Tag Archives: Public School

Commentary

Do public schools undermine the parent-child relationship?

1 Comment

Robert Stacy McCain linked to this article on Big Government.

Excerpt:

“I could never home-school.  I would probably kill my kid by Wednesday, if I had to spend the entire day with him, every day!”

Typical fare for the teenager-parent relationship?  Unfortunately, yes.  But ironically, the individuals making these pronouncements are often the ideal candidates for home schooling.  Possibly the worstthing frustrated parents can do is send their aloof, argumentative children away (to school.) In any other setting, dropping them off somewhere, for someone else to deal with, would be deemed giving up on the relationship.  (This is the way children likely perceive the slight as well – they aren’t stupid, you know.)

If the parents cannot stand to spend time with their own child, how will he ever feel loved?  But parents are so blinded by school’s beacon; they shield their eyes and shove the child into the wolves’ den.  (It is no wonder he returns home behaving like a wild animal.)

What children learn in school

Parents wonder where their relationship with their teen went wrong.  Answer: Their influence was all but eclipsed the moment the child crossed the school threshold.  It’s that simple.

Each day a young child goes to school, he learns (way too early,) that his parents don’t know everything.  School reinforces this point by teaching the little ones to instruct their parents. “Tell Mommy not to pack plastic sandwich bags in your lunch – that kills the dolphins!”  Mommy kills dolphins!

He makes friends with other kids whose parents also slaughter innocent animals. He joins his peers, learns to challenge authority, then comes home and asserts himself.  The parent thinks, “Well, that’s probably a good thing, because he is learning to be self-confident and capable.”

But a good parent has a sneaking suspicion that it isn’t quite right.

And there was an interesting comment at McCain’s blog:

[Homeschooling is] a choice. We do not have lavish vacations, drive expensive cars, etc. All the toys the world screams that you must have … we chose not to have. Nor do we chase careers. We believe that preventing atheistic and Marxist indoctrination in our children and ensuring they are educated is more important than the things of this world.

Results?

My 12 year old reads on a college level.
My 14 year old loves algebra.
My 8 year old can hold converstions with adults, on or above their level.

My kids:

– Have never spent a day in public indoctrination
– Love their teachers
– Enjoy reading books
– Aren’t concerned with pop culture
– Learn fiream safety and do not sit all day in gun free zones

I am not seeking to send my children to some Ivy League school, but each of my children excels. The current problem I face is that my home is turning into a library. If any of my children attended a public school, they would be immediately suspended for independent thought.

This may sound harsh to some (I really don’t care), but moreover, God instructs us that we are responsible for our children’s education. My wife and I choose to follow God’s word.

I’m not so sure that the government will look kindly on parents teaching their kids firearms – that’s just the kind of thing the nanny state frowns on, and just the kind of thing they like to stamp out – because what can parents know about parenting compared to bureaucrats?

I don’t think that the private schools would do this as much, since they actually have to please the parents in order to get paid. See the difference between public and private schools?

News

Is the secular left repectful of academic freedom?

Leave a comment

A story from the Vancouver Sun. (H/T Mary)

Excerpt:

Since 2006, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has been targeting small, private, accredited, and invariably Christian, universities. Its method is to emit vague accusations that codes of conduct of such institutions somehow violate CAUT’s definition of academic freedom. It then appoints its own “commissioners” to “investigate” whether the schools are guilty as charged.

Last year, it used these tactics against Trinity Western University in the Fraser Valley. More recently, it has turned it sights on a Mennonite school in Manitoba, a Baptist academy in the Maritimes and similar Christian schools across Canada.

What’s risible about CAUT’s singling out of these Christian schools is that, by its own admission, it has absolutely no legislative or administrative authority to conduct such investigations.

CAUT has been around since 1951, primarily as a labour advisory body for academic staff. It also plays the role of equal opportunity foghorn on campus free-speech issues. Demonstrating classic mission creep, though, it has appointed itself Canada’s guardian of academic freedom and launched its campaign to root out attempts by universities to “ensure an ideologically or religiously homogeneous staff.”

The meaning of academic freedom is what CAUT says it means. A CAUT document has a footnote to give authority to what it calls the “conventional understanding of academic freedom” — and then cites itself as the authority.

CAUT’s campaign impugns the legal rights of faith-based institutions to require employees to conduct themselves in ways consistent with their affiliation to the organization’s religious mission. Settled human rights law and religious freedom rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada entitle such organizations — non-academic and academic alike — to do just that.

As Don Hutchinson, senior counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, said recently about the case of Heintz versus Christian Horizons: “Christian institutions … have particular rights that permit them to engage in selective hiring, requiring their employees to agree with their mission, beliefs, and behaviours — provided the institution adequately explains … why they are essential to the performance of the individual’s work . . . .” Such rights are not, Hutchinson stressed, special exemptions or loopholes or simply sneaky ways to impose “Christian morality” within the academy. They are legal rights, straight up.

Sending unauthorized “commissioners” to snoop into entirely legal conduct is not just impudent. It offends the very fundamentals of freedom.

This is the kind of danger that needs to be on the map in Christian circles. Is it?

Commentary

How hard is it to dismiss a public school teacher in New Jersey?

Leave a comment

From the Wall Street Journal. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

As executive director of security for the Paterson, N.J., school system, one of James Smith’s jobs is to try to remove teachers accused of wrongdoing from the district. That, combined with his 25 years in the Paterson Police Department, has taught him an important lesson: Trying to get rid of teachers is “10 times more difficult than any criminal case I’ve ever worked on,” he said.

One recent case the retired police captain points to is that of a special-education teacher who for years had been accused by students, parents and other teachers of hitting students. The case dragged on for four years and cost Paterson more than $400,000 to finally get the teacher dismissed. That included more than $280,000 the teacher collected in salary (even though he was no longer working) while the case was argued.

Few in New Jersey attempt what Mr. Smith does. In 2008, the last year for which the state Department of Education provides statistics, only 35 tenure cases were filed in the state. Nineteen resulted in the loss of tenure. There are more than 120,000 teachers in the state, and more than 600 school districts. Paterson is one of the state’s largest districts, with 52 schools and 24,000 students.

Mr. Smith, 55 years old, estimates that he has filed one to two tenure charges a year—usually in cases where teachers won’t resign when confronted with his allegations.

[…]Setting up a winnable tenure case means gathering irrefutable evidence, much as in a criminal investigation. Mr. Smith leaves no stone unturned—even traveling out of state to interview retired employees who may have witnessed a teacher’s actions.

“People don’t realize what goes into it,” he said.

Sometimes, he sets up surveillance stakeouts. In one recent case, a teacher was being paid by the district to give lessons at home for two hours a day to a special-needs child who was bedridden. In fact, Mr. Smith said his videographer caught her dropping by for only a few minutes, then heading home or to a store. Another time, cameras caught a teacher who was out with back pain working vigorously in his yard.

This is one reason why parents should have a choice of schools, and receive a voucher so that they can register their child at any school that they think will teach their child the best. The public school system should have to compete for students with a robust “private option” education system. Once public schools have to care about the needs of their customers (students and their parents) then public schools will work fine. Right now, they don’t have to care about their customers – they keep their jobs and gets raises regardless of performance. That has to stop.