't think there's anything in nature that implies such "rights" as a function of reality.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I think that if we are going to talk about rights the way we talk about rights, that we need a God to guarantee them. I also don't think that we should talk about rights the way we talk about rights.
quote:You don't know that is true.
I can't even be reasonably sure, but there are a lot of things I have questions about concerning this case, like what the h*** is the status of the "mental health counselor" who started this mess.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
What about freedom? Do you think it'd be okay (absent invented rights) for a group of people to lock you up for your entire life with no reason?
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Kat, I think that that is exactly what they are saying. Which is why I (and others) have been saying all along that by removing belief in the existence of God, you open the door to justifying all sorts of barbaric and horrible acts, and you literally have no basis on which to oppose them. Such as some people here seem to be doing.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: Do you think it'd be okay (absent invented rights) for a group of people to lock you up for your entire life with no reason?
No, it's not okay. It's just where some people appeal to rights granted by God, I appeal my well-developed sense of character illumed by literature. I don't make claims about entitlement and needs, rather, my statements come in the form of oughts, shoulds, and appropriateness.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote: No, it's not okay.
Why not? Because literature told you so?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Katarain, if this case bugs you, you're probably right to consider private school for your hypothetical children. My not-hypothetical children will never go back to public school if I can help it. It's just far to politicized at a high level to reasonably counter.
My current beef is the standardized tests our state "requires" for 4th, 8th and 10th grade students. These aren't IOWA or SAT tests, that have been rigorously put to the test. They're something our state homegrew and are continuing to be expanded into subjects that strike me as beyond 'basic skills' (science was added this year, I think...I'd have to check). Also, they're testing in subjects that cannot be tested objectively, and at HUGE expense to tax payers. Worse, the tests about to become very high stakes, for starting with the class of 2010, passing the standardized tests will be a graduation requirement. Unfortunately, being in private school does not exempt my kids from this requirement...only homeschooling does, and I'm not cut out for that.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
"Because literature told you so?"
In a way, yep. Literature has educated me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't make claims about entitlement and needs, rather, my statements come in the form of oughts, shoulds, and appropriateness.
And yet when I used "need" in a way that was clearly more in line with "ought" you took exception.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
And "literature" defines for you what is right and wrong? Or, if you want less charged terms, okay and not okay? Isn't that a rather shaky basis? Literature changes all the time, you know.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Here in Ontario we are lucky enough to have a parallel system of catholic schools. Now, I am not myself catholic, but since the public system is openly anti-christian, anti-family and pro-homosexual, if I am living in Ontario by the time I have kids, they will be going to the catholic schools. If they haven't all been shut down or emasculated by then, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.
This is exactly what I was talking about in my last post. When a noticable percentage of the reasonable people remove themselves from the public education system, that system is weakened, marginalized, unsupervised, often unmanaged and always under funded. You People who care have to pay attention to and participate in your public schools.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I'm not willing to sacrifice my children for the good of public schools. If they were any good, maybe we wouldn't leave in the first place.
Basing your beliefs/values/whatever on literature is a pretty shaky position. Literature is just written by other people, who have their own beliefs and values and it comes through in their work. At best, you're getting everything second-hand. And either the original is based on God or... well, what??
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata:
quote:Here in Ontario we are lucky enough to have a parallel system of catholic schools. Now, I am not myself catholic, but since the public system is openly anti-christian, anti-family and pro-homosexual, if I am living in Ontario by the time I have kids, they will be going to the catholic schools. If they haven't all been shut down or emasculated by then, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.
This is exactly what I was talking about in my last post. When a noticable percentage of the reasonable people remove themselves from the public education system, that system is weakened, marginllized, unsupervised, often unmanaged and always under funded. People who care have to pay attention to and participate in your public schools.
You are confusing Cause and Effect. The education system wasn't weakened by the reasonable people leaving. Rather, the reasonable people left because the education system has been co-opted by unreasonable, unscrupulous and unethical people (to use only very mild adjectives).
I don't know exactly how schools are run in the states, but in Canada, each province has its Board or Ministry of Education, and there is nothing we can do about it if the Government decides what to teach. The only option is to remove ourselves from that sort of indoctrinating system and set up a parallel system in opposition. Hopefully, we'll be the last ones left standing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You People who care have to pay attention to and participate in your public schools.
There's those words "have to" again.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Do you think it'd be okay (absent invented rights) for a group of people to lock you up for your entire life with no reason?
I think we make a huge mistake when we confuse "rights" with "things that are okay."
I would much rather keep those things very, very far apart from each other.
It is in my opinion NOT right to be locked up for your whole life for no reason. But there's no reason other than those rationally conceived by man to prevent this from happening. And I think it's helpful for us to understand this, so that we can articulate exactly why we as a society do not countenance that treatment.
Keep in mind that the other approach -- appealing to God or some other form of "higher" authority for externalized morality -- depends first upon common acceptance of that God, and then the reliable belief that everyone involved knows what God expects. And, moreover, that God does not regularly alter His expectations without telling people. Saying "my morality is more sure because I do what God tells me is right" is, in the long run, appealing to nothing more stable or lasting than appealing to literature.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Compare it to a business supplying popular, but shoddy, goods. They're cheap and widely available, so most people buy from them. It's a product everybody needs, so if you're disatisfied, you either have to buy a more expensive version or make one yourself. There are things you can try to do to make the business owners do things better, but there's no guarantee.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote: But there's no reason other than those rationally conceived by man to prevent this from happening.
In your own, humble and entirely subjective opinion, of course, which I'm sure is what you meant to say.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
When my opinions are humble, I say so. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:And "literature" defines for you what is right and wrong? Or, if you want less charged terms, okay and not okay? Isn't that a rather shaky basis? Literature changes all the time, you know.
I said literature educates, leads the soul's wisdom out. e - out, ducere - to lead. You better believe it's shaky, I'm not selling security. Pastors and Insurance salesmen and Police officers sell security; I'm peddling character, and that's shaky business. With character, you have to work and learn and study every waking day until you die. With rights, all you have to do is write them down, get them passed by God and congress, and then business is settled, or at least gives off the appearance of being settled, allowing you to devote your energy and time (The resources I'd have people spend developing character) on making money.
Dag,
I'll retract my post then. I think I've been inundated with too many people who use the word need in unflattering ways.
Dh, remember, I'm not the one who said, "have to."
[ November 03, 2005, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Tom, I was being sarcastic. I know I have never seen you express humility.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Tom, Well, I can accept that.
I happen to think that yes, God gave us these rights and freedoms, but that he also gave us reason so we should be able to come up with reasons to have those rights apart from "because God said so."
I use the word rights because I don't know what else to use.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Which is why I (and others) have been saying all along that by removing belief in the existence of God, you open the door to justifying all sorts of barbaric and horrible acts, and you literally have no basis on which to oppose them. Such as some people here seem to be doing.
Let me address this, by the way. If your belief in God is the ultimate source of your morality, it is not possible for you to justify your morality and laws to people who do not share that belief. In that case, specifically, you have no basis on which to even engage in conversation with people who do not share those precepts. This has caused a lot of wars.
I submit that having another source for morality, one that does not require a shared belief in a higher power, makes it more likely that two people seeking to reconcile their ethical systems will be able to find a common denominator on which they agree and from which they can build a mutually satisfactory system.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Kat, to be fair though, we do have a fair amount of power to affect change in our local schools. ALL of the school board positions up for re-election in my area are going uncontested to the incumbent.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Not all things that I want control over in teaching my children are things that I think should be taught in public school, such as things related to religion, morality, and sexuality.
I actually have been of the opinion that Christian private school or home school are the only options for me for quite some time. Decisions like the one linked are only underlining that fact.
The big problem for me, and I've said this before--forgive me for being repetitive, is that parents who hold a minority opinion wouldn't have the freedom to pull their children out of classes which go against what they themselves teach or believe. And a parent with a minority opinion wouldn't have the option of changing the entire local school--nor should he.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:there are a lot of things I have questions about concerning this case, like what the h*** is the status of the "mental health counselor" who started this mess.
I can't believe I'm going to agree with Irami on something, but yeah. What in the freaking crap was s/he thinking?
Politics aside, would any of you really want your children asked those questions in first grade without you knowing about it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Are there basic elements of education you believe parents should not have the right to override? For example, if I as a parent decided that I had a religious objection to mathematics, would you support my right to pull my child out of any class that included it?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Tom, if you could prove that you really held those beliefs and explain them reasonably, I would support you in that. (Kind of like the test for conscientious objectors in the military.)
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Which is why I (and others) have been saying all along that by removing belief in the existence of God, you open the door to justifying all sorts of barbaric and horrible acts, and you literally have no basis on which to oppose them. Such as some people here seem to be doing.
Let me address this, by the way. If your belief in God is the ultimate source of your morality, it is not possible for you to justify your morality and laws to people who do not share that belief. In that case, specifically, you have no basis on which to even engage in conversation with people who do not share those precepts. This has caused a lot of wars.
I submit that having another source for morality, one that does not require a shared belief in a higher power, makes it more likely that two people seeking to reconcile their ethical systems will be able to find a common denominator on which they agree and from which they can build a mutually satisfactory system.
I, of course, disagree with you. I believe that if I am right and someone is wrong, it is my duty to do my utmost to convince the other person to change his/her mind (not force it on them). The problem with having a "moral system" that does not acknowledge God is that spiritual morality and secular morality are fundamentally at odds, even though great efforts are constantly deployed to deny this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The problem with having a "moral system" that does not acknowledge God is that spiritual morality and secular morality are fundamentally at odds.
Hm. I disagree almost completely with you on this one, and I suspect that it stems from our definition(s) of the word "morality."
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
What about sacrificing your country? Those kids who attended unsupervised and underfunded "segregation academys" in the South, as well as the kids who attended "public" schools that were not sustained by public officials, elected by citizens who were sending their kids to the "academys", are voting in November. That is truely frightening. Our system of governance required educated electors or it just won't work.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
That's a tough one... My initial response is yes, but your child's grade would have to be affected because of it.. and if it leaves him short of the credits necessary to graduate, nothing should be done to rectify that by the school. I would add that by a certain age, maybe 14, the student would have the right to override your wishes... ?
But I just made that up. I'm not sure.
Earlier, I said that the right to withdraw a student shouldn't apply to classes like math, history, and english, but then you had to suppose that the person had a religious reason for the withdrawal... That makes it harder. While I don't agree with the parent, I am in favor of religious liberty.
Yeah, that's tough.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
For the benefit of Tom Davidson.
quote:morality
n 1: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct [ant: immorality] 2: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: ethical motive, ethics, morals]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Tom, if you could prove that you really held those beliefs and explain them reasonably, I would support you in that. (Kind of like the test for conscientious objectors in the military.)
The problem is a kid who doesn't know math is a social liability and there is something, in a way, derelict about not teaching simple addition, along with the fact that basic math pervades in science, history, and even english. I'm not saying that the school should teach the child math against the parent's wishes, but I do think the school should be frank with the parent as to what kind of educational experience the parent is damning the child to.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: I lived in the South during the late 60's and early 70's. I have seen what happens when a large percentage of society opts out of the public education system. It is not a pretty sight. We shriveled up the lives of a whole generation. The answer is not to withdraw from the process. You need to participate fully in that process. Don't "find a good private school". Find a way to improve the pubilc school system in your attendance area. If more than a fringe group opt out, the Nation as a whole will suffer.
Alternatively, get rid of the public school system. It's bad in just about every way a school or a system can be bad.
The idea that the government should be able to determine what kids learn or do not learn is frightening.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: What about sacrificing your country? Those kids who attended unsupervised and underfunded "segregation academys" in the South, as well as the kids who attended "public" schools that were not sustained by public officials, elected by citizens who were sending their kids to the "academys", are voting in November. That is truely frightening. Our system of governance required educated electors or it just won't work.
Wow. Way to cover like a zillion issues. I bet someone is going to take you to task for that last sentence. But I'll leave that to them.
You're supposing that all private schools are as inadequate as your examples from the south. Are you unaware of the accreditation programs? While voluntary, they demand a certain level of quality and content in an education system. If a school opts out, the degrees they give out have little value in the world.
If a public school system fails because all of the students are withdrawn, it is because of some serious lacks in that school. People don't withdraw their children for no reason--I think it is safe to assume that they fought the system for quite some time and found nothing to be changing and their requests ignored.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No, its powers not given to Congress in the Constitution which are reserved to the states or the people, a very different thing.
The Constitution says no such thing. The Amendment you are referring to was superseded -- in effect, repealed -- by the 14th Amendment.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: It's a tricky issue, but when a child robs me, needs medical help that he/she can't afford for decision that could have been avoided, or goes on the dole because his or her parent doesn't abide by all of that fancy education, then I have to say that society has a stake in that child.
If there wasn't a dole, that wouldn't be an issue.
If the state didn't pay for medical care, that wouldn't be an issue.
And it's not lack of public education that makes people steal. On the contrary.
The fact is, you're arguing from a position where the goverment is already overstepping its bounds and its authority and saying that given that situation, it must do so as well in the case of education.
One bad decision leads to another. Inevitably. The solution isn't to keep going down the daisy chain of bad decisions, but to recognize that they are bad decisions, and start fixing them from the get-go.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: 1: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct [ant: immorality] 2: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
*nod* And using that definition, which is also the one I use, I see no incompatibility between religious and secular morality. I suspect that the reason you do is that you're adding a few codicils.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Tom, if you could prove that you really held those beliefs and explain them reasonably, I would support you in that. (Kind of like the test for conscientious objectors in the military.)
The problem is a kid who doesn't know math is a social liability and there is something, in a way, derelict about not teaching simple addition, along with the fact that basic math pervades in science, history, and even english. I'm not saying that the school should teach the child math against the parent's wishes, but I do think the school should be frank with the parent as to what kind of educational experience the parent is damning the child to.
I can agree with that.
quote:The problem with having a "moral system" that does not acknowledge God is that spiritual morality and secular morality are fundamentally at odds, even though great efforts are constantly deployed to deny this.
I actually think it is important for secularists to have a secular morality. I don't think that it and spiritual morality are always at odds.
I shy away from any supposition that a belief in God should be pressed on other people. I know you said that you wouldn't force it, but you would feel it is your duty to educate them to the best of your ability. While I acknowledge that witnessing is important, so is respect for other people's views. I don't want to live in a theocracy. The thought is scary.
In saying that secularists cannot have morality without God, I think you're saying that ultimately they need not practice a morality or set of fundamental laws, since it is all intertwined and morality cannot exist without God.
I'm not sure I'm portraying my thoughts clearly... I just feel that the path you're treading has some quite distasteful logical conclusions.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I'm not saying that the school should teach the child math against the parent's wishes, but I do think the school should be frank with the parent as to what kind of educational experience the parent is damning the child to.
I'll agree with that. My mother used to work as the assistant coordinator for newborn screening for Kaiser Southern CA. (I'm going to assume you all know what that is. If not, here's a link.) Anyway, she often had to try to convince parents who wanted to opt out of newborn screening (for religious reasons, the only reason allowed by the state) that they should consent for their child to be screened. Sometimes she managed, sometimes she didn't. She was very frank about the consequences of their actions if their child was not screened, had one of the diseases screened for, and was not treated. In either case, it was truly informed consent or informed failure to consent. (She was also frank about the fact that if their child died or was injured because of their refusal of treatment, it was possible for them to be charged with medical neglect and jailed or have their child(ren) taken away, although she's not actually sure where she stands on that practice.)
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:If there wasn't a dole, that wouldn't be an issue.
If the state didn't pay for medical care, that wouldn't be an issue.
And it's not lack of public education that makes people steal. On the contrary.
The fact is, you're arguing from a position where the goverment is already overstepping its bounds and its authority and saying that given that situation, it must do so as well in the case of education.
You got me; it would be hard for me to be proud to be an American if the country didn't provide medical care to the sick and resources for the unemployed. _____
Katarain and ketchupqueen, look at that, two agreements and nobody had to brandish rights about.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*reaches behind Irami and turns down his Snarkometer*
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Don't rub it in. It already disturbs me about how much I have agreed with you and Tom in this thread and a few others already. Especially because most of the time, I think you're a real nut, Irami.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Don't rub it in. It already disturbs me about how much I have agreed with you and Tom in this thread and a few others already. Especially because most of the time, I think you're a real nut, Irami.
I've won elections and had relationships on the strength of such commendations... but it's always scary because, as dh points out, I'm on shaky ground.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
You've won elections? What sort?
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
The largest problem with what is taught in school is that much of it used to be taught by parents in the privacy of their own homes. Now that we have seen the decline of parents doing what used to qualify as their JOB as parents, education has been forced to pick up the slack.
It isn't that the education system believes that all people are bad parents, but there has become a majority of students who are no longer being raised by parents, but rather by T.V., the Internet, video games, and their peers. The right way to deal with the sex ed issue is to stop doing it in schools and force parents to pick up the slack again.
But its easier for parents to give it to the education system than to take on the responsibility for themselves.
If people were forced back into the responsibility role that IS parenthood, maybe things would change back for the better.
As far as I'm concerned, teaching about drugs and sex in schools have only shown to increase the usage. Ignornace is bliss, knowledge corrupts. Giving these students access to the fact that these things exist only goes on to increase the chances that they WILL do them.
Johivin Ryson
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I don't agree with THAT.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
As much as I'd like to return to the Little House on the Prairie days, I'm pretty sure that's never going to happen.
I disagree that parents should be forced to teach these things--not because I think they shouldn't teach them, but because there is no way to force them that doesn't involve a gross violation of privacy and freedom.
Let the schools continue, and let the parents that live up to the responsibility of parenthood, withdraw their students if the school's version of things differs from their own.
Ignorance is most certainly not bliss. You know in recent times there has actually been a married couple (maybe more than one!) who didn't know what sex was and wondered why they weren't conceiving.
Giving students access to the fact that WHAT things exist?
Sex? Drugs?
No, ignorance of sex won't warn them of STDs, pregnancy, and the emotional affects of having sex before they are ready. Instead, they'll continue to get false information from their peers and make horrible decisions.
Ignorance of drugs will only make them unaware of the risks of taking those drugs. And lying to them and saying all drugs will kill you and do horrible things to their bodies will only make them think that heroin and cocaine must be okay, since pot didn't do anything to me.
Being INFORMED is always a good thing. Unless you're about to be executed in horrific ways. Maybe you wouldn't want the grisly details then.
Giving students false or limited or no information is what leads them to make bad decisions.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: You know in recent times there has actually been a married couple (maybe more than one!) who didn't know what sex was and wondered why they weren't conceiving.
I've always been pretty sure that was an urban legend. Got proof?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Nope. I read it on some strange news site and never bothered to verify it. I just looked it up, though, and while it's status is undetermined, snopes makes some pretty good arguments that it is indeed false.
Well, I hope my points stand without the story. Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
Tell me then, has promiscuity and drug use risen amoung teenagers? Whether or not they admit it on paper, the answer is yes.
With more knoweldge they may use contraception, but the knowledge coupled with with society flings them through the media tells them that sex is the end all be all of life. When eleven and twelve year olds, if not younger are having sex there is something wrong with the way they are learning about it. Schools are the front runner for what facts students learn about sex. However, they learn much more through the variety of other outlets that exist that make them believe that sex is safe. Abstinence is no longer preached in schools, but rather to use safe sex. It is now essentially assumed that students are going to have sex and therefore need to use protection.
Telling them about drugs and sex only add fuel to the fire thanks to what the media shows them daily. They may get a marking period of sex education, but the ideas are thrown around a thousand times a day. I know in my town that before we had D.A.R.E. and sex education, the biggest concern of students was who held hands with who. Now in elementary schools it is becoming more frequent to hear of children touching each other, and in middle school finding girls who are pregnant.
Nowhere did I say to lie to the students. However, making schools do the job of parents is wrong.
You want to pull your child from public school only avoids the larger problem. That we are developing a society where parents roles are minimal and the state plays a larger part in an almost 'Brave New World' style. Be a parent and take responsibility.
Johivin Ryson
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Tell me then, has promiscuity and drug use risen amoung teenagers? Whether or not they admit it on paper, the answer is yes.
There's not just one cause you can point to here. You're ignoring a LARGE number of factors in this.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:You want to pull your child from public school only avoids the larger problem. That we are developing a society where parents roles are minimal and the state plays a larger part in an almost 'Brave New World' style. Be a parent and take responsibility.
1) She's NOT a parent yet. 2) Isn't "taking responsibility" what she's saying she intends to do?
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
The decline of the family state....
The increase in media coverage of the issues...
Increased movie, music, magazine, and game related material that ignores the negative aspects...
Inefficient ability for teachers to effectively discuss the negative aspects involved....
In your opinion, what else is there?
It was a general statement regarding parenthood. Taking responsibility by fleeing the public school issue doesn't solve it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:In your opinion, what else is there?
Tacit government approval of drug importation on high levels, even as a "war on drugs" is supposedly conducted.
An increased societal acceptance of sex outside of marriage.
An increased societal acceptance of unwed parenthood.
An increased societal acceptance of abortion.
The breakdown of taboos as referenced in those last three is probably the biggest factor. And that is a cause of teaching sex in schools, not an effect.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
My apologizes.... I link those three issues as part of the breakdown of the family state.
The acceptance of these things, I agree is the problem. I didn't say that it was an effect.
My point is merely that avoiding by withdrawing students will not solve the problem.
If she doesn't have children yet, then she should be working NOW to solve the problem so that she can feel good about sending her children to school when she has them.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
You contradict yourself. Here's one instance:
quote:Schools are the front runner for what facts students learn about sex. However, they learn much more through the variety of other outlets that exist that make them believe that sex is safe.
Schools are the front runner, but other outlets teach them more.
Also, if the other outlets are the problem, then why ban the one place (school) where students are getting the most accurate information.
I haven't sat in a sex ed. class lately... have you? But I would venture that they probably ARE teaching abstinence, they're just not ONLY teaching abstinence. And good for them. Good for all. Because kids ARE having sex, and should be told how to help keep themselves safe.
If anything needs to be changed, I would say ADD to the sexual education program. Tell them about the emotional aspects of having sex. Give them all of the facts, physical and emotional. Stress abstinence, but not at the expense of those kids already having sex. Teach them about pressure from their boyfriends and girlfriends and how to say no. Tell them WHY to say no, and give them more reasons than STDs and pregnancy. Teach them that sex is special. Teach them how to objectively view the message the media sends them. Get college students in there to relate their own stories.
I assume by saying "ignores the negative aspects" you mean ignores the negative aspects of having sex and using drugs??
The appropriate response to the negative aspects being ignored or not properly discussed is not to pull the education programs altogether, but to refine the curriculum to address those points.
You can get mad all day that it's the parents' job--but the fact is, they're NOT doing it. And the ironic thing is, [warning: gross generalization ahead] so many of the ones who get angry about sex ed and say the parents should do it are the Christian fundamentalists who think sex is dirty and are afraid to talk about it with their children. Think of the puritans, after all. What a repressed bunch of people.
Thanks kq, for coming to my defense. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I happen to be a teacher. I'm not teaching currently, because I'm getting my masters, but I'll be going back next year.
And beyond that, I don't believe it is my responsibility to fight the system alone. The majority of parents seem to be perfectly happy with the public school systems. I am not.
Besides, as you must have seen since I'm sure you've read this thread very carefully before replying, I have other reasons also for not putting my children in public schools. I want them to have a religious education, included values and morals that I deem important.
And in my classroom, I'll do my best to educate other people's children with respect for their individual beliefs. I don't trust all school systems do the same.
Posted by Rusta-burger (Member # 8753) on :
Taking your kids out of public schools might not solve the problem. But in cases like when the teachers are not willing to work with parents in a childs development, what other choice do we have?
The only good case for public schools is that a greater proportion of society can afford to send their kids there. But consider, if you will, a school set up by the community with teachers either brought in or simply from among the most qualified in that community, or both. If you opt the latter, you can provide more diverse and qualified teachers for the kids to get information from. This is because 1. Having their own job to worry about, these teachers will be more part time and so more teachers will be available, and 2. as a result the teachers will all be paid severely less for that job. Any teachers brought in become part of that community and so join that system by default. And as a result the "public" school becomes the resource to the entire community that they were always meant to be.
If a state or federal government body is regulating the "public" school system, the schools will not simply go away if they turn out to be a less than an adequate investment. The way they work right now and the requirements we currently have for entering the workforce makes them a (despairing for some) necessity. This system demands that, in order to work, all schools must be equally beneficial to students, including Private schools. There is absolutely no way to affect schools in a good way if they happen to not be working.
Of course, this simple rule of supply and demand is constantly overlooked because, if they did take heed of it, everyone would see just how much of a failure the public schooling system really is.
I personally would never send my kids to a public school. When my fiance and I eventually have kids we plan to send them to the best Private school in the state. But not everyone can afford this.
This is where community schooling could, if done right, be even better than a public or Private school which is why I started a thread on homeschooling in the first place, but I got no opinions whatsoever on what could be. All I got was reference to how each of you had either been homeschooled or gone to public school (the private schoolers seeming to stay out or else label themselves as public schoolers?) and how well either had worked for you.
But the world today is different. When I (and I am probably one of the youngest here) went to public school, they were not questioned whether they worked or not. Not one of us can speak first-hand about the problems of public schooling today and I realise now that bringing up that post was a complete waste of time as far as getting an answer to my question. But it was extremely helpful as far as getting general advice. Thank you for that.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Not that it's your intent to make friends, but you certainly won't make friends with me by implying that just anybody can be a teacher. Sure, there are bad teachers, but most of them are good and they really care.. and if they don't care anymore it's because they've been broken down over time by a bad system.
The problem isn't the teachers. The problem is administration, the school system, the school board, the government--basically ANYBODY who makes laws and guidelines for educating the children--especially when they never ask the teachers what should be done. The TEACHERS are on the front lines. The TEACHERS are the best qualified to make changes. But their hands are tied by incompetent administrators who get their orders from a government that is swayed by the uninformed whim of the populace and lobbyists.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Also, teachers know HOW to teach, and they know WHAT to teach. I don't care what Joe Somebody's profession is, it doesn't make him qualified to teach the subject.
Posted by Rusta-burger (Member # 8753) on :
So your completely against homeschooling then, I take it? I know thats what the heading of this thread is and you yourself are a teacher, but let me ask, how would you and you alone be more qualified to teach your kids than an entire community?
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
I AM a teacher. I've taught for many years, and I also have been in sex education classes within the last year. Whether or not you want to believe it, sexual education is NOT taught abstinence first, safe sex second. But sadly the reverse.
I am also VERY familiar with how incredibly easy it is for someone to become a teacher. Whether or not you would like to admit it, being a teacher in name only is MUCH different than being a good teacher. You over-emphazise the 'skills' that you believe teachers in their content area understand. As I would hope you have realized the vast majority of teachers are severely lacking in knowing HOW to teach.
I have worked as an adjunct recently for the purpose of showing potential teachers why they shouldn't become teachers. There are many out there who fail on all accounts both intellectually and on their use of common sense. I have seen student after student go to their student teaching, hate it, but realize they have no other option due to the educational system that was set up and so where are they now?
TEACHING! Teaching a subject they hate to individuals who they despise, because they didn't want to restart their college experience. Teaching comes from the heart, not from a textbook. You cannot be taught HOW to be a teacher. Sure you can be taught how to fill out the forms and how to go through the motions. But at the end you fail everyone.
By putting the potential knowledge of students regarding such an important subject in the hands of many incompetent people you are undermining the system.
I do agree that it needs to be refined if kept, however I would prefer if it was taken out of school indefinately. Teach where it is necessary. Leave it to the school boards to decide, don't make it state law.
Johivin Ryson
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I was referring mostly to the high school years. I am doubtful of my ability to homeschool my children in those years. If they were naturally gifted, independent study might work out--or, they could take classes at the local high school in certain courses. OR, they could go to private school. I'll probably go THAT route.
What bothered me is that you were implying that just anybody could be a teacher. That's simply not the case.
I think your community school idea is the same basic thing as a public school, except without qualified teachers. Who says who gets to participate? I'd rather have the public school system with it making sure the teachers are qualified, than have a community school where teaching is just a part time job and there are no standards of quality.
However, if I lived near my best friend, who is an elementary teacher, I would gladly merge my homeschool with hers, since I know her values are close enough to mine. Between the two of us, we could give our children a great education up to a certain grade level. After that, we'd probably both send them to private school.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
To tackle the issue of public schools, the problem with removing students from them or eliminating them is one of funding. As more students withdraw from a school, its funding declines, because monies are tied to enrollment and daily attendance. The less funding a school has, the less it can do for its students, the more difficult it is to attract decent teachers with salary perks, etc.
Obviously, one possible outcome of this is that schools will do everything in their power to remake themselves and attract students back to the abandoned campuses. This is just what Charles M. Tiebout predicted back in 1956... his theory dealt with the lack of choice in the provision of a public good, a product provided in a monopolistic fashion by a single entity within a certain jurisdiction (water, electricity, education, city governance, etc.). Given the inflexibility of such monopolies, Tiebout theorized that, given a set of assumptions, “the consumer-voter moves to that community whose local government best satisfies his set of preferences. The greater the number of communities and the greater the variance among them, the closer the consumer will come to fully realizing his preference position."
Tiebout hypothesized that the more competing jurisdictions that exist within a geographical area, the higher the satisfaction of consumer-voters; and the higher the number of competing jurisdictions within the same metropolitan area, the greater the competition among them. These two predictions have some pretty obvious implications for school choice (charter schools, vouchers, etc.), which on this model can be seen as competing educational jurisdictions. Tiebout would claim that the introduction of multiple sources of school choice would raise the satisfaction level of taxpayers, and that the various educational institutions would begin to compete with one another, improving the quality of the public good.
We're still studying the issue closely to see what happens. But the total demolishing of public schools would be a horrible mistake, reducing poor regions to the sort of horrific conditions that existed before most states began to try to provide equity in school funding: rich areas would have dazzlingly equipped facilities, while impoverished sectors would be hard-pressed to even provide books and AC.
BTW, this case WAS largely handled outside of court in that the district dropped those questions from the survey, but the parents went ahead with their suit anyway. Most school districts, faced with irate parents (read: voters... school boards are very sensitive to this sort of thing) will be accomodating of public opinion.
We cannot, as public educators, defer to every ideological demand of parents (and not just because so many of them don't really have a clue about what is important for their children to learn academically), but we ought to have good community relations programs in place that keep a sensitive finger on the pulse of public opinion.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
I'm curious, Katarain....
What state did you teach in?
My major problem with that, David, is that public opinion in recent days is rarely in the best interest of the students.... They don't understand the purpose for the system and aren't interested in anything other than complaining about it.
As well they have begun simply by turning their children off to authority figures in general to close their own strained ties with their children.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Yes, but it is theirs, strictly speaking, bought and paid for by their tax dollars. We must reach out to them while simultaneously reserving the right to do what we deem best for their children...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Despite this conversation having moved on, I rather like where it was when I began class, so I'm continuing from there.
One of the reasons my wish for a terminological division remains philosophical is that I don't see any adequate replacement terms. In a discussion such as this, though, where disambiguation is important, I'd prefer to use "rights" for the stronger usage and something like "rights under law" for the weaker one. Splitting things in this way is generally my preference given a stronger and weaker definition, because I feel it avoids conceding weakness in the stronger (by maintaining it as the unadorned form of the word) while acknowledging the weaker's partial terminological claim.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
In my experiences the Parent Teacher Organizations or in more recent days the dreaded Parent-Teacher-Student-Organizations have taken over the schools and are attempting to dictate more than they should. They attempt to dismantle the structure and have successfully, in many places, turned administrators against the faculty.
It is their CHILDREN'S education. Not theirs. They may pay for it, but they also pay for many things that they would probably NOT if they knew about it.
Ex. Educational classes for prisoners Cable Television for said prisoners
There are two things that no one argues against, yet tax dollars go for. Just because they see the funding for their children going to education doesn't mean that they can dictate the agenda of schools.
Posted by Rusta-burger (Member # 8753) on :
I’m not the kind of person who would home school my kids for fundamental reasons. But if they were to start up a Private LDS school here in Perth I’d send them there ina heartbeat. That’s probably why they cant just start one actually, because too many Mormon parents would want their kids to go there.
At no point did I say that professionally trained teachers wouldn’t be valued. The community teachers could go learn to teach first of course. And I don’t mean going to University for four years, I mean regular keeping up with teaching methods. These people wouldn’t need teaching specific training anymore than OSC does to teach writing AT A UNIVERSITY LEVEL. The ones teaching English would be the writers, a lot of people would be qualified to teach maths, high school teachers aren’t the only people who teach history (eg Museum attendants), and so on.
Islamic and Catholic Private schools are quite literally run by those communities because they thought they could do a better job than the US/Australian govt. How is this any different if a community is close. How do you, for that matter, get along with your neighbours and wider community? Surely a thing like this would bring a community a much, much closer so how is it a bad idea?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Whether or not you want to believe it, sexual education is NOT taught abstinence first, safe sex second. But sadly the reverse.
Maybe where you are. In the school district I grew up in, they're using the same texts they used when I took it (I am, after all, only 22), and every other sentence is "But abstinence is the only 100% safe and effective method of birth control." It's pretty well and thoroughly drilled in. There are also discussions on the emotional impact of having sex, religious beliefs about sex, and a gritty, dirty, graphic dicussion of abortion.
quote:Cable Television for said prisoners
There are two things that no one argues against, yet tax dollars go for.
I've heard LOTS of arguments against paying for cable tv for prisoners.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: But if they were to start up a Private LDS school here in Perth I’d send them there ina heartbeat. That’s probably why they cant just start one actually, because too many Mormon parents would want their kids to go there.
Catholic schools have selective entry requirements, such as testing. Why couldn't an LDS school do the same? Heck, why not start one yourself? You'll need to find accredited teachers, find a venue, choose accredited cirricula, and then get it all accredited by the state, but if you start now, it could be up and running by the time you have school-age kids.
Posted by Rusta-burger (Member # 8753) on :
Ketchupqueen, are you serious? That may be the boldest idea I've ever heard, and I'm sorry to say I'm just not that bold. I will take the idea to my local ward though. Do you have any LDS schools in America these days? I know Utah used to have them but then they seperated church from state Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm pretty sure that BYU would qualify, for example. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
There are several LDS homeschools-- they provide cirriculum, you teach your kids (not Church-owned.) BYU has homeschool cirricula available for high schoolers as well as part of their distance-learning program. There are also LDS day schools-- NOT owned by the Church, but owned by local parents and/or investors who run it as a private school with an LDS philosophy-- in some areas. I know the Church does operate schools in other parts of the world, but I'm thinking probably that's in third-world countries with no government-funded schools or something.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Catholic schools have selective entry requirements, such as testing.
Not all of them do. I went to parochial school for elementary, middle, and high school, and the only requirement for admission was that your parents pony up the dough. Of course, the public schools in Louisiana are dismal.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, some do. The ones around here have so many applicants that most of them, even some of the elementary schools, have to limit admission. They base admission on three things: interviews, test scores/records from previous schools unless you're entering in kindergarten or first grade (in which case they base it on a readiness evaluation instead), and whether the family are practicing Catholics. (Not all students are Catholic, but preference is given to Catholic students over equally or even slightly less qualified non-Catholic students, and Catholic students are much, much more likely to get scholarships and/or reduction of fees.) The high schools are very competitive and require a standardized test (I forget what it's called, but it's the standard one used by Catholic schools) as well as interviews.
Posted by Rusta-burger (Member # 8753) on :
I meant like a whole highschool of 1000+ primarily LDS students and the same sort of idea for primary (elementary) school(s). But there aren't that many LDS teenagers around here Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
So start a school. Like I said. 1,000 plus probably isn't practical for a local private school, but you could serve as many as wanted to attend. (About 350-750 seems to be a manageable number for private schools around here, to balance making enough to pay their teachers and still having small class sizes and being able to serve the specific needs and goals they were organized for.) I bet that parents would be happy to drive their kids quite a way to go to a good school, and why not let in kids who are willing to abide by the values taught and whose parents are okay with LDS values being taught, like Catholic schools do? Seminary could be done on release time if you could get them to organize a class or two, which would be nice.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I suggest not aiming for that 350-750 number. Aim for however many you feel you can teach in a good sized house, there are usually plenty of those around available to rent that are zoned commercially (which would presumably allow use as a school).
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, I'm not saying to start out. I'm saying that as the TOP number to try to accept, after it's well-established.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(I have thought a LOT about starting a school. But it will probably never happen; I plan to homeschool, anyway.)
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
If you start a school, can I send my kids there? Not that I have any kids, but hypothetically.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Sure. When I start my hypothetical school, you can send your hypothetical kids there. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I don't need to start a school. There are lots of SDA schools out there. From kindergarten up to fine universities. They're all accredited... in fact, except for the first 3 years, all of my education up to graduating college was at Adventist schools. I'm getting my masters at a public university, though.
I'm kind of surprised that the LDS church doesn't have a system of K-12 schools. Of all denominations other than SDA and Catholic, I'd expect them to the most.
Our schools get bigger as you go up in grades. The elementary schools often serve just one community and may have anywhere from 25-100 students. (This varies, of course, with some having MUCH more--usually in University towns.) And then there are academies that have much higher enrollment, and will serve conferences and unions. Then there are universities... I count about 7 in the continental U.S., but I think there are more.
I know nobody asked, but I just thought I'd put in there that I don't have to homeschool if I don't want to. There are schools other than public I can send my children to if I want to. (And non-SDAs may also attend.)
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
Reading this thread reminds me of the stories I've heard about where parents will refuse their children medical care because it goes against their religious beliefs. It's a thorny issue, of course, because on the one hand, there is a presumed right that parents are free to pass their values onto their children and then there are obvious cases where those values are really screwed up-- such as bigotry-- and the ones where those values are actually life-threatening. It's hard to know where to make the line. And the people who want to push the lines aren't all-knowing either.
However, I continue to fail to see what's the big deal about sex. In the olden days, people married young. Sometimes right after a girl got her first period. So, yes, historically, there have been lots of twelve and thirteen year olds having sex. The culture was different in the sense that they were married and were generally able to provide for themselves, but it was also different in that the twelve and thirteen year old females were in many cultures married to men twice their ages. (Fifteen and thirty-five, for example in ancient Rome.)
And yet the sky didn't fall. No, it wasn't always ideal, but society survived and even flourished.
(And I fail to see why just because the culture has changed the biological desires are expected to meekly follow along. Just because culturally you can't marry doesn't mean your biology is now programmed so you have no interrest in sex.)
And as for six year olds being asked about whether they touch themselves, etc, the horror of this denies the fact that in the olden times, kids would sometimes be in the room when their parents had sex. This wasn't a big deal, and it didn't scar them for life. (Actually, I had a friend who until she was about four used to be in the room when her parents had sex. Not scarred for life, I might add.)
I just fail to see why modern children are so delicate that they must be protected from the basics of human life like this.
I am a little disturbed that kids are expected to talk about their sex lives openly in ways that few would dare to expect from adults (adults have privacy after all and children none), but I can kind of see why it might be expected to be for their own good, and I remember taking surveys about my drug use in high school. I cheerily checkmarked randomly. ("Yes, I've had cocaine in the past week, but not in the past month." It amused me to screw with their statistics.)
I wonder what I might have thought having taken such a survey as a six-year-old. Regardless, I would probably have forgotten it by the following week.
It sometimes seems to me that it was to my advantage that I was allowed to live my childhood like a weed rather than being raised as a potted plant and protected from every illusory harm that just might come my way. Sometimes I wonder if being protected from everything-- from ideas, from questions, from anything that disagrees with my parents' worldview-- might be just as harmful, if not more harmful than attending a school which stresses conformity. For one thing, the school cannot and does not control everything. It's just too indifferent. Parents have much more effective means of controlling every aspect of a child's life from their friends to their every waking activity.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Yes, dean - the methodology of the survey and the questions posed at the beginning of this thread very much disturb me, as well.
Dags pointed out earlier, too, that the problem lies greatly with the board that is supposed to oversee and approve such human research designs at the state level.
I have an extremely hard time believing that a board would allow those sorts of questions/survey tools without the parents having had the opportunity to see some sample questions, or be informed of how explicit the test would be.
The other thoughts you pose as regards what has been historically - it's a sure guess that at the height of the Dark Ages there wasn't this sort of worry about what the kids saw when everyone slept in one bed for warmth, or in the pioneering days when there were maybe two beds in a one room cabin. *grin*
Times do change - and you're quite right! Expecting biology to keep pace with changing societal mores is somehow a little, well, naive.
Or hopeful. Maybe hopeful is the better word - and we are living in the middle of a "great change", fully immersed in the dynamics of it.
*plays Twilight Zone theme in head for effect*
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Also, teachers know HOW to teach, and they know WHAT to teach. I don't care what Joe Somebody's profession is, it doesn't make him qualified to teach the subject.
Just a sidebar note here -- several of the homeschooling moms that I know actually got a college degree in education (teaching degree) just because they planned in advance to teach any children of their at home.
FG
Posted by Rusta-burger (Member # 8753) on :
We have a great deal of murderinbg in our cultural history too, in cases when one person disagreed with another. This, too, carries on today, sometimes with assassinations and just blatant murdering.
But deans argument certainly doesn't carry onto that so why should it regarding offenses of a sexual nature?
Posted by Rusta-burger (Member # 8753) on :
quote:: Also, teachers know HOW to teach, and they know WHAT to teach. I don't care what Joe Somebody's profession is, it doesn't make him qualified to teach the subject.
This is exactly what apprenticeships are for, which is the most important learning on a specific subject a person can get. Any school preparation prior to that is to get them ready for the workforce and/or University. On top of that all University is for is to further get them ready for the workforce too!
Schools don't only hire people who have gone to learn how to teach. Plenty of teachers, especially in the Design and Tech (I think it's called Shop classes there?) classes, are brought in from among trained professionals who have never been foramalling trained how to teach... EXCEPT WHEN THEY LEARNT ON THE JOB THEMSELVES, they learnt by watching what their apprenticee taught them! And their training prior to that goes back to formal schooling as well. it's an endless cycle. The people who go to University to learn to teach merely prepare the students for their real teaching in the workforce (on the job jearning in other words).
George Washington was never taught in formal schooling at all AND HE WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! Need I continue going around in circles like this?
I'm not trying to offend the teachers among us, you are teachers, but what people learn in formal schooling is not the be all and end all. Even after University, even when you become a teacher yourself in a high school or whatever, you still do your most important learning on the job. Think back to when you were a student teacher and how much of a milestone that was. And think of how much better you've become at it since you first became teachers.
I'm just saying, why not combine the two sides of teaching into one? On top of that, people who are purely teachers certainly wouldn't be excluded from this system. But they probably would eventually end up needing a second job. But so what?
You say having real life experience doesn't make you wualified to teach? I suppose that by that logic, no matter how bad a job George Bush does at being President, someone like Stephen Hawking, OSC, the leader of the US Military, etc. wouldn't be able to do a better job? because George Bush was bred for politics and you were all bred (bred yourselves rather) for teaching someone who did not go to University to learn how to teach couldn't do it better, no matter what they did, than even the worst teacher in history?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Actually he said, more than once, that this type of issues can be and should be resolved within the system itself, so no further recourse was needed....or he implied it at the very least.
quote:We are all in it together, that's why there are parent/teacher conferences, back-to-school nights, PTAs and school boards.
quote:Look there are checks and balences in the public school system. Parents can go to the teacher, the principal or the board if necessary, and its been my experience that all three of these entities are solicitous of parent's requests, and word rather the parent agree with the curriculum than disagree with the curriculum.
He also said that he disagreed with the idea that the school had
quote: ran rough-shod over the parents expressed wishes.
, and when Porter disagreed with that he simply laughed at the idea.
I would say we probably have a good idea where Irami stands on this issue.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
George Washington first went to a churchyard school, then a boarding school. Those are both formal education.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not to mention that it was a completely different world then.
Posted by Rusta-burger (Member # 8753) on :
You still havn't proved me wrong. You're just picking away at little bits of it, and not even the main points at that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Rusta, let me observe that once all the supporting planks of an argument have been removed, there's no argument left.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
That's the elephant in the room.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I happen to be a teacher. I'm not teaching currently, because I'm getting my masters, but I'll be going back next year.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)