Re: the requirement that the state *provide* an education

On Jul 23, 3:35 pm, "Stephanie" <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I am often flummoxed by how much time and energy is put into forcing
kids
> into school. I am also flummoxed with the number of children who come to
> school not ready to learn. And I don't mean *anything* about
intellectually
> ready. I mean things like having had an adequate breakfast with a
lunchbox
> of snack and lunch provided. I mean having gotten an adequate night's
sleep
> at least mostof the time. I mean coming to school free of stress from
> monstorously disfunctional families.
>
> In this group, we are selected out to see it less than it may occur in
other
> places. We are concnerned enough about kids to belong to a group that
> discusses the subject. And we are in a somewhat educated group who would
> seek out such conversation. But whether or not this is going on in *our*
> schools (it sure is in our neighborhood rural school) it is a big part
of
> the policy force.
>
> I wonder if the burded to provide an education only included its being
> offered would change the dynamic? How far do we want to go to protect
> children from their crappy parents? How about if the education was
offered
> but not mandated? If a child is a discipline problem or a disruptive
> influence, instead of going through this weird discipline system that
has no
> teeth (if a student does not want to be there, then sticking them in
> detention is no great deterrent), kick 'em OUT, particularly in the
later
> grades. If the child comes to school unfed, stinky and dirty,
exhausted...
> send them home until they are in a state to learn.

How do you differentiate lazy parents who don't want to interrupt a
party lifestyle from those who are working 3 menial jobs to try to
keep a roof over their kid's head and therefore aren't home to feed
kids, send them to bed on time or do their laundry, or parents living
in cars while they look for work?

Or do you?

> I know this is an incindiary post. I don't mean it literally. I am
trying to
> kick up some sort of different conversation around education in this
> country. I *do* however feel that the schools have had to take on more
and
> more and more of what used to be the place of the parent. And I am not
sure
> that is a good thing.

I would agree it's happening, and it's less than ideal.

But I don't know that the solution is to throw away kids whose only
crime is to have been born to stupid or immature parents, or to
parents too beaten-down by day-to-day survival to give their kids'
education the attention it requires. Making education a privilege,
rather than a right, seems backward, something designed to keep the
lower cl***** "in their place"

Some kids do defy the odds and escape their family's cir***stances,
thanks to exposure to new ways of thinking, be it from teachers,
coaches or families of friends they make in school. Others will at
least get fed or a place that's warm and dry for 7 hours each day, or
catch the attention of someone who can help them escape an abusive
home life. That's worth something, too, in my book.

Lori G.
Milwaukee