GilfordGrok

So, what does that title mean? Simply, it seems to be that all one has to say "It's for the children" and all logic is to be thrown out to the playground.  That one simple phrase covers all ills and reasoning (hey, stoopid, stop arguing because it's for the kiddies, you heartless, worthless piece of humanity!) 

Co-joined with that phrase is that practioners within the Educational class seem to have little regard for parents; THEY should have the preeminence over parents (the "we know better" syndrome") in raising society's children (why else the push for universal Pre-K starting at age 3?).  Additionally, that philosophy seemingly (to me) is morphing into a philosophy of "well, WE have to take care of the kids because the Parents aren't there / don't care to our particular standards to what WE expect they should be doing for their kids. 

Which gives rise to that phrase "The enrollments may be down, but the needs are up". That is an example, uttered under the breath by one of the Gilford Teacher Union honchos at last year's SAU Deliberative Session.  Problem is, she whispered it so loud and with such vehemence that it was heard at a much greater distance than what she probably realized (or wanted).  To me, and a lot of other raised eyebrows around me, it was a signature moment - it cried out "how DARE you think of cutting or not adding to the budget; "ITS FOR THE CHILDREN!"  It is THE attempt to demonize anyone that will not give them the money they want (hmmm, am I starting to sound like Terry?).

Want another example?  Laconia Daily Sun, Jan 12, pg 11.  The speaker is Joe Wernig, Gilford resident and teacher in Belmont speaking about the Home-ec position that is not going to be filled with the retirement of Linda Wright:

My concern is for the kids who don't have the parental involvement.

"Having a teacher dedicated to the program, he said, 'gives them someone else to relate to, because not everyone goes home to a parent."

My beef?  I'm getting real annoyed with the education class" that believes that they are the ones who are responsible for our children and that parents are uncaring dolts."   As this discussion about the SAU budget continues, I hear or see this so often ("well, what about the kids that...."), I truly begin to wonder if there are any caring parents in town and then I realize that the vast majority of parents are good parents and that this is just a rhetorical argument (or do some teachers really believe this nonsense?).

I heard this same type of rhetoric from a number of teachers at last Thursday's meeting at the GES Library.  What was especially galling to hear from our school employees, in protestation of the small reduction in the guidance counselor position, was along the lines of:

"With the Recession, the parents are stressed out so we have to take care of the kids when they come to school"

You know, the impression you get is that half the town's parents are crazed with fear over money and that WE CANNOT CUT ANYTHING having to do with the children. If we do, these kids are DOOMED, I tell you, simply DOOMED! 

To be honest, it isn't just from what I see or hear in Town. I follow a number of EdBlogs everyday and see this attitude at those places as well. Look, I realize that the number one factor in a child's success in school is involved parents, and they should be involved. Let's just say I had "difficult" sons, I had to be involved.  Even at one of the EdBlogs that I like a lot, I see this attitude:

Let parents ‘be the change’

Barack Obama’s “be the change” idea “could transform the education policy debate,” writes Flypaper.  It’s assumed many parents won’t raise their children responsibly so schools must step in.

Perhaps we’ll never reach “100 percent parental responsibility,” just like we’ll never reach “100 percent proficiency” in reading and math. But maybe, just maybe, we could do dramatically better than we are today in getting parents to show up for their job as their child’s first and most important teacher.

Question - who is working for who here (oh yeah, I already answered that)? Where is the respect to those that employ those that are saying this (and yes, teachers are employees).  I can understand, perhaps, to a small degree in trying to get more parental involvement. 

What can schools do to encourage parental responsibility?

I think schools should tell parents what they school wants them to do, such as limit TV and video time on school nights, set aside time for homework and reading, enforce a sensible bed time, serve a low-sugar breakfast, get them to school on time, whatever else is doable even by poorly educated parents.

I’d send home DVDs (or links to YouTube videos) on how to teach manners and self-control to children. How should kids handle conflict at school? Show examples.  Another DVD could show how to read aloud with a child, perhaps how to discuss a TV show with a child. Or how to help your child get organized to do homework, even if you can’t help with the homework.

Asking is nice.  Offering material is great. But to outright believe and say "parents won't raise their children responsibly so the schools must step in"? 

Could that not be a definition of hubris?  Stepping into a situation where one was not invited and trying to take over (or, at least holding that attitude)?

A similar problem seems to be when schools start to worm their ways into the students lives when outside of school and usurping the traditional roles of parents.  In my eyes (and others), the kids are the parents and the parents' responsibility.  Even if they are not "performing" to the Educational class's standards. They are the schools' responsibility, in the role of in loco parentis, only during school hours.

This slow reach of the Nanny State is probably the best reason I will fight, best I can, the idea of Universal Pre-K - why in God's green earth do I want the State to have the ability to have more influence over my child than I do?

And of course, my I remind you all of this little stunt by a Gilford Teacher?

Posted by Skip at 10:23 PM | Permalink