The Observation Deck

In my thread on all day kindergarten, Jeff brought up an interesting point. Check it out:

We expect far too much from our schools. The mission has gone in scope from simply educating. Schools are overly burdened with taking on societal issues, from morals and discipline to feeding and day care.

This struck me as a very important thought and one I am trying to wrap my head around some more. Who burdens the schools with societal issues? Are they justified?

Take away the tax issue for a moment (if that is possible). For some on here and many more in Voterland, the tax is the ONLY issue. But in this case, let's remove that. Let's say that the great and powerful Oz takes over the reigns of state government and waves a wand and POOF, schools are paid for in a fair way and taxes are cut at the same time. Magic.

What is the function of a school? To educate is obvious. We have grades and a system of passing kid through them and for those that don't deviate too far from the norm we can accomodate without too much trouble.

I am not sure if people without kids with disabilities are aware but public schools are responsible for the education of children as early as 3 years old. 3! Not the 5 or 6 of a kindergartner, but 3. This doesn't mean automatically providing all day school services but the district is responsible to assess children with potential or suspected delays and if they are determined, begin to address them through in-school programs, programs through contracting agencies or even some in-home supports.

The districts are also responble to provide education to kids up to the year they turn 22. Sure, most are out but 17 or 18 but for kids with some physical or congnitive disabilities it can take longer. Those 4 years are VERY important and an odd hole in our 'system' where part of the system sees them as adults and self-guardians (criminal law, for example) but other systems (and relucantly the Department of Children and Family Services) see them still as kids. Odd.

Anyway, for 19 years the school district is responsible for the education of children and this includes addressing less cognitive and more physical of concerns. Amazing. Since the school district is an entity supported by and paid by the local community, that makes us responsible, doesn't it?

Another thing that legally binds schools to kids: The requirement of the Mandated Reporter. Teachers, adminstrators, school nurses and secretaries and anyone else that works in the building with the children are considered mandated reporters of abuse and neglect. This isn't a light responsibility, either. This follows them when they hang up their teacher hat and go home. A teacher who, in the comfort of their home see or suspect abuse or neglect of a child they know in their neighborhood are still responsible. The penalty for not reporting when it was clear that a person knew is harsh, not the least of which could be a loss of not only their job but the ability to teach ever again. Weighty stuff.

I bring this up because of this; to drive kids to school, a bus driver needs a license and special training for the vehicle. To teach children, a teacher needs not only a BS but more often than not a Master's and continuing education to boot. To administrate at a school, even more so. To be a daycare provider agency you need to pass certain licensing requirements. Hell, owning a dog requires a license for the animal.

But, to be a parent, it requires only two healthy and operational reproductive systems. And this shouldn't change. I would never advocate for any sort of parenting license or any other state intrusion into reproductive rights. China has that and frankly I say no thanks.

But something has to balance that level of messiness. If you work in social services long enough you realize that there are a lot of bad parents out there. Many, prior to having children, could barely take care of themselves.

So what is the counter balance to this? With great freedom comes great responsibility (thanks, Stan Lee). We as a society won't say who can or can't be parents (mostly...there are exceptions, of course). Fine. But that means we have to deal with parents like that lady who used her baby as a weapon to attack her boyfriend/husband/whatever. We have to deal with parents who have only two modes of interacting with their children: yelling or screaming. We have to deal with the fact that the remainder of us, the mediocre to good parents are mostly too scared to get involved when we see or suspect that a kid is being abused because we are afraid of "getting involved."

That leaves who? The police can't help until it is usually too late. They aren't there to see warning signs. They are called when there is blood on the walls or the risk of this.

What about the Department of Children and Family Services? Talk about an overburdened agency. They are overworked and given too much to handle. They can barely keep up with the amount of troubled abuse and neglect going on in the region. But like the police, by the time they are involved the situation is dire. And if it isn't dire, they won't get involved.

So that leaves schools. They see our children sometimes more than the parents do during the week (and if people don't know how much this crushes the soul of parents like myself that have to work all day, you don't know crushing). Who better to see early signs of problems? Who has to deal with it? They do, day in and day out. Even if it weren't a legal mandate, what kind of teacher could look at a kid who is clearly undernourished or riddled with bruises not to get involved?

I wonder if it isn't high time we re-evaluate the role of schools beyond simply looking at test scores. They teach our children, sure, but they also are their to protect them and not just from each other or from crazed gunmen. How would schools look if they had better resources to deal with the issues that are being thrust upon them?

Sorry to blather on about this. Jeff's comment, simply there to respond to my ideas on all day kindergarten, stoked some thoughts in me that go beyond simply education. What do other folks think on this? How do we unburden schools from all these extra responsibilities? If we can't, then how do we help them? How should schools be viewed? What is their role in a community or neighborhood? Is it a responsiblity that we as taxpayers don't take serious enough?

in high school civics class the idea of "in local parentis" was presented. I don't remember if it was a law, principle, or assumption. It implied that teachers weren't just responsible for reporting abuse, but occasionally dishing it out, when the parents weren't around to.

Most of the extra degrees and certifications most teachers have to get today are an example of Reverse Efficiency Engineering....

Schools are a place where kids go to get socialized or enculturated. In the mythological past the northwest territory wuz mostly homesteads and farms, and enculturation occurred mostly through the massive amounts of alchohol everyone drank and occasional church or market visits. Civilization is the Way of Living in Cities: Today School is a good break between watching tv and playing video games. To compete in the 21st century every class room will have 30 LCD screens, and every teacher will have a post-Masters Degree certificate in Media Presentation and Administration.

Phil

I think that although this started as a discussion of all day kindergarten, (which I see as a euphemism for taxpayer funded daycare) the issues you identified are clearly on point. Clearly the mission of the schools goes beyond simple education in the three R's.....as a collateral issue, it must, of necessity, also include issues of social education. But those roles of socialization have always been present. With the imposition of a cradle to grave care system, the responsibilities are increased far beyond those current expectations.

We have, as a society, tended to abdicate parental responsibility to outside agencies. In large part, those agencies tend to be (almost by default) the schools. We have passed on the responsibility of reproductive education to the schools. Far easier for the health teacher to talk of those issues than to sit with Johnny and explain what happens to Mommy and Daddy behind closed doors. We have passed on the responsibility for feeding and nutrition. Breakfast and lunches are provided at schools. Concerns over appropriate dress have been undertaken by schools, due in large part, to a parental inability or unwillingness to keep youthful expression within appropriate bounds. The list goes on. Please don't misunderstand the comments. Where there is a failure by those primarily responsible to undertake the tasks, either as a result of inability or unwillingness, there is a need to fill the void. And having the schools fill that void, while certainly not ideal in any sense, is a far better option than leaving it unfilled.

As we expect more and more of the schools, while demanding less and less of the parents, there is bound to be a societal cost. And if it is the school system that is expected (or by default, volunteers) to fill the gaps, it is that system that will bear the costs (which of course are passed along to us). When we have parents who are willing to simply abandon their parenting responsibilities, I'm not sure we, as a society, can likewise abandon our obligations to the future generation.

The solution would appear to be simple. Require parents to actively undertake the responsibility they undertook when undertaking the actions that made them parents. There is, of course, no simple way to implement that solution, but clearly, until there is a willingness to move towards that solution, the void will continue to require that society take actions to fill it.

in local parentis

Ryan: Its actually in loco parentis.....Latin for "in the place of the parent". Legal jargon for taking responsibility for the activity of parenting/or responsibility for the actions of the child......

Jeff

Where there is a failure by those primarily responsible to undertake the tasks, either as a result of inability or unwillingness, there is a need to fill the void. And having the schools fill that void, while certainly not ideal in any sense, is a far better option than leaving it unfilled.

As we expect more and more of the schools, while demanding less and less of the parents, there is bound to be a societal cost.

Well said and so true. But like you said so eloquently that someone has to do it and unfortunately it falls on the schools because too many parents are apathtic to the needs of their kids.

..

Charyn:

I think I'm going to have to disagree. There are a good many parents parents who are apathetic about the NEEDS of their children......security, safety, food, clothing, etc. What you refer to is more along the lines of different parenting techniques, and certainly we all have our own beliefs and methods in how a child should be reared. BUT, at least we're actively pursuing some program of parenting. The concern expressed about being apathetic to a child's needs is the other extreme of parenting by NOT parenting.

So, yes, the schools will have to somehow bring children under one roof whose parenting styles are different. That is difficult. But it is even more difficult to include those children whose laissez faire parents have abrogated their roles to a DVD player.

Jeff

One week into the school I was walking with my children to school and some of the neighborhood kids were walking with us. The first grader let it slip that her mom wouldn't get up to make breakfast so they went to grandmas. Grandma was also sleeping so they didn't have breakfast. I calmly told them I would make sure they got breakfast when they got to school. I took them into the cafeteria and asked how much I owed, the cafeteria worker said not to worry about it. I gave the principal a heads up on the situation and left it at that. What I really wanted to do was walk down the street and pull the woman out of bed and tell her to get a clue. If you are too lazy to feed your kids then please use the resources that are out there. I see lots of children going into the school in the morning and getting breakfast and I think its great. At least we know they are being fed. I know this isn't the only time that this has happened. I have had more than one teacher tell me that they have several students that come to school without breakfast. I also see kids that come without homework done, parents who don't come to conferences or open houses, or even know who their children's teachers are. That's pathetic!

Is Marsha apathetic? We might think so - certainly if we compare her parenting to our own it appears so - but in reality she is parenting very actively according to her own beliefs.

And my point? Just that it is not so simple and a way that is different isn't;t always wrong - its just different - but we still have to bring all of these differently raised children under one school roof and determine what role the school should play.

Is it any wonder there is a shortage of teachers?

What you describe is not apathy, its different parenting styles. Ignoring your children's' physical or emotional needs is apathy. I don't hover over my kids but I do feed and cloth them. I make sure their homework is done and I make sure their teachers know who I am. I don't leave my children to fend for themselves. My parenting style is different than many of my friends, but that doesn't matter. When I say apathy I mean parents who really could care less, parents who are so self absorbed that they take little notice of their children, I see it and its really sad.

As for a shortage of teachers, that isn't the case in Lakewood. Teachers are dying for the chance to work here. Two of my children's' favorite teachers last year weren't hired this year because their weren't enough positions. They each had one year contracts. We have a great district with small classes and from what I have heard the teachers love it.

I have to agree with Danielle and say that there is a difference in different parenting views and apathy. As it states in the dictionary apathy is lack of emotion or feeling, lack of interest or absence of response.

To me, sending your children to school to be educated by our cities fine teachers WITH OUT eating breakfast is definitely apathy. Had Danielle not stepped in and made sure that they had eaten something they most likely would not of been paying attention in class (because they were concerned that they were hungry) and they would not be getting the education that they so rightfully deserve. Had Danielle not done anything and they would of gone to class and then said something to the teacher, then it becomes her problem. So now we have a teacher upset over the fact that a parent didn't even feed their child breakfast. So again what do we expect from our teachers. For them to take care of something that should of clearly been handled before they even gotten to class.

Even if you have a household where both parents work full time there is no excuse for their childs needs not to be taken care of. There is no reason that they shouldn't know their childs teachers name. Or show up for conferences. That is just stupidity if you ask me.

I feel that most of the teachers today go above and beyond what they need to do. They go out of their way for the kids in their classroom. People expect so much from them and I don't think they really realize what is ACTUALLY expected from them. Being a citizen of this community I could only hope that if a teacher is suspicious of abuse or neglect they do say something to the right authority. I myself would do something as well as I witnessed Danielle doing. We need more people to pay attention to what is really going on. Stand up and say something instead of sitting back and witnessing and not saying anything because they "don't want to get involved"

..

Charyn,

I think you explained many people's situation perfectly. But you missed another very important category of parents that I have met. Parents who were intimidated in the education process themselves.

Some of the mothers and fathers who don't show up at PTA, open houses and know their children's teachers themselves did not have positive experiences at school. Maybe they don't speak English or know they don't have good grammar. Maybe they dropped out of school themselves. Maybe they are afraid that they will be laughed at or looked down on. Check homework? Maybe they don't have that ability.

Maybe they didn't learn that these parenting skills were important because their parents didn't do that for them.

I applaud Danielle, in helping the children get breakfast I do think it takes a village.

So the question is what when the "ideal" system of children with loving, intelligent parents who have the ability to be at home when needed falls apart? Do we blame the parents and let the child fall through the cracks? Or do the schools fill in the missing parts? I suggest helping parents a little will help schools a great deal. I suggest that it is cheaper to save the children now with filling in the missing parts when we can than allowing children to fall through the cracks. The school is an easy place to accomplish this in that the children are in school many hours a day. Many children only eat breakfast and lunch because of school.

I don't think the schools have the complete responsibility. It can be the church, the neigbors, other relatives, the police everyone has a responsibility to help others, particularily those who can't help themselves and that includes children whose parents can't or won't help them.

I'm sorry but I honestly think that we are just making excuses for a large number of people in our society.

I'm not saying you have to cook your kids bacon and eggs every day before they go to school. I'm not saying your a bad parent because you didn't sign your child's planner. I'm not saying your a bad parent because of scheduling conflicts you can't make all the events at school. Although, there are studies that state parent involvement improves your child's attitude towards school, grades, and test scores. Even if it is only asking your child how there day was at school.

What I am saying is that we as adults need to take responsibility for our actions. Including giving birth and raising our children. Doing what is necessary to make sure that our children's needs are met. There is government assistance if need be.

Not showing an interest in what is going on in your child's life is purely inexcusable.

Suzie,

I agree with you to some extent. I don't think everyone is cut out to be a parent. But what do we do when there is a child that has a parent that doesn't care. Do we punish that child because he or she was unlucky enough to be born to a parent that at the worst doesn't care or at the best doesn't have the resources time, money, know how to be a good parent.

What should we do with parents that aren't meeting a set standard of obligations - which fall short of abuse? Foster care and orphanages aren't terrific options. Do parenting classes work? Is our government family friendly?

Are we speaking out of both sides of our mouths? Don't have an abortion - have the baby you can't afford and aren't emotionally able to take care of, then we can critize how you raise the baby. (I'm not advocating abortion - I'm personally against it - but I do think that those that are for the government banning abortions should take every effort to help those mothers.)

Did you see the catch 22 in Bowling for Columbine that the mother whose son took a gun to kindergarden was in? With the Welfare to work program, she was spending long hours commuting to work and working, and had to rely on relatives to help her take care of her son - and there were problems.

My mother always told me not to judge people until I had walked a mile in their shoes. Some people have quite a burden to merely survive.

But the question is when a child is unlucky enough to have a parent for whatever reason isn't fullfilling their obligations, what should be done? Should that child fall through the cracks, be removed from the home, or should the elements of society, the schools, the churches, the library, the neighbors help to lift that child up?

But the question is when a child is unlucky enough to have a parent for whatever reason isn't fullfilling their obligations, what should be done? Should that child fall through the cracks, be removed from the home, or should the elements of society, the schools, the churches, the library, the neighbors help to lift that child up?

Lynn, I completely agree with you. That is why I said:

But like you said so eloquently that someone has to do it and unfortunately it falls on the schools because too many parents are apathetic to the needs of their kids.

I understand that we can't always be at everything for our children, but my comments were based on parents that make no attempt. We have wonderful services in place in the schools to assist parents, but for whatever the reasons people don't use them when needed and that is sad. I do not want children to suffer and I am glad we have have things like free health care for children, free breakfast and lunches, coat and mitten give a ways, free school supplies and the list goes on. And when I say be involved I mean knowing your child's teacher, knowing what the school expects from them, and returning calls from teachers or the principal. I am not saying if you don't attend PTA meetings or school plays and parties you are somehow neglectful, that stuff is great but if you can't do it you can't. Children need to know that their parents see value in school, its as simple as asking how their day was or what they did. I was raised by a single mom, she worked two jobs so often times she missed plays and assemblies but she always knew what was going on. She took the time to attend conferences and sign progress reports. She never played the victim, never made excuses, she just did what she had to do to provide for her children. I don't see that in todays society, I see a lot of excuses being made for why people don't do things. I see people who think they deserve a free pass because they were abused or neglected. My father was a jerk, I'll leave it at that, and I am grateful my mother got away from him, but in my life I choose not to dwell on the negative. I have two special needs children myself along with my other three. I spend a lot of time dealing with their school issues but I still make the time to give my other children's education a priority. No one has an easy life, we all struggle but that is no reason to neglect your parental duties. When we make excuses for ourselves and others we cause children to suffer and that is not right.


That said, it would ideal if every parent was involved and energetic about their child's school experience, but I know there are some out there that really don't see the value or simple don't care and until they do the schools and the community have to take over and provide for those needs.