It Takes a Village to Raise an Idiot: California and Parental Rights
by Brian Melton | View comments |
Print This Post
For teachers unions and education bureaucrats, compulsory school attendance is a tool of social control.
Educated people today seem to be embracing concepts that clearheaded philosophers of an earlier era would quickly recognize as lunacy. An interviewee of the San Francisco Chronicle (long known as a nationally ranked platform for less-than-brilliant comments) has recently trotted out one of the oldest, but most disturbing ideas: that the government has a more basic claim on children than parents do. In doing so, she made the following statement:
[Leslie] Heimov [executive director of the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles] said her organization's chief concern was not the quality of the children's education, but their "being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety."
Though her basic position is essentially worthless, Heimov’s comment contains a few instructive points.
First, Heimov displays a shocking misunderstanding of the rights and responsibilities of parents. Essentially, she is arguing that the state of California needs to systematically protect children from their own families. The presupposition that undergirds this kind of thought is that the state is primarily responsible for the welfare and development of all children. The government may often choose to delegate some of its role to parents, but it reserves the “right” to revoke parental authority whenever it chooses and for whatever reason. Children only belong with their parents so long as what the parents do is pleasing to the state.
Next, Heimov also inadvertently reveals what is really going on here (a fact that none of the few web comments I looked at below the article picked up on): For groups like hers this is not about parents being qualified to instruct their children in a range of academic subjects and life skills; compulsory school attendance is a tool of social control. They believe that parents in general cannot be trusted to raise children properly and so the state must have a mechanism that allows it to observe and intervene at will. While the word “safety” generally applies to physical danger, the courts and activists of California have already shown that they will use the broadest possible sense of the word. This has the potential to produce a truly Orwellian state of affairs.
If the parents of California give up their rights as parents to the government, they should not be surprised to see the government begin to exercise those rights. The “Govenator’s” recent comments are encouraging, but Californians should stand behind him and act decisively.
A second point emerges from the way the Chronicle staff employed the quotation. It was literally the final word of the article, apparently intended as a complete rejoinder to the statement from the seemingly misguided homeschoolers. The author offered no analysis or critique of the asinine idea that parents should have to complete some ridiculous course in non-sense secular humanist educationese before they become magically “qualified” to care about their children’s “ongoing safety.” The Chronicle accepted the idea at face value, as if it were actually something resembling commonsense and intelligence. The very fact that one well-educated children’s professional could make such a statement and an equally well-educated journalist could repeat it as unchallenged truth is more than enough to demonstrate that there is “something rotten” in the state of California.
Frankly, I can understand how Heimov and the Chronicle can mistakenly think that our children are now the government’s responsibility. As American culture continues its rapid decline into self-centered imbecility, more and more parents are indeed abdicating their rights and failing in their responsibilities. This leaves the rest of society to live with the results. Who will step into this gap? In an earlier time, it would have been the churches, relatives, and local communities; those most competent to really intervene in a meaningful way. Today, people reflexively expect the state and federal governments to assume control. This is unfortunate on at least two levels. First, the government (especially as influenced by modern educational theorists) is the least qualified to act in a parent’s stead. Second, as we see here in California, the government tends to go after just those parents who are the least likely to need supervision: parents who care enough about their children’s future to take a personal hand in shaping it. So, far from really fixing the problem, the philosophies advocated by Heimov and the Chronicle only make matters worse while trampling on parental rights in the process.
The simple fact is that it takes parents to raise children, but a village to make them into idiots.
bmelton@liberty.edu
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0826217397/102-0313136-3504156?ie=UTF8&tag=intellectualc-20�
Read more articles by Brian Melton
[…] California's Homeschool Ban Sparks Controversy In addition to my brilliant take on California's effective ban on homeschooling, the "Intellectual Conservative" posted a couple of interesting articles on the subject: "It Takes a Village to Raise and Idiot: California's Take on Parental Rights" and "Homeschooling Poses a Threat to the State." […]
Pingback by News from the Weekend « Jama Oliver | March 10, 2008
Re: Government “rights”
Government does not have rights; it has only authority. If we stop refering to it as "rights" and start calling it what it is, i.e., authority, we will suddenly see the role of government in a completely different and more appropriate light.
Comment by sedonaman | March 10, 2008
The Department of Education is not secure in their position as innovative leaders of education. As a matter of fact the DOE remains in an archaic mode of maintaining uneducated teachers attempting to teach the uneducated on the payroll regardless of the the students future in our modern world.
The result is private schools an in home schooling by parents or an educated tutor for their children. Public schools have become nothing more than playgrounds for gangs and gangbangers who consider education to be a whiteman's thang.
All the unqualified teachers who have tenure are the people who are screaming about the NCLB is a failure is, because they do not know how to teach the curriculum required to meet the standards set forth by the NCLB program.
Comment by FromTheTop | March 10, 2008
FromTheTop, your post is erroneous on so many levels. You say, "the DOE remains in an archaic mode of maintaining uneducated teachers attempting to teach the uneducated on the payroll regardless of the the students future in our modern world." It is clear to me that you are not an educator. You don't seem to know all the hoops we as teachers have to go through to become and stay certified. I can't speak for California, but in the state of Arizona, we must continue to stay current in our area(s) of expertise and renew our certificates every 6 years. To renew, we must show evidence of having taken graduate level courses or having attended professional workshops for a minimum number of hours.
You then say, "All the unqualified teachers who have tenure are the people who are screaming about the NCLB is a failure is, because they do not know how to teach the curriculum required to meet the standards set forth by the NCLB program."
I don't know where you get your information, but I can tell you, as a Highly Qualified teacher who has tenure, I am also telling you that the NCLB is a failure, not because we as teachers cannot teach the standards, but because NCLB is a "one size fits all" program. As it stands, it fails to provide the funding needed to meet the needs of students with special needs, and yet punishes schools who fail to meet NCLB guidelines when our special needs students cannot get what they need to help them succeed.
No Child Left Behind is an admirable goal–that is definately true. Where it fails is in providing the necessary means for reaching that goal. It does not provide for gifted students at all, and it provides not even the minimum for students who struggle because of physical or mental disabilities. I won't even go into the problems of the English language learners, as that is a whole 'nother issue, really.
I think parents should be allowed to home-school. I don't even think they should be held to the same standards as public school teachers, so long as the education they provide their children will indeed give them the skills needed to compete in today's and tomorrow's world. These children, if they are intending to continue into universities, will still need to pass the same tests and that is where we will see who, if anyone, taught the children adequately.
For all the "failure" of public education I keep hearing about, I hear more often of how we succeed. We are a country that believes everyone should have an education, and we provide the opportunities for that. Most other countries only teach the elite, whereas we teach all who come. Okay, so we *try* to teach all who come. Just like the horse at the trough, you can lead a child to the knowledge but you can't make him learn it.
Comment by cabwriter | March 11, 2008
cabwriter:
"These [homeschooled] children, if they are intending to continue into universities, will still need to pass the same tests and that is where we will see who, if anyone, taught the children adequately."
I thought homeschooled children had to go in to a local school to be tested periodically to make sure they were making adequate progress. Is this true? Just asking.
Comment by sedonaman | March 11, 2008
Sedonaman,
Yes, homeschooled children still must pass the same tests. As I teach high school level, I tend to think of getting the kids to go on to colleges and universities, but the lower grade level students also have tests to pass.
The advantages of homeschooling are many; I'm not saying homeschooling should be done away with. What I *am* saying is that, while the public school system has many problems, *in general* we do a good job of teaching. With NCLB, though, we are more and more teaching *only* the basic reading/writing/math skills, and the gifted students, and those whose greatest skills are in areas such as the arts or mechanics or agriculture and the like are suffering for it.
Comment by cabwriter | March 11, 2008
Cabwriter,
Competent teachers like you rightly resent the intrusion of government into their classrooms. Here is the object lesson: Government involvement is generally counterproductive at the least, or oppressive and dictatorial at the worst.
That principle is the point of the article. Government presumes its own pre-eminence at the expense of liberty. It usurps power, dictates outcomes, and makes law-abiding citizens perform on behalf of government interests.
If you object to the feds intervening in your classroom, imagine how these California parents feel who have just discovered that they have been relegated to serfdom regarding their own children.
Comment by Mountain Man | March 11, 2008
“For teachers’ unions and education bureaucrats, compulsory school attendance is a tool of social control.” Nah, wrong! It’s a way to pull in more tax dollars – it’s all about money. Many people from outside the state have a mistaken impression about Californians. We’re not suntanned New Yorkers – we’re not nervous, fast-talking, in your face New York City liberals from the upper West Side.
In California, New York style aggressiveness doesn’t go over well – better to adopt a laid back attitude of hidden greed masked by a cloying sense of concern for others. “The San Francisco Chronicle” is highly adept at this type of persuasion and its style plays well south of Market St., as well as in Berkeley, Walnut Creek and Santa Cruz. But, don’t be fooled it isn’t ultimately about the money – it is.
I live in a crowded state where everyone is hustling to make a buck just like other locales. Taxes here are extremely high if you add up all the various ways the state and local governments dip into your wallet. The cost of living is high as well, gas hit $4.00 a gallon yesterday, food is expensive, utilities are expensive, housing very expensive – only the sunshine is free.
Teachers and education bureaucrats have to compete with many other special interest groups for their share of the tax feast. We have the environmental groups, the victim rights folks, the mundane providers of services to government, the highway contractors going after the special transportation tax levies, etc. Proposition 13 put a legal limit on annual increases of property taxes which, in turn, fund education – with home prices doubling and tripling every 10 to 15 years, many homeowners would be ravaged by exponential increases in property taxes if it wasn’t for this annual cap. Teachers and education bureaucrats deeply resent Prop. 13 and have tried various way to overturn or get around the restriction – and we’re talking about greed here, not ideology.
Homeschooling is merely another mosquito buzzing around the elephant of public education. The way the typical California hustle works is to pretend there is a problem with some social practice the government doesn’t currently feed off, example homeschooling, but the solution isn’t to eliminate homeschooling – where’s the profit in that? The solution is to create a bureaucracy to better police it – get it – create a bureaucracy – jobs, titles, budgets coming from tax dollars. The Children’s Center for Law or whatever is an undeclared shill for the education bureaucracy and they have a sympathetic ear in “The Chronicle”.
Once the new law is passed, the bureaucrats create an agency, the agency has a budget, part of the budget money will be routed back to its supporters – “The Children’s Center for Law” among others, the university professors who advise on and study the problem, the social workers who do the home inspections. Money comes from taxpayers into the pockets of other taxpayers – this is how California’s economy works. There is a vested economic interest in social control – we’re talking personal greed, not Nazism.
Government greed and corruption, Chicago style, is not our way here in the Golden State but the effect is the same. Ideology is important to the readers of the San Francisco Chronicle and, let’s face it, homeschooling is often an option chosen by the religious right, the mortal enemies of San Franciscans. But, don’t for a minute believe that it’s strictly about ideology; ultimately, it’s all about money, about personal greed and about a better standard of living for some and higher taxes for others.
Comment by Pat Skurka | March 11, 2008
Pat Skurka:
“…don’t for a minute believe that it’s strictly about ideology; ultimately, it’s all about money…”
Well, I tend to disagree somewhat. This sounds like the debate, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Of course they have to have money; find one Leftist who doesn’t. Leftism is all about gaining control of wealth because, by its very nature, it produces none on its own. Once it gains control of wealth, it can implement its ultimate goal of the redistribution of wealth. After all, have you ever seen a Leftist get wealth and not use it to further his ideology? Of course not: you can’t redistribute wealth without gaining control of it.
Selwyn Duke described the state of educational affairs best here not long ago. I paraphrase: “The academy is a place where ideology is not rejected when it departs from truth but where truth is rejected when it departs from ideology.”
Comment by sedonaman | March 11, 2008
Sedonaman:
Point well taken. But, many of us Californians are not the popular caricatures of left-leaning fruits and nuts so often depicted within essays on Intellectual Conservative. We’re hard workers (well most of us), family oriented folks raising kids and trying to be good citizens. The problem is our state and local governments are addicted to taxes, they’re tax revenue junkies with a very expensive habit.
How did it get that way? We can’t form coalitions to fight back and greed and self-interest took the normal course that greed and self-interest always takes. Within our highly celebrated California multi-culturalism, it’s everyone for him or herself. You probably noticed we don’t speak one common language in California – makes it hard to effectively communicate political ideas. Sure, Spanish is the “official” second language in Arizona, but throw in Mandarin, Hakka, Cantonese, Tagalog, Hindi, Vietnamese, Arabic and a host of other languages or dialects and you have a typical California community. How do we fight back, we can’t even talk to each other.
With divide and conquer, it’s much easier to rule the peasants. And, I believe, teaching serves a noble purpose but it’s not 1880 on the American frontier any longer. We don’t provide the local schoolmarm with a house free of charge. A teacher lives across the street from me, divorced and raising two kids. The house she rents sells for $800,000 and it’s almost 30 years old – pretty sure her landlord must be charging between $2,500 and $3,000 a month rent – the landlord has to pay a host of fees, taxes and homeowner association dues, just like I do.
She drives an older car and is paying $4.00 a gallon for gas. She pays for every single homeowner service out of her salary – there are no city supplied services here, utilities, garbage pickup, basic cable, city inspections, tree trimming, etc. all come out of her salary. She gets free fire and police protection, period. But, our socially conscious, politically correct police officers aren’t very good at controlling crime, so homeowner and car insurance is costly. She pays more for her water than the folks in Phoenix – all our water is treated, we don’t have separate lines for landscape sprinkling and our monthly water bills actually run higher than those living in a dessert climate.
If she wants to be close to her job, there are no cheaper locations close by. The $500,000 homes are 45 minutes to an hour away. The schools here have special fees for everything imaginable, sports, band, special activities, etc. She is also paying those fees for her kids – no discounts for teachers.
Given all that, I understand the personal greed of California teachers and education bureaucrats – noble intentions don’t pay the bills – and with our government there is no end to bills. And, we grant no special exemptions to leftists – they face the same constantly escalating cost of living as the rest of us.
So, you’re definitely right about the chicken and the egg problem. It’s easy to be left leaning when it’s your personal welfare at stake, even for someone providing a useful service like teaching, – and, it’s not hard to rationalize why more government is needed if some of the taxes end up in your pocket. Do those leftists who wish to exercise control over their fellow citizens go into teaching or government at a higher rate than other professions – basically, I don’t know but suspect you’re probably correct in that regard.
However, the one redeeming feature of multi-culturalism and leftist thinking is that it’s essentially self-defeating, thoroughly corrosive to a healthy society and ultimately leads to economic disaster. We’ll all go down with the ship some day, whimpering and crying in our separate languages – but, nobody here can figure out how to stop it.
Comment by Pat Skurka | March 11, 2008
Pat Skurka:
Looks like California got much worse after I retired and moved out in 2002. It sounds like a modern-day tower of Babel.
Comment by sedonaman | March 11, 2008
Remember the "Tower of Babel"? This is explicitly why our English Language should be legislated to be our country's official Language. Everyone will be able to understand each other.
If you need an American to interpret any document writ in the English language you need to learn our language and assimilate into our culture of English speaking Americans.
Comment by FromTheTop | March 11, 2008
Sedonaman,
Good characterization - made me understand what the Bible meant by Tower of Babel. I'll leave you with this. New to this election cycle are ads targeted at ethnic groups. Not just on the Spanish or Asian television stations either - these ads appear nightly on the normal cable stations.
One ad targets Asian and Pacific Islanders - shows different folks that each speak a one line phrase - such as: "Vote, it's good for all of us". Another ad is completely in Spanish, I assume the same message but my wife hasn't seen it to translate it for me.
Another ad is sponsored by the NAACP - and it's not vote for Obama either. Just another get out and vote message showing different African Americans speaking. Weird combination of characters for the males - sort of a cross between the Jeffersons and some "playahs" who resemble guys I knew in Detroit.
Not sure what these ads are for - the state votes Democratic anyways - possibly gathering the clans to finish off the last remaining Republicans.
Oh, and before you ask: No, there aren't any ads for white folks saying: Vote, it's good for all of us! Hey, we're multi-cultural here, after all.
Comment by Pat Skurka | March 11, 2008
Pat Skurka:
“Another ad is sponsored by the NAACP - and it's not vote for Obama either. Just another get out and vote message showing different African Americans speaking.”
This is a sneaky way of getting around the laws governing tax-exempt organizations. Tax-exempts are not allowed to endorse specific candidates but may assist in voter registration drives and put out messages encouraging people to vote. When a black person is telling black people to vote, he’s obviously implying that they should vote for the black candidate, although the ad doesn’t mention any names.
Comment by sedonaman | March 12, 2008
FromTheTop:
My grandparents were all peasants from Italy. None of them ever learned to read or write, English or Italian. My father told me once that when he was a kid, his mother said to her children [all US-born], “When you are at home, speak Italian because that’s what we all understand, but when you go out that door, you speak English because we are all Americans now.” Boom! Problem solved in less than a generation.
Now, contrast that with what one Cuban immigrant said just after she became a US citizen: “Even though I am an American now, I will always be a Cuban first.”
Comment by sedonaman | March 12, 2008
Proof! Home schooled children are much better trained in manners, diversity in subject matter, discipline, study habits and responsibility of their actions.
My brother, retired CWO3, was a chopper pilot during Vietnam with Engineer, and Math Degrees, but no certification from the Department of Education to teach his grandsons their ABC’s. They were tested with the same tests administered to regular school kids.
He home schooled his two grandsons, John 4YO and Eric 3YO from kindergarten age to 9th grade, where both entered high school as freshmen. The age difference was never a problem. The beauty of this situation was they each had a buddy to interact and play with in the rumble, tumble world of rambunctious kids.
They helped each other in their many and diverse subjects from foreign languages, French and German to American history and geography, math, algebra, geometry, calculus, American and European literature, art, science and biology, et cetara.
The results of their final tests to qualify for the 9th grade revealed both John and Eric were in the top 99th percentile on the WAIS-III, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. Their ACT/SAT scores were 36/2400 which means dear readers, John and Eric were thoroughly qualified to begin studies in high school and take correspondence college courses via the Internet because of their home schooling by their grandfather, Dennis.
Comment by FromTheTop | March 12, 2008
FromTheTop:
"… John and Eric were in the top 99th percentile …"
We can't have rank amateur teachers out-performing a professional system, now, can we?
Comment by sedonaman | March 12, 2008
FromTheTop,
"Proof! Home schooled children are much better trained in manners, diversity in subject matter, discipline, study habits and responsibility of their actions."
Great scott! Children who learn their manners, discipline, and responsibility at home? What a concept! If all my students got that at home, my job would be a whole lot simpler. I think they *should* get those skills at home, and leave the subject matter to the schools. Study skills is more of a gray area, as the skills that help a student study are linked so firmly to their self discipline.
So nice of you, too, to make generalizations from two children. Kudos to the grandfather for teaching the children, though. He obviously did do a good job with "no certification from the Department of Education." He was able to give them a solid background, up to the 9th grade, which says a lot for his own education. Does that negate the value of being certified? By no means.
A certificate is merely a piece of paper, but it does indicate a certain amount of knowlege on the part of the one certified. That one can have similar (and even better) skills without the certificate is quite possible. I'm a darn good musician, could compete with some of the most popular ones out there, but I chose a different path. Doesn't mean I'm a worse singer just because I don't make my career based on it.
The teaching profession has come a long ways since my father taught for a paltry $7500 a year or so. Even so, I have yet to meet any teacher who teaches for the money. A teacher teaches because he or she loves seeing the best and brightest achieve, and helping the less bright improve. *I* teach because I cannot help myself–I want to help young minds grow.
Your great nephews were fortunate to have such a caring grandfather, and he was fortunate to have young minds eager to learn. He had to teach just two children, and he had them all day, I suspect. Your average elementary teacher has anywhere between 20 and 40 children all day. At the school where I teach, my class sizes range from 16 to 26, and I see each child for 55 minutes. You can do the math yourself, but every teacher knows you can accomplish more with a child when you have more one-on-one contact than when you're standing in front of 30 of them.
Yet with all that, even the public school system turns out children in the 99th percentile. They also turn out children in the 1st percentile (bell curve and all). The sheer numbers of children who we want educated far exceed the number of teachers available to teach them. And you expect the public system to do a better job than a parent who has 1 to 4 kids they're teaching at home–especially at the lower grade levels?
Ideally, education would all be one-to-one (each one teach one). Ideally, all children would have the attention they need when they need it. Ideally, all children would be geniuses.
Yes, there are problems with the public school system. But believe it or not, the vast majority of teachers are dedicated, hard-working, caring individuals who want to make a positive difference in a child's life. We want them to succeed. We weep when they fail, we cheer when they excell, we more than any group know that today's youth are tomorrow's leaders and what we do will affect not just their futures, but futures to come.
As a final note, if you think teaching is that easy, I invite you to sit in on a classroom (doesn't matter what age group) and see what your average teacher faces on any random day.
Comment by cabwriter | March 12, 2008
Cabwriter, if you are a qualified teacher doing you utmost to teach your students the required subjects plus a level of knowledge to pass the NCLB. I admire you. I was not refering to you. I was refering to the unqualified teachers who are tenured attempting to teach the uneducated.
BTW, Cabdriver, I was an outstanding instructor to all races, colors, ages, genders and creeds for 30 years. Semper Fidelis.
Comment by FromTheTop | March 12, 2008
Cabwriter, get a grip! Facts are facts! Teachers and Administrators know what I say is truth! Accept the fact you are inundated with bloody government interference and paperwork just to satisfy the reason for being of a DOE.
I am not saying you are unqualified to teach. I will say this, you are a qualified moaner and groaner. Take a few swipes at your Administrators. Maybe you will get better results. I am not your problem.
Comment by FromTheTop | March 12, 2008
FromTheTop,
Yes, I agree the government interferes, and the paperwork involved gets overwhelming at times. This is true of any type of employment that the government is involved in, and I've learned to deal with it as best I can. The administrators are just as tied to governmental requirements as we teachers are, though I agree they are good targets for our resentment. I certainly would not want their jobs.
As for the moaning and groaning, I didn't do any more than defend my choice of profession. I'm sorry that to you it sounded like a gripe session. This perception that the teaching profession has a large percentage of unqualified teachers does annoy me. Of course, I can't speak for all schools, but I do know that in my school, if we are not qualified to teach our subject matter, we are either not hired, or we are dismissed. We are evaluated yearly, even us tenured teachers, and if our performance is deficient, we are put on improvement plans. From there, if we don't improve, or don't improve enough, we are dismissed. In the last five years, I know of only two teachers who were dismissed because of poor evaluations. One of these was tenured, the other was a first-year teacher.
If I have any gripe at all with my work, it is that too many of my students have no sense of personal responsibility. They seem to expect everything handed to them gratis. They ask me why they're failing, and when I tell them it is because they haven't done the work, they look at me as if I were the one that is at fault. Where does this expectation of something for nothing come from?
Comment by cabwriter | March 13, 2008
cabwriter:
"Where does this expectation of something for nothing come from?"
I'll give you three guesses [and the first two don't count].
Comment by sedonaman | March 13, 2008
I have a degree in education and I taught in the public schools for five years. There are a lot of qualified teachers doing excellent work, and a lot of teachers who are incompetent, lazy, marking time til retirement, or just plain stupid.
Today's teachers are coming out of college fully indoctrinated into the latest leftist pap and "progressive" teaching methods. As a result, many classrooms are utter chaos, where children can now endure 12 years of public school education and never hear the name George Washington and never learn to read.
Cabwriter may be the exception, and maybe even his school is. However, what I have described is not an inaccurate description in many schools.
Comment by Mountain Man | March 13, 2008
Sedonaman,
Of course. That was a rhetorical question!
Mountain Man, perhaps you'll agree with me that when they stopped teaching phonics and grammar and went to "whole language," composition skills went down the tubes? I can't get the majority of my students to compose a comprehesible paragraph, much less an essay. And should I dare assign more than a page of writing, you'd think I'd asked them to write a novel. Sigh.
Comment by cabwriter | March 13, 2008
I acknowledge your frustration, cabwriter. It is beyond my understanding why the public schools abandoned proven, effective methods of instruction.
But you bring up another issue. We have to lay some blame at the feet of parents who have abdicated their responsibilities toward their children. Also, the law has made it more difficult for parents to raise their children, as well as for teachers to maintain order in their classroom.
You know, if you have enough years in, you can retire, draw your pension, and embark on a new career, or move to another state and teach there while drawing your pension.
Comment by Mountain Man | March 13, 2008
Cabwriter, the main reason MS and AL are in deep doo-doo as far as education is concerned is unqualified teachers, tenured and otherwise. The NEA protects them here in my state, AL. It seems they cannot be fired for incompetence as in your state. I wish it were so everywhere…that all of them be fired.
Mountainman is correct. It is money period. Ever wonder why teachers do not fail these idiots or expell them for good reason?
Money. If the School Boards allowed incompetent teachers to be fired and students to be expelled there would not be very many schools left.
Hell, there are athletes arriving at college who cannot read, write or spell! I blame parents first of all then the teachers. Where is the bloody PTA in this country?
Cabwriter, all of your arguments are accepted as from a sincere and dedicated teacher. I commend you and all teachers of your caliber who continually face the onslaught of paperwork from and required by the DOE.
The only measure to save teachers and students in our country and bring education back to the caliber of the "Little Red School House" ABC's is to…ABOLISH the DOE and the NEA! I am bowing out of this home schooling blog. My apologies.
Comment by FromTheTop | March 13, 2008
I think parents are to blame for any lack of education. If their child is not being educated to their liking, then they should take it upon themselves to fill in the gaps in their child's education. It shouldn't be too difficult for the parents to learn the material so they can help the child.
To expect that all teachers be outstanding and effective is ludicrous. In any profession we will have those less capable than others. In fact, I'm not convinced that having a few not-so-good teachers is all that bad. In the real world, they will undoubtedly have to work with "not-so-good-at-what-they-do" people. There is something to be said for learning, not because of a good teacher, but in spite of a bad one.
I'll put it this way, there is no teacher alive, good or bad, that will stop me from learning what I want to learn. Parents should instill this philosophy in their children.
Comment by liwfz | March 13, 2008
liwfz,
It seems to me that in any field of endeavour there is going to be a spectrum of competency levels. This is not an excuse for tolerating inferior educators. They ought to be fired, but public education is one of the few places that such people are protected via tenure and the NEA.
Further, there is no excuse for incompetence in any field where advanced degrees are frequently found. Yet this is a field where "experts" openly disdain the participation and input of parents. Parents should not be expected to assume the duties of substandard schools. Rather, they should be running for the hills, if they had anywhere to go.
Think of it. In many places across the country, parents are forced under penalty of law to send their children to substandard public schools where crime and drugs are rampant. Many of the good teachers have exited long ago, and those that remain are either unemployable elsewhere, or they are caring people like cabwriter who still retain hope that they can be a positive influence in the school system.
Parents have their own issues. But laying the failure of public schools at the feet of parents just doesn't fly.
Comment by Mountain Man | March 13, 2008
Mountain Man,
You bring up some good points. I agree with you on just about everything. But… I think a good parent puts their child's issues before theirs. If the parents are too busy with their own concerns, then perhaps they should complain less about public education.
To put it another way, you can tell which children have parents that are interested in their children.
Sorry to disagree with you here, but the parents don't get off scott-free….
Comment by liwfz | March 13, 2008
Cabwriter,
You aren’t exactly shy tooting your own horn. You tell us you are “Highly Qualified” and you “hear more often that you succeed”. But, this is the choir praising its’ own virtuosity. You chastise FromTheTop as “erroneous on many levels” and unaware of “all the hoops … teachers have to go through to become and stay certified”. Well, I have been married to a teacher 35 years and do know what teachers go through; and it is far less demanding than the knowledge, rigor, and honing required to excel in a great many other professions. I also know the full litany teachers use to convince anyone who cares to listen how vitally important they are and how much we owe our kid’s success to you. We’ve all seen the stickers proudly displayed on your car bumpers declaring: “If your child can read this, thank a teacher!” Funny, my kid was reading before kindergarten.
Craftsmen are better known by their products than their advertising. If that is any measure, the public teaching establishment deserves a ‘D-minus’. Half of today’s high school graduates can barely read, can’t do algebra without a calculator, need help reading a map, can’t tell you who the current Vice President of the United States is or Congressman or Senator representing their district, doesn’t know what the stars-and-bars on the flag represent, can’t locate Iraq, can’t tell you the significance of ‘E = mC^2’, can’t parse more than a simple sentence, doesn’t know a theorem from a postulate, hasn’t memorized a single poem, speech, or literary passage, and can’t give a lucid reason for bankrupting the nation halting global-warming. In fact, their heads have been filled with more that is drivel than useful, making it necessary to reinstruct them before they are much use to anybody. Many of our college grads aren’t all that much better, and seem to have gotten through taking a lot of mush courses deliberately added to curricula precisely to avoid weeding them out. Yet these same kids can navigate the Internet (even if it is only to shop and copulate), know how to drive (and boost) cars without taking Driver-Education, know which bureaucracy and buttons to push to get benefits, and know which lawyers get the most scumbags out of jail free. So, we can’t pretend they are incapable of learning something.
The purpose of re-certification is not ensuring teachers are qualified. If that were the case, there would be no need of it beyond challenging a handful of suspected substandard teachers, and would succeed in weeding quite a few out (never happens). The main purpose of re-certification is to update teacher political-orientation to match shifts in ideology; making seasoned teachers sound (if not think) exactly like the latest crop of barely tutored automatons. Any topical updating they get is smokescreen for that; a leavening of legitimacy. Re-certification ‘is’ tied to employment, but that is to make sure all teachers get the same indoctrination and get the point they owe their jobs and allegiance to union and state. No teacher has ever been fired or repositioned on the basis of failing to ‘keep up within her/his specialty’ (though a handful of teachers have been run out for airing dirty little secrets).
No other profession has a similar record of refusing to weed out the unqualified. Doctors and lawyers who make serious mistakes are disbarred. Professional Engineers who cause disasters loose their license. Even unlicensed professionals are subject to and forced out of jobs they are unfit to practice. Not so teachers. Those who do leave the profession do so in disgust or burnout (caused by teaching too long without any authority). The mediocre stay while the superb leave realizing they can do better at something more rewarding and respected. It is not for nothing we have the adage “Those who can do, those who can’t … teach”, because teaching is about the only profession in which mediocrity is deemed acceptable. It is a haven for the mediocre, and that became especially true when the teaching profession ceased being directly accountable to those they serve – the parents.
I am not saying all teachers are mediocre and I have known both bad and good. You may be, as you claim, one of those truly qualified to teach. But, if so, it is not for the reasons you gave and not in the current milieu of correctness and of sheltering the second-rate. Nor can all the problems of your profession be attributed to teachers; as the tendency in every society, in all eras, is toward centralization begetting stifling regimentation. As the states took over schooling from the towns and the fed from the states, and bullied by political-activists into subverting education, we’ve seen a steady progress toward one-size-fits-all, least-common-denominator education that leaves no room for contrary opinion or inquiry. Couple with this the handcuffing of teachers and parents to discipline the disruptive, and it’s a wonder kids learn anything.
Comment by Bob Stapler | March 13, 2008
Bob Stapler, I said I was, "bowing out of this blog" earlier. Could not resist reading your post. Very well stated and very well placed! One tiny word, but just as important at the end of your post in the next to last paragraph was omitted…students…and parents and students should also be accountable to teachers.
BTW, Bob, your post should wrap this blog up tight so we can settle some more of the world's problems. Thanx. Semper Fidelis.
Comment by FromTheTop | March 14, 2008
liwfz:
You hit the nail on the head with your comment that there is mediocrity found in every profession. After 40 years in the business world, I’ve seen my share of fumbling mediocrities and pompous incompetents; those retired on the job and with annual bonuses larger than the salary of any public school teacher. But, I think the real difference is the lack of “stress” on the public education system.
By “stress” I mean the absence of any influence outside the education system that will affect positive change within the public schools. In the business world, the market can “stress” any firm that becomes complacent and incompetent relative to its competition – and, sure, not immediately, not overnight and not in any sense “fairly”, as “fair” is used within the current meaning of the word. Make up your own examples of this fact – the U. S. auto makers, steel producers, fabric weavers – the list goes on and on.
The “limiting factors” created by market stress curtail the blood supply of a business when revenue begins to fall. During the good times, escalating sales, increased cash flow, rising profits have more than just a positive affect on stock prices. Internally, companies grow fat as well: Annual departmental budgets increase, executive compensation increases, headcount increases with many unnecessary employees added with minimal rationalization for the increase, etc. In short, the “organizational sins” are no different in the business world than in public education – only the penance for such sins is different.
Massive layoffs, “black Fridays”, CEO’s “leaving” to pursue other opportunities, Chapter 11, refinancing with the lenders taking control of the Board of Directors are all some of the many reactions to this external “stress”. And, it’s either react to the “stress” or “die”. The fat the bear acquired during the warm months is burnt off during the starvation times – excess employees are promptly canned, managers are reorganized with both decreased perks and responsibilities, discretionary spending is curtailed, there is more focus on core business issues, less focus on “empire building” and poorly conceived business strategies. Notice also, that in severe cases, the business may die or undergo a buyout which in popular slang often entails a “complete makeover”. But, the industry doesn’t die, just the incompetent business.
Competitors gain market strength at the expense of the “weak sister” – Toyota gains what General Motors loses, Microsoft gains what IBM loses, etc. But, what external stress changes public education? Why, nothing at all changes due to market stress. Only tax revenue limits the growth of education – there is no “market” for public education, there is no external stress that produces increasing levels of quality product demanded by the market.
We’ve seen the affect on product quality when a Soviet Union style system induces no stress. I have a friend who grew up in the old Soviet Union. Here’s how he characterized the automotive industry - Soviet style. The cars were poorly made and in short supply. You “officially” put your name in for a new car and then could wait years for one to become available. Or, you could go to the black market for one. Under this option, the black market provides, not a car, but a winning lottery ticket. The winning ticket was purchased at a higher “market price” rather than a government mandated price – but, the difference was the lottery prize was a car with immediate delivery – you paid more but actually got a car as opposed to a spot on the waiting list. In effect, a market, albeit a black market, developed to meet demand where there was only a monopoly available.
We’ve tried this Soviet style concept within public education and failed so far. Vouchers, magnet schools and so forth have met with no success, the education hasn’t improved. Trying to induce a “market” concept within public education has failed because no one in public education wants it to succeed. And, the problem is no different than in the old Soviet Union. Like those with the money to buy a lottery ticket offering a winning prize, wealthy parents can send their kids to private schools. The private schools don’t accept the “losers”, or, if they do, aren’t legally required to keep them for years. The private schools can determine their own curriculums and superior curriculums at that, mandate their own standards of quality and require incompetent teachers leave to “pursue other opportunities”.
Not so the American public schools. These schools continue on with their Soviet style bureaucracies and practices creating an ever escalating downward spiral of mediocrity – just as occurred in the old Soviet Union. When the American proletariat receives education similar to the Soviet approach to market quality, the result is a poor quality car made by workers who have no incentive to build a better one and despised by those who purchase them. Ironically, my friend described the education received from state schools he attended in the Soviet Union and, believe it or not, he received a better education than he would have received from an American school. Soviet society was a corrupt mediocracy, but their state run education system provided a better public school education for some than America. The key is “for some”: The Soviets had a very effective method for sorting out those kids who wanted to learn from those who didn’t. Those who “didn’t” learn were “given” (conscripted into) jobs within the steel factories or collective farms. There’s probably a lesson in there somewhere, but, with our public education system, it’s unlikely many of our citizens will grasp it.
Comment by Pat Skurka | March 14, 2008
Liwfz and Pat Skurka,
Perhaps you are unaware what happens to parents, in our enlightened society, who dare “… take it upon themselves to fill in the gaps” or (state forbid!) intrude on what public schools offer.
http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200302/200302070.asp?PrinterFriendly=True
http://www.hslda.org/docs/link.asp?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enapavalleyregister%2Ecom%2Farticles%2F2008%2F03%2F14%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fdoc47da1cec61891571685501%2Etxt
http://www.whiotv.com/education/4429917/detail.html - David Parker confrontation with school over sex-ed
http://myopiczeal.blogsome.com/2005/04/30/david-parker-arrested-for-responsible-parenting/
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1330 - not yet this bad here, but we’re getting there
The point I make is the picture of ‘indifferent parents’ is a false one. A great many parents are anything but indifferent to our children’s educations, but are so crowded out and cowed that teachers and MSM succeed in painting us that way. We have been, essentially, ordered to sit down and shut up; then made the scapegoat to deflect criticism from our malaise’s rightful authors. Our public schools have achieved a monopoly on our kid’s minds, and that’s how the unions, state, and leftist want it kept. I have had my own run-ins with this jealousy. Not as bad as these folks have suffered, but still unpleasant. Back-to-School-Night and joining the PTA may seem like an opportunity for parents to put in our two-cents worth regarding what and how our kids should be taught, but is nothing of the sort. It’s just more of the same indoctrination our kids and their teachers get; only targeting parents so we cheerfully tow the party line. If parents today seem indifferent (which is contrary to human nature), perhaps it is because we have been bullied when and since we were schooled to revere teachers and fear principals. Be honest, how many of you still get the willies on receiving a summons to the principal’s office because little Johnny is out of line (e.g., telling some semi-literate teacher she’s got her facts all screwed up with politically-correctness – and, oh yeah, dad gave him the straight dope).
This paralysis isn’t rational, but is real and part of the problem we’re having with the schools. Too many teachers are convinced what they teach is gospel precisely because too few of us inform them it is bunk. If you think I'm kidding or nuts, I challenge you to attend a PTA meeting (your grandkid’s if your own kids are grown) and take a look at their text books. History books are particularly awful. If you dare critique them to the teacher (or within his hearing) be prepared to be regarded a troublemaker and an idiot. They are full of anti-foundational, anti-exceptional, anti-male condemnation masquerading as facts (sound an awful lot like Chinese Cultural-Revolution era denunciations when read aloud). In fact, there is very little you can find in them deserving the label ‘fact’ (even misstated ones). Most of it is unsupported assumptions vilifying long dead-white colonizers pillaging natives and enslaving blacks to no end. For example, I learned George Washington is no longer regarded father-of-his-country; he is reduced to a one-dimensional slave-owner (never mentioning he was prevented by law from freeing his slaves until after his death – read his will). Jefferson, Madison, Mason, and many other founders are similarly treated. Washington and Lincoln get less than half a page each while MLK and FDR get three full pages and Malcolm-X gets a page and a half. Jefferson is barely mentioned, and only for penning the [living] Constitution and his role as state-church separation sponsor. Rather than inspire awe for Civil War acts of selflessness, ending slavery, the demise of sovereignty, and recounting the many heroic and tragic struggles, all you will (briefly) learn is half a million whites murdered each other in a senseless power struggle. Redigio ab absurdum. Much of what remains is coincidentally factual, making the whole thing notionally defensible. The problem, however, is all that is left out, reduced to stereotypes, and spun beyond recognition.
http://www.homeschoolacademy.com/articles/mean-parents-articles.html - ‘mean parents’ (included just because I like this one)
Comment by Bob Stapler | March 14, 2008
As a parent, I would inquire with my children as to what they are learning. I would do this on an almost daily basis. I might then read up on the subjects myself (I like to learn…) and simply engage them in conversation. Sometimes simply asking questions gets them thinking and shows that you care. Plus, I would get to refreshen on all this too. There is no harm in this.
I alone cannot overhaul the system for the betterment of every student. But I alone can improve my own child's education.
Believe me, you will benefit much more with this approach than wasting your time arguing with school boards….
Comment by liwfz | March 14, 2008
Bob Stapler, et al:
Yes, and there is a term for it: stonewalling. Here is a recent case in which parents tried to get a gay porn book out of the classroom and got stonewalled:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200803/CUL20080310a.html
Comment by sedonaman | March 15, 2008
Bob Stapler, liwfz:
Imagine a town where the residents all agree and the town charter is duly amended so that every homeowner must hire the Numbskool brothers landscaping service – every 2 weeks the Numbskools will groom your lawn, trim your bushes, weed – do what any landscaping service would do to make your property look good. The one drawback is only the Numbskools can do landscaping on your place, or any other property within the town limits for that matter.
Why the Numbskools? Well, most of the older residents knew and loved their deceased parents, the Numbskools senior – very fine people who did a great many good works for the town. The Numbskool brothers are wild, prone to troublemaking and haven’t yet found a trade or business where they can succeed. And, after a couple months with the Numbskools, you begin to notice a disturbing trend. The Numbskools are basically lazy – they spend their time listening to the game, eating pizza, whistling at girls driving by – but they don’t work hard on your place. They miss spots when cutting the grass, they’ll start to trim a bush then wander off to talk with a brother, they thoroughly weed one spot of ground but then completely ignore another spot loaded with weeds.
You complain to the town council – and they say: “we all agreed to use only the Numbskools – you have no other option.” You say: “What if I just do it myself?” “Fine”, says the council, “but you still have to pay for the Numbskool’s services, you can’t expect the rest of us to pick up the slack in supporting the Numbskools”.
So, each time the Numbskools perform their landscaping, you trudge out to the garage, grab your garden tools and go over your lawn, fixing each grassy place they missed, addressing each bush that was ignored or poorly trimmed – you don’t like doing this but you also understand the town council’s viewpoint – and besides the charter requires it and that’s the law. Now, each and every time you make out a check to the Numbskools, you seethe with anger but eventually you calm down because you’ve found a way to rationalize the situation.
You reason to yourself: It isn’t just my place, the Numbskools do a poor job on all the other homes as well. So, my place looks terrible, but so does everyone else’s. Of course, some of my neighbors are also out fixing their lawns after the Numbskools drive off, so I’m in exactly the same boat as my neighbors and have no basis to complain about being treated unfairly.
And, you also think, if those of us who don’t like it refuse to pay, then the burden would fall on the other residents. The Numbskools would still want every cent of their money and it would be just that much harder on my neighbors. Besides, you think to yourself, I can make my lawn look very nice, I’m out in the fresh air, getting exercise – this is good in a weird way. So, you’ve found a rationalization that works - your lawn looks pretty good also, between what the Numbskools do and then you fix afterward. And, you’re out in the fresh air. Eventually, you write the monthly check to the Numbskools without a second thought – if you think about it at all, you console yourself with the thought that maybe some day the Numbskools will move away.
This parable is transparent to you, I’m sure. But, ask yourself, would the Numbskools ever move away? More than likely, they would marry, have kids, bring in their in-laws, and raise their monthly landscaping rates to cover their increased costs. Rather then seeing a light at the end of the tunnel, wouldn’t it be more likely the tunnel would just get longer and darker? And, the current education tunnel, hasn’t it gotten longer and darker?
Imagine if we organized military recruiting and training like we organize education. There would be a major bureaucracy in Washington charged with recruiting and training soldiers. But, there would also be bureaucracies at the state and local level as well. Citizens would be privileged to pay for these bureaucrats – but, in return, they would have local control.
Kids in your town would have to sign up with the local recruiter, but they wouldn’t leave town for boot camp. They would be trained locally, using local soldiers and veterans who supervise the training. Each local recruiting district would have a shooting range, an obstacle course, a few tanks, some bombers and maybe even a submarine for their artificial lake.
Wouldn’t this be hellishly expensive? Of course it would, but you have local control – after all, it’s your kids going into the military – wouldn’t you want local control over their training and have them near by so you can frequently check on their welfare? And, you wouldn’t hear complaints from the bureaucrats or the drill sergeants. They get paid to supervise and train your children. Wouldn’t it be worth the much higher cost to have this system?
If we understand why we don’t do this nonsense for our military training needs, then we will all understand what we need to do to improve our schools. And, speaking out never helps when it’s a master and servant relationship. The servant (parent) requests a favor, enters a plea - the master (education system) has the final word – always. Unless the servant revolts, the relationship will never change. We should ask ourselves why doesn’t the servant revolt? Maybe, both the servant and master are comfortable with the relationship as it stands.
Comment by Pat Skurka | March 15, 2008
Liwfz,
Where you say: “Sometimes simply asking questions gets them thinking and shows you care.” Are you talking about your kids or their teachers? ;-)
As for bypassing school boards and insular educators, what you say is true enough, but isn’t that also what they complain of – that we parents are the main culprits because we aren’t “involved enough” with our kid’s education. Believe me, the complaint isn’t that you aren’t teaching at home with or without reference to them; it is that you are teaching things they disapprove and over which they have no control. This is not all teachers, but the cranks in any group do tend to dominate. Parents lack the voice of teacher-unions and governmental agencies with which to respond and are easily marginalized, so we wind up taking most of the flack.
Let’s take this one step at a time and you will see what I mean. National SAT scores are published and the press (always hungry for dirt) report scores for your state have fallen for a third year in a row. The school board or superintendent immediately issues a statement that, although SATs have fallen, public school self-test scores have risen steadily for a quarter-century. A journalist or (more likely) some letter writer to the newspaper questions: how can both be true? The suspicion grows our schools manipulate their metrics to always indicate success, no matter the contrary evidence. Caught in a lie, the schools look for ways to shift blame (e.g., under-funded programs, low pay, teacher burnout, too much television, broken homes, poverty and abuse, indifferent parents, not enough before/after school programs, diet, classroom air quality, antiquated teaching materials, school violence and chaos, drugs and sex, gangs, student apathy, culture, not enough qualified candidates, classroom crowding, insufficient resources, &c). Anything except schools held to account for their product. Teachers are browbeaten to remain silent and maintain solidarity, so they wind up part of the problem. So too the parent who goes along fearing to rock the boat or believing it is for the best. The media is an equal-opportunity shark, so it reports the failures of parents and culture with the same unverified aplomb it reports those of schools. The media will even dish its own, but only if it makes money.
So, where you say I am wasting my time arguing with school boards, you are probably right. Yet, we have to find some means to hold schools and government to the same or greater account than they hold us, or our kids wind up the losers. Teachers allege the problem with our kids is us, and, in some cases that is true. However, that has always been true and no truer today than yesterday. So, that doesn’t work to explain why our kids are passing in school yet flunking in college and in life in increasing numbers. We are bled dry to have schools educate our children, only to find they’ve learned more that needs erasing than preserving. This creates a double burden on us. First we labor to pay a school tax, then labor again to re-educate against the stress that creates for both us and our kids; telling them 3/5ths of what they’ve learned is hogwash (some of it positively vile) without somehow implying their teachers are contemptibly stupid. And, supposing you send your kid to a private school, perhaps a triple-burden. Any wonder, then, we have little time to devote to our kids? We’re too busy making enough money to satisfy an insatiable beast.
It is a bad mechanic who blames his tools for his own shortcomings; and, a bad mechanic who continually gets away with it leaves a broad trail of mistakes.
Comment by Bob Stapler | March 15, 2008
Pat,
I agree with your Numbskool analogy except they are not so much lazy as inept and it is our grandparents who bought into this contract with the additional and ridiculous proviso their grand- and great-grandkids would be saddled with it. I have known a lot of teachers and the one thing you can’t accuse them of is sloth. They are probably some of the busiest people I know.
But, hardworking does not automatically translate into efficient or even valued. The most successful and effective people I know put out the least effort necessary to get any given job done. They aren’t lazy because, when they finish one thing, they move right on to the next. When they are done with all that needs doing, they take a break and recharge. They don’t waste energy doing things that neither need doing nor profit us. Teachers, on the other hand, are taught to keep their students always busy and adopt the same attitude regarding themselves – sometimes obsessively. It is so obsessive they think that if all they are teaching are the basics, it is not enough. If all they are teaching are the basics plus a few life-skills, it’s still not enough. If basics plus life-skills plus college prep – not enough; if all that plus moral values – not enough; all that plus an ideology – not enough; all that plus activism – not enough; all that plus useless yet charming filler – not enough; all that plus correctness masquerading as virtue – not enough … and so on. Teachers almost never take breaks, never get that chance to recharge, never take moments in which to reflect if there’s an easier way or what they teach has value, and, so, are convinced theirs is the toughest job on earth.
Let’s go back to your analogy, but instead of your Numbskools being lazy they are driving you crazy doing stuff to your yard you never bargained on, and instead of a lifetime contract it is for the first 10 years of ownership (including inherited property). They’ve ripped out your tomatoes, lettuce and strawberries and planted asparagus, broccoli, and rhubarbs. Once your property is deemed ‘mature’, you will no longer be subject to their ‘assistance’. Their job is to see to it everybody’s yard starts out on an even footing, that no yard stands out as esthetically ‘conflicting’, that we conform through long habit, and no one yard steals a market advantage over the others. They’ve cut down your venerable 200-year old oak complaining it sheds too many leaves and blocks your view of urban blight. They’ve also torn out your bonsai/rock garden and installed a tennis court. All in the name of progress. Only problem is you despise asparagus, broccoli, and rhubarbs, loved that old oak since you were a kid, the rock garden provided you much needed serenity, and you can’t play tennis since you ripped a tendon. The Numbskools come to you expecting praise for all their hard effort and genius. Instead, you fume at them calling them idiots. They take revenge by insisting they’re the “professionals” and you’re the fool for rejecting all the ‘wonderful’ things they’ve done. Worse they threaten to have you locked up because all the fuss you’re making over a few rhubarbs is upsetting their other ‘highly satisfied’ clients (more likely inciting a revolt). Some of your neighbors actually agree with these cretins because they were jealous of your yard, and demand for their property has gone up as yours came down.
Now, in the real world, you’d fire these incompetents and hire someone better to fix the mess. But, in this alternate universe, we not only can’t fire them, we can’t get them out of our yard, and they keep right on making messes. If we move to another place, they just follow informing us there is no escape. Given they’re going to make a mess anyway and there is nothing we can do to stop it, we capitulate in passive defeat. It’s just a few more years of this, we reason, and so endure.
Oh, did I forget to mention … because the Numbskools have more control over your property than you do they've decided you don't really own it - the state do. ;-)
Comment by Bob Stapler | March 15, 2008
Bob, Pat, et al.,
I truly sympathize with the general frustration you have. It doesn't seem just, does it?
My approach is simply the way I feel I would be most effective. I don't think I alone can change the public school system, and if I per chance was able to, most likely this would take so much time that my own children wouldn't benefit from the improvements.
I think the most important concept to instill in my own children is a passion for learning. In the end, you must teach yourself, no matter how good or bad the teacher is. In other words, the student should have the mentality of "I'm here to learn," not "I'm here, now teach me."
Some other things I would try is to also get my child's friends involved and curious. I was very lucky to have a friend who's dad did this with me. He simply would start a conversation about something and ask us our opinions. It got us to think and we always ended up talking about it long after he left the room.
I also would invite my child's teacher(s) over for dinner (or something similar) occasionally. I would try to engage the teacher in good conversations about the subject matter they teach. I think it is very important that these conversations involve my child, with my child also providing input - not just listening to a conversation between me and the teacher. This might have the benefit of the teacher possibly paying a little more attention to my child during school, and would help to deter my child from acting poorly in class (if they view their teacher as a friend of his/her parents). It could also instill a feeling in the teacher of accountability (to me). And… it is just a nice thing to do to show appreciation to the teacher for what they do.
Now imagine if every parent were to do this….
Comment by liwfz | March 16, 2008
Bob Stapler:
Appreciate you patching up my analogy, there is a difference between “lazy” and “inept” as you explained quite well. What I was attempting to illustrate (perhaps poorly) were a couple of points about public education. First, bureaucracies grow and flourish when they have a monopoly and access to taxes – they don’t contract, although they can go through periods of apparent dormancy. In America, in particular, the public education establishment has learned how to flourish using divide and conquer tactics. The bureaucrats have learned to listen to their benefactors but in a way that promotes their own agenda and welfare. The lone “voice of reason” will never prevail with school authorities unless the “reason” coincides with promoting the power and financial welfare of those in charge; the same is true in the business world.
Second, Americans seldom understand why our culture actively works against accomplishing those very goals we claim to support. From the suburbs of Philadelphia, to the suburbs of Atlanta and moving west to the suburbs of San Francisco, the same cultural pattern is evident. Wealthy, upper middle and middle class American parents actively work to pass their legacy of wealth and societal power to their children through education. And, that’s why local control over education, while extremely inefficient and costly, is so prevalent. Parents will move to upscale suburbs with better schools to provide an environment conducive to obtaining wealth and social power for their children through more and better educational opportunities. Expensive homes are purchased because school districts in upscale suburbs are better funded, have better teachers and offer a learning environment vastly different from the ghetto schools of Oakland or Richmond, California.
Parents also spend much energy on providing their children with learning opportunities that are socially approved and valued. The reason is that colleges and universities reciprocate at admissions time when they discover a “well-rounded” student and grant admission to a name school. Ballet classes, musical training, computer camps – an endless array of “soccer moms” and dads ferrying their kids to an endless variety of after school activities, summer camps, amateur competitions, etc. The cost of these activities is far from negligible and working parents gladly give up their limited free time to support such activities. The payoff is admission to a prestige or, at the least, a “name” university. The child is launched into his or her adult life with a degree from a “good” school in the hopes their child will succeed to financial security and social prestige.
In my geographic area, the ultimate goal for your kid, complete with immense bragging rights, is admission to Harvard, Stanford or Princeton. And, failing that, the University of California Berkeley is the next rung down. Moms and dads carefully study the admissions point system and know to the second decimal place how many admission points accrue for academics, sports, extracurricular activities like debate club, band or student government, etc. The competition among the soccer moms is fierce and jealousy over what appears to be preferential treatment for one kid over another stops just short of physical violence at times.
The education establishment understands this cultural pattern very well and manipulates the public shamelessly. When parents complain about the “values” or lack of values the schools teach, what they really mean is that the schools aren’t teaching the values they believe in and support. But, the schools actually teach exactly those values our greater society hypocritically claims to support. For example, some parents complain that their children learn how to put condoms on cucumbers, but not what values lead to a successful marriage. Very true, but in our widely approved multi-cultural and diverse society, no one agrees on what “values” actually lead to successful long-term marriages. Christian values, Muslim values, Chinese values, secular values – which values should be taught without alienating some or a greater portion of those taxpayers who fund the welfare of the education establishment?
And how to avoid pesky lawsuits and interference form disgruntled parents who believe the values currently taught represent those promoted by another segment of our diverse cultural population. Teaching the mechanics of safe sex rather than the techniques of successful relationships is easier and less subject to legal challenge by a majority of the population. All parents agree that teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are abhorrent and not something their child need experience.
Another area is religious observance. Better to ban all appearance of favoring one religion or, even religion itself, rather than risk censure by the courts. And parents actually favor this approach. Jewish parents are suspicious that Christians are out to convert their kids. Mainstream denomination Christian parents look askance at fundamentalist, Pentecostal or those religions they view as cults, such as Mormonism. Secular and atheistic parents think the religious parents are all slightly wacky and parents holding to other than a Judeo-Christian religious tradition are prone to feeling marginalized. Divide and conquer, conquer through division – the education establishment thrives by being strictly non-partisan.
Educators have thoroughly learned the lessons of multiculturalism and diversity. Better to be inclusive than exclusive – less trouble accrues when you support that concept. So, heterosexual, homosexual, non-traditional marriages, traditional marriages, having children without marriage, blended families, nuclear families, etc. are all equally valid according to our societal values. Don’t take sides in the culture wars – there’s nothing but trouble when you take a moral stand that will alienate some taxpaying parents.
Helping those less fortunate toward receiving a good education and living up to their potential is another highly touted social value. But, you’re not bussing my kids to some ghetto school – a little compassion is fine but let’s not go overboard. Give scholarships and free tuition to brilliant and deserving kids from the ghetto, but don’t get carried away and raise taxes or tuition so my kid can’t attend the better schools – a little but not a lot of “fairness” is appropriate. Parents like feeling good about themselves when they promote opportunity for those less fortunate, but not at the expense of their children’s legacy. Don’t be selfish, but don’t be stupid either.
For public education, the struggle is to find a safe harbor in our multi-cultural society. And, public education very accurately reflects those values we claim to value. Some say that public education goes too far in promoting the wrong values, but this opinion is essentially nonsense. Public education promotes only those values the greater society voluntarily subscribes to. Yes, it conveniently works out that the education bureaucracy prospers by doing so, but feathering your own nest isn’t something our diverse society with its fractured values can eliminate.
Comment by Pat Skurka | March 16, 2008
Pat Skurka in comment 36 said:
"You complain to the town council – and they say: “we all agreed to use only the Numbskools – you have no other option.” You say: “What if I just do it myself?” 'Fine,' says the council, 'but you still have to pay for the Numbskool’s services, you can’t expect the rest of us to pick up the slack in supporting the Numbskools.'"
This is the point where you should revolt. There is no reason to agree to pay for something you don't want. If you do agree, you make it very difficult to change things later. In fact, the situation you describe further in this post is exactly how I feel things are generally with the tax system as a whole. People have forgotten that it is coercive, and cede the ground to the system as a first step.
No matter what the item being paid for by the tax system, if it costs those who want it a little bit more or a lot more because I am not contributing, so be it. If in reality nobody really wants the particular services, those employed in such fields will have to find another way to earn a living. WHOEVER they are. That's how the market works. Why should a useless institution be kept in existence?
Comment by AMAI | March 16, 2008
Pat Skurka:
One thing you left out is that upper and upper middle-class parents fight tooth and nail to get their kids into a “name” school, e.g. Harvard, in order for them to establish business contacts for life.
“Public education promotes only those values the greater society voluntarily subscribes to.”
Well, perhaps; perhaps not. I doubt the “greater society voluntarily subscribes to” gay issues which are “promoted” in our schools. Because there is a sufficient amount of social pressure to make people want to feel “enlightened”, most won’t actively resist what they perceive as an inevitable fait accompli, even if it conflicts with their own personal beliefs. If, however, they are asked to go into a secret ballot booth and choose “Yes” or “No”, say, to gay “marriage”, the vast majority would vote “No”. Does this situation constitute “subscribing to”?
Comment by sedonaman | April 13, 2008