Schools Req'd to notify parents before teaching evolution

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

how many of you who answered me are parents?

I didn't answer but thanked most of those posts. And I am a parent.

[photon]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

how many of you who answered me are parents?

Why should it matter? A non-parent might be able to make a more reasoned answer vs. a parent where there's emotions involved.

I am a parent.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by photon

Why should it matter? A non-parent might be able to make a more reasoned answer vs. a parent where there's emotions involved.

I am a parent.

just wanted to better understand the landscape from which the comments were coming from.

anyhow, fine i will add "with qualification". i wasnt thinking of basic context like math and writing. i was thinking of the more controversial subjects that this law was intended to address.

[photon]

Who decides what subjects are controversial though. No matter where you draw a line, there's going to be someone who disagrees with the subject based on something, and if you stick to subjects only the majority finds controversial, then you are discriminating against smaller groups. If you allow parents to pull their kids out of everything and anything, then why have a public education system?

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by photon

... why have a public education system?

why have parents? just let the school system deal with raising kids.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

why have parents? just let the school system deal with raising kids.

Because then they become Jedi, aren't well educated and are destroyed by the Sith.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

how many of you who answered me are parents?

I am.

You don't own your kids. You have a responsibility toward them. Troutman is exactly correct: you don't have rights. They have rights. You have a duty.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I am.

You don't own your kids. You have a responsibility toward them. Troutman is exactly correct: you don't have rights. They have rights. You have a duty.

on that point we will have to agree to disagree.

i am not saying kids dont have rights by the way.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

why have parents? just let the school system deal with raising kids.

That's a completely false dilemma. Schools don't raise children--they educate them. Parents raise children and educate them, but schools have a sepcific, limited duty in terms of the creation of an educated citizenry. They're not a way of getting out of your duties as a parent.

As a matter of fact, that's precisely my problem with that sort of thinking. If you want your children raised to think about moral issues a certain way, that's up to you. It's not going to happen in school, nor should it. That's your job as a parent. The whole notion that schools act in loco parentis is complete nonsense anyway. Schools operate according to the designs of the polity, not of the family.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

on that point we will have to agree to disagree.

i am not saying kids dont have rights by the way.

So if you agree that kids have rights, where's the disagreement? I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your rights as a parent to control your child's education trump your child's right to be educated?

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

So if you agree that kids have rights, where's the disagreement? I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your rights as a parent to control your child's education trump your child's right to be educated?

thats a narrow way to describe it.

as a parent, i know my child best, even better than the child. no? if a subject is not appropriate for my child, of all the parties, who is best equiped to make that decision?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

thats a narrow way to describe it.

as a parent, i know my child best, even better than the child. no? if a subject is not appropriate for my child, of all the parties, who is best equiped to make that decision?

Someone trained to make that decision. Do you really think you know better than the people who design educational curricula?

The fact is, many parents can't even be trusted to teach their children how to tie their shoes, let alone inform them about important--and yes, sometimes controversial--issues. Letting parents decide to pick-and-choose their favourite parts of the curriculum willy-nilly is a recipe for a generation of narrow-minded ignoramuses.

In the end, students aren't sent to school for the benefit of parents. Parents are, in a strict sense, not even an interest group, even if they are frequently interested parties.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Someone trained to make that decision. Do you really think you know better than the people who design educational curricula?

The fact is, many parents can't even be trusted to teach their children how to tie their shoes, let alone inform them about important--and yes, sometimes controversial--issues. Letting parents decide to pick-and-choose their favourite parts of the curriculum willy-nilly is a recipe for a generation of narrow-minded ignoramuses.

In the end, students aren't sent to school for the benefit of parents. Parents are, in a strict sense, not even an interest group, even if they are frequently interested parties.

on one hand you say this:

Schools don't raise children

then you say this

Parents are, in a strict sense, not even an interest group

The parents raise the children, they are in the best position to assess ALL the inputs and decide which ones will harm the child. The school is not equipped to make those judgemnts nor do they have to carry the burden of a mistake they may make in that judgement.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

on one hand you say this:



then you say this



The parents raise the children, they are in the best position to assess ALL the inputs and decide which ones will harm the child. The school is not equipped to make those judgemnts nor do they have to carry the burden of a mistake they may make in that judgement.

How are those inconsistent? I'm getting very confused...

What if a parent wants to raise his daughter under strict Shari'a law--and therefore won't allow her to attend school at all, nor will he teach her to read or write?

Don't claim that never happens, either. This isn't a reductio ad absurdum argument--it's a real world example. Parents' religious or moral convictions are just not a good way to determine the curricula of public schools.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

why have parents? just let the school system deal with raising kids.

This series of posts reminds me of a logic course I took a while back.

"Name the following logical fallacy..."

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Parents' religious or moral convictions are just not a good way to determine the curricula of public schools.

i agree 100%, religion has no place in the public school system.

you might be interested to know though that the schools right now are teaching "moral intelligence". i believe it is the theme every second friday, i will ask my wife as she works in the school.

by the way, i am not religious. however, the reason i support this bill is because I do believe parents should know when these subjects are brought up. not all kids have the same abiliy to compute and apply the subjects into their outside school life. if the parents dont know that little johnny is being taught the birds and the bee's, they arent preparing their children for the lessson.

and if i dont want my son to learn the birds and the bees from a stranger, i should have the right to know its going to be brought up and decide if the child will be in class that day.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by evman150

This series of posts reminds me of a logic course I took a while back.

"Name the following logical fallacy..."

I'll take "false dilemma" for $500, Alex.

[peter12]

These threads turn into such preachy snoozers.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

i agree 100%, religion has no place in the public school system.

you might be interested to know though that the schools right now are teaching "moral intelligence". i believe it is the theme every second friday, i will ask my wife as she works in the school.

by the way, i am not religious. however, the reason i support this bill is because I do believe parents should know when these subjects are brought up. not all kids have the same abiliy to compute and apply the subjects into their outside school life. if the parents dont know that little johnny is being taught the birds and the bee's, they arent preparing their children for the lessson.

and if i dont want my son to learn the birds and the bees from a stranger, i should have the right to know its going to be brought up and decide if the child will be in class that day.

Notification and the right to withdraw your child from education willy-nilly aren't the same thing at all.

I guess what I dispute is the notion that this is a "right" in a fundamental sense at all. Parents don't own their children. Period. Children are human beings who own themselves. Parents have a duty toward their children, not a right to control them or what they learn. As soon as you accept the notion that teaching subject X somehow infringes on the rights of a person who isn't even in the room when it's being taught, you vastly over-complicate the project of a public education, which has a very specific and special purpose. Personally, I don't want parents, some of whom might have an itchy "outrage-trigger," anywhere near that process.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

So if you agree that kids have rights, where's the disagreement? I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your rights as a parent to control your child's education trump your child's right to be educated?

If parents have a duty, we should respect their decisions on how to educate their children over the State.