More challenges to parental involvement (in schooling)?

[Chris Cuilla]

This is the only item (from a major news source) that I can find.

This commentary discusses yet another issue regarding the rights parents do or do not have in regard to their children and their upbringing:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160289,00.html

I'm trying to figure why the heck the schools have any business or need to do these surveys in the first place.

When did public schools stop being institutions for education and start being institutions for social engineering?

The more I read, the more reason I have to distrust the public school system as a whole.

Even keeping mind that every school district (and even every school) operates differently. There still seems to be an undeniable trend along the lines of an attitude that suggests that parents are unqualified, ignorant or too incompetent to deal with the serious matters related to their kids...and further that the parents are even possibly a danger to their kids and so child-rearing, etc. should be left to the "professionals" (public schools and government).

[BRussell]

I don't get it, I really don't. It's a survey to gather information about health behavior. Parents can opt their kids out of taking it if they really want. And the kids of course don't have to answer any questions they don't want to, and it's anonymous.

The solution of this editorial writer is to home school because of a health survey? Please. There certainly must be things happening in schools other than a health survey to get uptight about.

[groverat]

When I have kids I'm going to store them in this:

http://www.dixieclassicpanels.com/images/glasscase.jpg

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by groverat
When I have kids I'm going to store them in this:

http://www.dixieclassicpanels.com/images/glasscase.jpg

Very functional. With some added formaldehyde it would become a great piece of Postmodern art.

[ColanderOfDeath]

When did public schools stop being institutions for education and start being institutions for social engineering?

I couldn't agree more the point made by this rhetorical question. It's good to see that others are as outraged as I am at the Republican agenda or replacing comprehensive sex eduction with the farce of abstinence only programs. A great example of the government trying to social engineer kids' behavior based on the politics of religious correctness, in contravention of the facts on how kids will behave and what they need to know in consider of those facts.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BRussell
I don't get it, I really don't. It's a survey to gather information about health behavior. Parents can opt their kids out of taking it if they really want. And the kids of course don't have to answer any questions they don't want to, and it's anonymous.

The solution of this editorial writer is to home school because of a health survey? Please. There certainly must be things happening in schools other than a health survey to get uptight about.

It appears to be a bit more than just a health survey...and the secrecy or lack of openness is also a point of concern. Finally teh "opt out" approach is a clever way to slide these things through. Why not reverse it...make it an "opt in" thing instead?

[shetline]

What about the "religious engineering" which the people trying to get creationism into public classrooms are trying to accomplish?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
I couldn't agree more the point made by this rhetorical question. It's good to see that others are as outraged as I am at the Republican agenda or replacing comprehensive sex eduction with the farce of abstinence only programs. A great example of the government trying to social engineer kids' behavior based on the politics of religious correctness, in contravention of the facts on how kids will behave and what they need to know in consider of those facts.

Are you suggesting that the right/republicans are the only ones guilty of trying to co-opt the public schools for social engineering purposes?

[addabox]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Are you suggesting that the right/republicans are the only ones guilty of trying to co-opt the public schools for social engineering purposes?

No, just that they're the only ones who are willing to mandate teaching made up shit to achieve their ends.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by addabox
No, just that they're the only ones who are willing to mandate teaching made up shit to achieve their ends.

Riiiighhht.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It appears to be a bit more than just a health survey...and the secrecy or lack of openness is also a point of concern. Finally teh "opt out" approach is a clever way to slide these things through. Why not reverse it...make it an "opt in" thing instead? I think there's a legitimate debate about "opt in" vs. "opt out," and I think the survey should probably be made public. But in the end I guess I just don't see what the big ta-do is. Withdraw your child from school because of this? It just sounds like an agenda looking for a cause.

[groverat]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Riiiighhht.

That is one cogent, intelligent and well-developed argument right there.

duuuuuuuuude tooooootally

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BRussell
But in the end I guess I just don't see what the big ta-do is. Withdraw your child from school because of this? It just sounds like an agenda looking for a cause.

Well, it seems to be asking questions of a highly-personal nature. Also, as the commentary (correctly) asked, how long will the anonymity last when the answers to the questions are a "concerns"?

I certainly would not pull my kids out because of one incident like this...though a pattern would giev me reason. I also think most parents are not so rash.

Of course, his does make me thankful that I have already chosen to home educate my kids.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by groverat
That is one cogent, intelligent and well-developed argument right there.

duuuuuuuuude tooooootally

Oh shut up Grover. I saw your first post...you're really not in any position to be tossing stones.

[groverat]

Mine was funny.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by groverat
Mine was funny.

Or perhaps not.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Military school not stringent enough?

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Of course, I expected nothing less from someone like you than sheltering your children from evolutionary biology, sex education, and perhaps even collaborative learning environments (fits the conservative individualistic ideology).

"someone like you"? You don't know me or anything (significant) about me.

Yes...I'm sheltering my kids...that's it. You nailed it.

:rolleyes:

First, if I believe that the theory of evolution is taught as indisputable, unchallengable fact then I have every right to educate my kids as I see fit with regard to the subject. The public schools don't and won't.

Second, if I believe that my kids will be taught things that I consider to be either inappropriate or wrong about sexuality (at inappropriate times and ages), then I have every right educate my kids as I see fit about sexuality, relationships, love and intimacy. There is an agenda in this particular area that is being pushed through the school system that I strongly disagree with.

Finally..."collaborative learning environments"? Right. Whatever. Twenty-five kids sitting in a 5 x 5 grid of desks answering the teachers questions.

Originally posted by ShawnJ
On one hand, I'm saddened that other children won't interact with yours in the classroom.

Why must classrooms be the only place where children interact?

Originally posted by ShawnJ
On the other hand, you certainly are robbing other kids of the chance to come up with creative comebacks to "America is A Christian Nation, Idiots!"

No, I'm sure their wit will be fully developed. But judging by what seems to be coming out of the public school system (on the whole), perhaps little else will be.

It is fine for you to disagree with my opinions and choices. Many people do. But at least try to come up with something other than mud to toss around.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
I wonder why someone who has taken positions against sex education and evolutionary biology in school would find it so objectionable that another person finds it unsurprising that he shelters his children from those things by home schooling them. My, my. And if merely mocking your decision to raise little fundamentalists somehow impedes your right to do so, my own intellect must be lacking. :)

1. I am not opposed to sex education.

2. That you seem unwilling to think critically about evolutionary biology tells me much about you.

3. I never claimed that you were impeding my rights in any way.

[curiousuburb]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

I'm trying to figure why the heck the schools have any business or need to do these surveys in the first place.

When did public schools stop being institutions for education and start being institutions for social engineering?


CDC collecting (anonymous) data on the health risks of the population doesn't seem nefarious per se.

Anonymously tracking trends in smoking, drugs, and risky sexual behaviour (all areas where kids tend to experiment and/or face peer pressure, often well in advance of the day their parents planned/gotupthenerve to "have the talk") doesn't seem nefarious per se.

In fact, one could argue that a comprehensive tracking of trends from generation to generation requires data on the early experiments. That this dataset surveys younger age groups each generation seems to suggest that the experiments/peer pressure are also active at younger ages each generation.

Once, these were college questions. I vaguely recall questions about smoking/health when I was in High School. That these questions are now being asked in Middle or Grade School may seem inappropriate or shocking to us, just as our parents may have shocked grandparents, etc, though once you're back before Kinsey, I don't think the sex questions were an option.

Mining this data from schools occurs because that's where the experiments now occur.

If the Centers for Disease Control aren't doing research into education, prevention and larger patterns, they're asleep at the switch.

As long as its anonymous, I'm not as concerned (and I'm very pro-privacy).
I didn't get the sense that questions were mandatory for either schools, or kids.
Parents might be sensitive, but there is a legitimate public good to be weighed if research leads to prevention.

¢ of prevention saves £ of cure... that's more than US$1.20 in dividend.

As for social engineering in schools, I think that started with monks, but you could argue in this century its pendulum falls somewhere between charm/boarding school and the drive by parents to ban red ink (http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22ban+red+ink%22) for errors. :rolleyes:


The more I read, the more reason I have to distrust the public school system as a whole.

Even keeping mind that every school district (and even every school) operates differently. There still seems to be an undeniable trend along the lines of an attitude that suggests that parents are unqualified, ignorant or too incompetent to deal with the serious matters related to their kids...and further that the parents are even possibly a danger to their kids and so child-rearing, etc. should be left to the "professionals" (public schools and government).

Perhaps systems differ drastically south of the Canadian border.

Desire to participate != qualified or competent

Non-teacher parents are probably unqualified to teach in the public system here, by definition.
Just like non-doctor parents are probably unqualified to practice medicine or prescribe drugs.

Both disciplines have specified educational paths with required coursework, and both are governed by certification bodies in many jurisdictions. Here in Canada, even if you had a B.Ed or finish Med school, you can't practice (in the public system) until you're certified by the College of Teachers or the Medical Association.

It's not about will or desire, or participatory urge, noble though those intentions may be.
Hypochondriacs are often full of passion to participate in medical and/or pharmacological decisions.
For themselves, fine. For family, maybe. For others, no thanks.

I support Home schooling in principle,
Parents are 100% free to take the result of their balls and go home.

But I also see value in social development in schools. Learning to share crayons, play nicely with others, and maybe even face challenges is smart prep for later life. The ban on red ink thing strikes me as absurd mollycoddling and exactly the kind of interference by parents that schools don't need.
Vonnegut indeed. (or The Incredibles if Harrison Bergeron is too obscure)

I support freedom of religion, but think religion has no place in public school other than humanities courses, perhaps at college level.

I support parents expanding on the education their kids get at school by helping expose them to books and museums and art and music and perhaps most importantly by helping teach them to be curious and skeptical.

There are groups whose religious or cultural beliefs impact both medical decisions and schools. We've had cases going back years (http://www.google.com/search?&q=canada+outbreak+disease+religious+school) here of religious groups whose beliefs prohibited immunization/vaccination, resulting in significant public health risk from preventable disease outbreaks at schools.

Now we're getting outside my comfort zone and into active consequences for others.

Willful fiction on your own time as an alternative to standard theory taught in science classes is one thing,
willful Typhoid Mary on your own time might make you a public health risk...

and you thought you disliked nosy CDC questions now...

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Good post, but your response above participates in some of the reactionary zeal used to discuss the "red ink" issue. You dismiss it as "absurd mollycoddling" when the issue is really about effective teaching. I'm an English literature major and have taken many college writing classes, including a particularly memorable one on teaching writing. I got to TA that semester. One thing my writing instructor told me was never to use red ink. My teaching writing text says that "overwhelmed by copious red marks, students cannot comprehend the teacher's advice because the medium has created a psychological barrier to communication." It's not really a big deal to use a different color ink if red is known to hinder effective teaching.

So basically, if it is written down in a book, you don't question it, no matter how absurd the assertion?

Think about what you just typed. If you write Great Job in red ink, someone with a college level ability and understanding will be unable to comprehend it because... well...it's red.

However I will agree with you that any children Grove has should not only be put in a box, but that the box needs bars as well.

This survey is not objectionable because of the questions. They simply could have posted it at the district office along with a few of the very good points made here by BRussell and I'm sure that would have solved the problem. Instead the officials kept parents in the dark about what was being asked of their own children.

As a teacher who has administered both sex and drug education courses to children, we always allow parents to review the materials being taught. There is a reason they are called PUBLIC schools. The public has the right to review and know what is being taught or asked.

Nick

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by trumptman
There is a reason they are called PUBLIC schools. The public has the right to review and know what is being taught or asked.

Bingo.

P.S. There are some questions that do seem to be inappropriate depending on the age level.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
I believe curiousuburb implied that know-nothing parents drove the idea for teachers to use different colored ink.

That is indeed what he implied.

My point, which you so infamously miss, was that it was also a real pedagogical concern among writing teachers.

No one missed it. You simply didn't support your assertion. Professionals of any field can have their superstitions and beliefs. You supported it with what your "writing instructor told you" and the fact that your text supported not using "copious" amounts of comments in red ink. All that says is that if you rip the student a new asshole, don't be surprised if they don't care to listen to you afterward.

I, myself, tend to respond best to downright viciously direct criticism on papers.

Yes, well if your writing here reflects that process it shows you have an inability to separate the process from the person or material. With such a flaw you obviously should avoid vicious criticism since it might be misplaced.

Use a red sharpie for all I care. Some take it as a symbol of authority-- others as a symbol of defeat.

I could really give a crap how people take it. People who don't care to learn will find any excuse to justify their continued ignorance. The sharpie could be blue and they will claim it brought on depression. People who want to learn from their mistakes will do so and ink color will not stop them. You are smart enough to know this is true.

I just think it's not that big of a deal to use a different colored pen if red ink introduces that psychological barrier in a lot of students. I mean there's a real debate about whether students actually even read comments written on papers.

So within the same two sentences we move from students being emotionally and psychologically damaged due to an ink color to completely dismissing criticism of any form.

Show some thought please....:lol:

I hope you survived that.:no:

You must understand this point when applying it against something you disagree with. I'm sure you believe that for someone that is truly a religious fundamentalist fanatic, that there is no sex survey that could satisfy them. The content of the questions isn't even relevant. It is clear they want their child to have nothing to do with publicly taught sex.

Likewise (I know you love that word, it's just for you) the problem with correcting someone's paper isn't the ink color. It is their belief that their work is beyond questioning or correction.

Nick

[hardhead]

Sheesh, I'm glad my "kids" are pretty level headed young adults now.

It was rough going for a while... I'd hate to be a parent of K-12 kids nowadays!

[hardhead]

Hey t-man, must be summer vacation for you to be posting so late...:D

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
I could really give a crap how people take it. People who don't care to learn will find any excuse to justify their continued ignorance.
As you've demonstrated with your comments here. Obviously you have some unnatural attachment to your little red pens, but, as shawn has pointed out, if you really don't think the pen color matters then you might as well accommodate the people who do.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
As you've demonstrated with your comments here. Obviously you have some unnatural attachment to your little red pens, but, as shawn has pointed out, if you really don't think the pen color matters then you might as well accommodate the people who do.

I didn't say anything about myself or what I use. However if you desire to spend your life accommodating the complaints of those who do not truly wish to learn you are welcome to do so.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
You're still missing my point. Even if the whole "red ink" thing is a superstition, it's still something that many *teachers* at least consider. And there have been journal articles as well as discussion in pedagogical textbooks. So it's not just some brainless parent request.

The fact that I don't consider it a valid point doesn't mean I am "missing your point" I really look forward to the day you outgrow that belief. You don't use failure and people who desire it as your model of success. You don't use the lowest common denominator to determine the practices toward excellence. The reason it might be a discussion in your textbook is because we have declared education the answer to low earnings and thus are sending record numbers of people to college including, surprise, many people who don't care to learn or who have no intellectual curiosity.

If you get into educating the general public, your textbook might discuss how to deal with those who don't care to read the material, who wish to disrupt the class, who don't care to learn English or who think that speaking it and writing in a non-standard manner is acceptable even for academic work, etc.

After you deal with dozens of these scenarios you will notice the trend in the accommodations. They basically follow the trend of expect little or nothing, make it fun so they don't disrupt the people who care to learn, let them go away ignorant but feeling good about themselves.

That might be a good pedagogical practice in that it prevents the ignorant from stopping the progress of those who desire to be informed, but you don't call it education or teaching.

Nick