An anonymous person posted a comment on Federal judge says public schools can teach views opposite the parent's views. I wanted to address a few of the points.
"In public schools, individual parents don't have the right to determine which books are on the reading list and which aren't, or what the curriculum is or isn't. That is indeed part of the deal you accept when your kids go to public school (as my child does)."
Historically public schools were total local control. Parents did have influence in what was taught, who taught, how lessons were taught, and when topics were taught. When public schools started coming into existence in the 1850s the schools were run by local school boards. If enough parents were upset the school board would respond. Or else the school board would not be reelected.
Over the last thirty to fifty years state and federal governments exercised more and more control, and so public school administrations listened less and less to parents.
Your statement that “individual parents don't have the right to determine which books …” has become true, but I can understand why many parents are upset with what is being taught in public schools, and why they think they should have more influence in public schools.
Public school can and should teach children to read and write. They should test history. They should teach math. What Judge Wolf said in his decision was that public schools can do pretty much anything they want, and the parents have little recourse.
“Public schools simply cannot customize the curriculum to meet each individual family's personal preferences.”
This is a wild goose. There is a huge difference between customizing a curriculum and teaching a core set of knowledge, like reading, writing and arithmetic. As I’ve mentioned before one of the problems with public schools today is they try to do everything. By accepting the responsibility for fifty different goals, public schools do very little well.
“If Parker is so morally pure, I wonder how he feels about divorced families. Should his children have their ears shielded if another child talks about his parents' divorce? Give me a break.”
This is another wild goose. This has nothing to do with the point of the post. The whole point is the judge decided parents have no control over what happens in public schools. This scares most parents.
“If schools are going to read books about different cultures and different types of families--and I think they should--then same sex couples should be included. (This should be the case even if gay marriage was not legal, in my opinion.)”
I agree there is great value in teaching about other societies, cultures, and peoples. History was one of my favorite courses. But we shouldn’t just teach about all cultures, blindly. Do you accept all cultures as being equally valid? I don’t think the Aztecs’ practice of slaughtering thousands of people should be taught in a positive light. It is reasonable to pick and choose which cultures you teach.
Another important point is when should children be taught about different cultures? Pushing different cultures on five year old children is little more than brainwashing.
Again, my main concern with Judge Wolf's decision is that his logic means that parents have little control over what is taught to their children. This is wrong. Parents should be the ones making decisions about much of what is taught outside traditional academic topics.
----------
Technorati tags: Judge Wolf, Judge Mark Wolf, schools, public schools, parent, family, children
4 comments:
The comments that you are responding to almost seem to come from a person who distrusts most parents. I have seen that attitude on display before - the parents are a problem and cannot be trusted.
I think that it is wrong. It is alarming to see the push for the state to take over in the raising of children.
Surely there are parents out there who hate their kids and abuse them. Not only are they a tiny minority, but we are supposed to have laws on the books to protect these kids. The state doesn't do a very good job of that in many cases.
The way I think of the issue is that there are people who don't trust themselves and feel more secure when someone else is in charge.
History shows that most of the problems over the last couple thousand years have been caused by government. I think there is a place for government, but I'd have about 10 percent of the government we have now.
I wrote the comment that's being responded to in this post. I can assure you that I absolutely DON'T distrust most parents. I'm just dealing in the reality of public schools, which is that when you send your kid to public school, you no longer have the ability to control everything that they read, see, hear, write, and do. With public schools, you get one-size-fits-all.
The reality in my son's school, for example, is that over 700 children attend the school. How can a school possibly address each individual family's personal curriculum preferences, as the Lexington parent was asking his school to do. He wanted his child's school to stop teaching something just because he didn't like it. Schools cannot do that and it is indeed a big downside for parents. And it's not a "wild goose" to ask what else he might not like and request the school shield his child from. He wants to not only cherry pick from the curriculum but also from individual teacher's choices and student conversations!
When public schools started coming into existence in the 1850s the schools were run by local school boards.
And they still are, even though it's long past the good old days of 1850. Very few communities look like the communities of 1850 any more, and schools have also changed and have broadened into large districts in some cases. But school boards are still elected and can be replaced.
If enough parents were upset the school board would respond. Or else the school board would not be reelected.
Still true -- isn't that what happened in a community in PA last year over the whole Intelligent Design debacle? The parents didn't like what the board did and kicked them out.
Over the last thirty to fifty years state and federal governments exercised more and more control, and so public school administrations listened less and less to parents.
I don't see what the feds or state have to do with this. This is a local issue -- it has nothing to do with federal or state initiatives or curricula. Nothing.
But the argument about parents voting out school boards goes against your argument about minority rights. When a school board is voted out, the voice of the majority has decided for the rest of the community. As you yourself pointed out, the minority voice is drowned out by the majority. That is indeed what's happening in Lexington, MA. The community at large is more pro gay rights than the parent who filed the suit. He's in the minority. As a member of the minority, what else can he do other than what he did? He can file suit and take his chances in court, as he did, or he can pull his kids out of school if the community he lives in doesn't have the same values as he does. It doesn't. He's living in the wrong town in the wrong state if he wants his personal world view reflected in the school curriculum.
Your statement that “individual parents don't have the right to determine which books …” has become true, but I can understand why many parents are upset with what is being taught in public schools, and why they think they should have more influence in public schools.
They do have influence, as long as they're members of the majority. You were exactly right in identifying this originally as an issue of majority vs. minority. We still haven't figured out how to make sure the minority voice has equal say in our society at large (ask all the gays in states where gay marriage and civil unions have been voted out of existence via constitutional amendments), so it's no wonder schools can't do it.
This is a wild goose. There is a huge difference between customizing a curriculum and teaching a core set of knowledge, like reading, writing and arithmetic.
It's not a wild goose. This is exactly what the Lexington case was about. The parent wanted an individualized curriculum for his child. He wanted his child removed when certain topics were discussed. That's a custom curriculum.
The whole point is the judge decided parents have no control over what happens in public schools. This scares most parents.
I get that parents are concerned. As the parent of a child in public school, I can tell you that he's exposed to a lot of stuff in school I don't like. But I also don't expect the schools to stop doing those things just because one parent wants them to. If a bunch of parents got together, they might have a chance. But one or two... no dice. Again, the schools usually reflect the dominant values of the community at large.
But we shouldn’t just teach about all cultures, blindly. Do you accept all cultures as being equally valid? I don’t think the Aztecs’ practice of slaughtering thousands of people should be taught in a positive light. It is reasonable to pick and choose which cultures you teach.
So now gay marriage is compared to the slaughter of thousands? (Geez, usually it's just lumped in with bestiality.) There's absolutely no valid comparison between those two things. In Massachusetts, it's perfectly appropriate to teach about gay couples in a positive light, as it should be in every other state.
Another important point is when should children be taught about different cultures? Pushing different cultures on five year old children is little more than brainwashing.
Okay, at what age is it not brainwashing? 6? 7? 8? And is it brainwashing to teach about ethnic cultures to kindergarteners? Is it brainwashing to teach children about American culture? Or make them recite the pledge of allegiance every morning? Is it brainwashing to teach about the families of the children in the classroom? Or is it only brainwashing to teach about the families of some children?
Parents should be the ones making decisions about much of what is taught outside traditional academic topics.
Other than by the democratic process of voting for the school board and having the majority voice represented, how exactly do you propose to make this happen? How can a school like my son's respond to the parents of the 700 children about exactly what's okay to teach at what age? Even in a classroom of 25 kids, a teacher can't be expected to customize child by child. How do you propose to change the one-size-fits-all system so that each and every parent can have his or her individual preferences respected? I'm being perfectly serious because I have no idea how to make that happen.
I honestly believe it can't happen, and that the issue goes beyond the subject of "things I don't want my child to hear about." It includes the way kids are allowed (or not allowed) to learn, whether or not they have homework, how long recess is, whether or not the "discipline" program should be used, etc., etc. It's EVERYTHING about public schooling. I would love to change the way my son's school does most things, and yet I'm a lone voice in the wilderness in my community. Most people think everything's just dandy.
If I want a custom education for my child, I have to pay for private school or homeschool. I get that and I completely understand why so many families homeschool. I think the public school system needs a major, major overhaul. But right now, schools are what they are, and individual parents don't get to pick and choose how their kids are educated.
I think that competition is a good thing in this instance. Making it easier for parents to choose alternatives would go a long way toward reforming the public school system. There is a lot of money being spent fighting any kind of school choice. I know many, many, MANY parents who detest the school system yet continue to send their children.
I do also agree, Henry, that most parents believe that they are not capable of teaching their own children. I confess I had my doubts at first. Groundless fears.
Post a Comment