Pam - Agreed, an important topic, especially in light of all these state mandates, some of which essentially take the parent out of the equation completely. Do I think it takes a village? I think the "village" concept has value - certainly my immediate circle of friends and parents of my daughter's friends have an understanding that works for us - we tell each other if we see things or hear things that we know as parents, we need to know. In this way, we look out for each other. But, what I need to stress here is that I have chosen my village, if that makes sense. I have surrounded myself with people I know and trust and share my values, etc. I don't see the state as part of my village and I resent that they are stepping into territory in which they do not belong. The state does not and should not get to decide what my child is taught relative to values nor should the state be a substitute for parenting.

The answer to your question is, it is the responsibility of parents to develop our child's moral compass. While I value the school's efforts to reinforce good character, I think it's gone beyond that and the state is almost deferring parenting to schools in some cases, which first, is a tremendously unfair burden to put on our educators, and secondly, creates more excuses for those parents who simply aren't doing their job.

A wise person once told me, Parenting is hard. If it's easy then you're probably doing it wrong.

Pam, can you please elaborate on the specific government mandates that require teachers to instill moral values in their students? Thanks.

We could use the example of the bullying programs funding request that was briefly discussed in an article on Patch. I believe Ralph Iassagna was quoted as saying the program, was at least in part to satisfy a mandate. I also recall BOF member Lisa Labella questioning if this was not something that should be the parents responsibility.
I believe she is right. I spend time at home discussing this issue. My children have been guided at home, on how to deal with various situations. What happens if something they are told in school, conflicts or is even slightly different than the parents beliefs?

I know there are many teachers that feel uncomfortable with the amount of liability that now lies at their feet. Is this fair to the teachers to have to spend time discussing and mediating conflicts between children? Don't they have enough on their plates with all the other academic requirements. While they may not ALL be required to teach 'bullying', they will undoubtedly be expected to support the program and reinforce what is taught in the program.

Correction 'BOE' member, Lisa Labella
Sorry, sometimes my iPad types what it wants...

Looks like Kristy beat me to the post button, and used the same example....

At a higher level we could discuss what is morally wrong with current testing practices and mandates...but that could take hours, and is a slightly different discussion than what we are talking about here.

But I will leave you with this thought; 90% of Bridgeport students don't meet the standardized test goals in math, reading, and science. So you tell me, is the 'no child left behind' mandate working? Clearly not, so why do we continue to poor money into implementing it?

Pam
Thank you for your commentary on "....Village?" Thank you MOST for your thoughtful tone and simple observations of people helping people/children/neighbors. Somehow that's the way it was and still should be. The village is all of us just trying to "make it better/easier/happier". Children learn what they see/hear most from their families and then become "socialized" in the schools and community.

Comments related to your article immediatley take their talking points from state mandates and bullying. Clearly you are asking where the responsibilty lies in bringing up children.

Hasn't the DEMAND by the people/parents to state and local officials for a "better way" brought us to here? Its a conundrum -- "we" want to be in charge--so we call for officials to "take our side" -- then we don't like their position -- and then another DEMAND is brought forward.

I am a mother as well and "just because" my kids are not in school doesn't mean that the lessons of "the journey of life" ends when school is out. As a parent and community "village person" the good teachings must go on. We can't abdicate and give the lessons of life over to the government-- that's just nuts.

thanks Gail for your comments. It is indeed a conundrum. Personally I think the answer lies in bringing education control (of any kind) to a more local level.

We can not continue to pretend that inner-city children should be taught and measured in the same manner that suburban children are.

My comments regarding influence of community are sincere. I believe in exposing children to as many experiences as possible. Many lessons are learned outside the classroom. Sheltering children from experiences that we find to be unpleasant or uncomfortable, or giving them all the 'answers', does not allow them to grow, mature, and learn critical problem solving skills. Our children learn by our example and actions. Even our teens are watching and learning from us, even if they will never admit it!

I don't know if what I teach my children conflicts in any way with this particular new program, but I am saying it is a possibility. I tend to teach my children to try conflict resolution skills, prior to bringing in the 'authorities'. If parents are not teaching their children life skills, well that is wrong. But shouldn't the schools make them accountable for their children's behavior?...rather than try to do their job for them?

Having had children in the school system for 14 years, there have been situations where I did not agree with what was being asked, or taught. I would rarely debate anything academic-related. One time my HS son came home, complaining that he got in trouble because he didn't do his homework for a few days. When I asked him why he didn't, he answered that he thought the assignments were 'redundant and pointless'. My response was simply, it is the teachers class, you WILL do the homework she asks of you. That was the end of the discussion. However there had been times where my children were sent home with large packets of CMT practice sheets for the summer, and led to believe they 'had to' complete them. I did not believe it was in their best interest to spend their summer break inside, working on these 'test' sheets, so I did not make them do any of them. There were other parents that would make their children spend 2+ hours a day doing these practice sheets in the summer.

Hi Joan - I believe the answer is yes based upon a recent article about the new policy. The article stated, "It was noted that PBIS is an in loco parentis program – one in which the school acts in the place of the parent. In this case, it improves the behavioral climate in the schools and ensures that students find their school open, safe and welcoming". Schools acting in the place of the parent - not a good thing.

Schools have the authority to regulate behavior of their students by setting behavioral standards to be followed by them. There seems to be an evolution and increase in the number of rules implemented as schools see a need for these changes. Since the parents are not the ones attending the schools, it is more difficult to control their behavior and more important to control the students who are actually in their school communities daily. If parents do not want their kids to be subject to such regulation, they have the option to choose a different school for their kids, to home school their kids, or to run for a political office where they would put themselves into a position to influence which standards are implemented.

In my opinion, "bullying" is a euphemism for harassment, assault and battery and is covered by the criminal codes to which we all are subject.

It obviously would be great if parents taught proper behavior to their children at home. However, apparently not all children are getting that information, and schools and society are picking up the slack for the good of everyone. Kids learn from every conscious encounter. Adults need to set good examples and polish their mirrors.

Kristy, what are you proposing that would be an alternative to giving parents a "free pass?" I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. Also, how does a school enforcing an anti-bullying policy undermine a family unit such as mine which is (hopefully) "functioning as [it] should?" Thanks.

What has been shifted along with responsibility, is liability.
Joan, do you think it is fair to lay this additional burden on our teachers?
They are trained educators, not social workers.
How will you feel when a teacher is sued?
Of course, teachers will/should always play a role in building character, as do many adults in our community, but to put this extra burden of responsibility on them is just not right.

Let the teachers focus on teaching academics.
Give the classrooms back to the teachers, and give them the freedom to teach their students in the way they know will inspire learning. We have great, creative teachers that are being stifled by ineffective mandates.

I would like to see comments on additional areas where schools may be infringing upon parental responsibilities, such as moral/social values (dare I mention sex ed?).

Perhaps this does not happen in Trumbull, but in other towns students have been disciplined/suspended for holding (and vocalizing when a teacher asked) traditional moral values and views on marriage and family.

Educators/School districts are required to do so much more than they used to be and I believe it's an unfair burden to place on educators. Education goes well beyong the "3 R's" these days and I truly value and appreciate the efforts of our schools to reinforce character and for all the wonderful programs we have available that create awareness of serious issues such as underage drinking.

But, is it right to mandate our schools to teach things that parents should be teaching and is it right to make the schools responsible for things that parents shold really be responsible for?

Schools are now charged with ensuring physical fitness, healthy eating, alcohol/drug/nicotine education, sex education. Parents no longer have to get their kids to school - everyone, even a child who lives next door to an elementary school, gets a bus. If your child attends private school in the town in which you reside, the state also requires that child be transported to school. Schools are now held to a much higher standard than parents to address bullying. Parents used to have to send their kids to private school if their child got expelled, now the state requires that an alternative education be provided to an expelled student, paid for by tax payer dollars.

So if we assume that most parents are doing their jobs, aren't we managing to the exception by implementing mandates such as these?

And is it fair to place all these burdens on our educators? We all value our schools' efforts to reinforce good character, morals and values but these efforts should not be mandated! Untie their hands and let them teach academics!

Tricia, I would hope that that is not the norm.

Bizarre actions by a few teachers with poor judgement, are too often sensationalized in the media.

Look at the teacher that was in the news a few weeks ago for 'rewarding' students if they refrained from using the bathroom! Hopefully these types of inappropriate behavioral reinforcements are rare.

A student should never be reprimanded for having a different religious belief than their teacher! That's crazy! But whenever moral topics are 'officially' introduced into the schools as an initiative or responsibilty, you run risks of all kinds. Would we ever expect a social worker, a priest, or lawyer, to teach algebra?...of course not.

We have become a "people" of entitlements........Government mandates (and we have created these mandates by the entitlements demanded by the "people").

Just to finish my above thought .....and our demands have almost become shamless.
"Shamless" ---- that's a word so out of fashion that a dictionary is needed to give
meaning and definition.

There has definetely been a shift in our society. Government has taken on a role that was never intended, that being to take care of people and to make decisions on our behalf that the government has no business making. Sadly, many people have gladly accepted this shift, even welcome it, and have accepted this intrusion of government in our lives. Those of us who continue to believe that we are responsible for ourselves must continue to push back and tell the government to back off.

We all teach our children that with hard work, they can accomplish anything they want to. We teach them to be self-sufficient and to never give up. We teach them that things don't always work out exactly like we hope and that we have to find a way to navigate through challenges.

Why on earth then would anyone support a government that tells us we are incapable of taking care of ourselves? Incapable of managing our own money? Incapable of finding a way to support ourselves? We have a government that has essentilly undoneall the life lessons we try to instill in our kids - makes no sense to me. We've taught people that government is the answer to all our problems. This is not the role of government.

She seems to leave the debate when you ask for details which is very disappointing. We are not just looking for person locked in their own idealogy, but someone who can actually make a difference guided by what's best for our town.

Please do more than espouse your biased views Mrs. Waizeneger. Your were elected to be an informed decision maker!

Heather please take the time to read my posts above. You may not agree with me but I've cited a number of examples. Have a good night.

Perhaps we can discuss how these unfunded mandates have actually helped our children. I believe that even in the absence of many or all of these mandates, some towns, such as ours would still provide and excellent education for our children. Are schools in Bridgeport any more successful because of these numerous unfunded mandates? No. Government intervention, in the form of the State Dept of Education, has not improved education at all. No amount of money and no mandate is going to fix the Bridgeport schools and if we're being honest we should all be willing to admit that. My point is just that these pencil pushers up in Hartford have written tons of policies and mandates, not many of which have actually improved the quality of education and that this government intrusion into municipalities/cities isn't improving or fixing anything. That seems like a huge waste of money and time to me. More importantly, it leaves a ton of students in failing schools and at a tremendous disadvantage.

"No amount of money and no mandate is going to fix the Bridgeport schools"? That is quite a statement. I supposed we might as well all give up then.

We heard in the news this week, that some regulation of the 'No child left behind' laws are being lifted from many states. This is a good step forward. While its intention may have been good, it did not work.

There is a lot of discussion on education reform right now, that is supporting the idea of localizing control of education. It makes sense for local communites to have the ability and control to customize their programs to fit their students needs. Bridgeport is now being given the opportunity to pilot some new strategies, as are other communities. If I am interpreting Kristy correctly, she is supporting giving more local control to schools and teachers. Education strategies used in Trumbull can not\should not be the same as strategies used in Bridgeport, if the goal is effective teaching. Yet no child left behind and other requirements are forcing us to teach and measure innercity students the same as suburban students. Even when it comes to issues like bullying or drug education, local schools and teachers should have a better understanding of their communities needs and where to focus funding, than on a state or national level.

I would be interested in knowing if everyone here agrees on more local control of education.

To me that is the important question. I don't think we can productively brainstorm solutions or identify specific issues for Bridgeport on this blog, but does everyone agree that if education control were more local, our education would likely be more customized to our needs, and hence more successful?

"Government intervention, in the form of the State Dept of Education, has not improved education at all." Interesting statement.

Joan, but you can not set the same curriculum for Trumbull as Bridgeport.

I can tell you first hand it is NOT possible.

We have had children from various schools including Bridgport come to the Trumbull Nature & Arts center for science curriculum-driven field trips.

We could not teach the Bridgeport students in the same manner or the same curriculum....at all. The first time they visited we had to literally throw the designed curriculum out the door, and improvise. Did they learn, something valuable, yes, but the lessons were very different than what we taught the Trumbull or Fairfield students.

This is my point about setting national requirements, testing, and methods of teaching.

Joan

Have you ever been involved in Bridgeport education, or spoken to Bridgeport teachers?

It is not as simple as supplying superior teachers. There are many other factors in the equation, when you are educating inner-city students. You can not set the 'same exact' curriculum and expect it to be as successful as it would be in Trumbull or Fairfield.
By reforming, customizing, and localizing the way we approach education, we can better identify problem areas within a community, and be more successful in educating these children to their full potential. If we continue to insist on every child learning by using the same 'exact' curriculum, and method of teaching, across the country, and use the same methodology of measurement, I think we will once again fail.

Joan, I guess if you are saying you want every child for example, to know the difference between a mammal and an amphibian, I will agree. But, I do not agree that all schools should use the same teaching tools, in the same time frame, or necessarily taught this by using the same method...or tested what they know, using the same measurement tools across the board.

Sorry Joan, your comment came through to my iPad, after I posted mine.
Why would I deliberately misunderstand?, that is an odd thing to say.
I think we actually agree on some of the basics, I think you just speak in a different language than I do.

Tricia,
I agree that I think it is odd that they are not just rethinking the 'no child left behind ' laws, altogether.

I didn't hear the details, but why are they keeping it some states, and waiving it others? Does anyone know?

I think its a huge mistake to outsource the raising of your child to the school system. Does anyone really think the average teacher has a greater interest in a child then the parent. This 'village; thing applies to broken parents who cannot afford the emotional and financial responsibility inherent to parenthood. Somehow, the liberal left decided its a great model for ALL children. Parents must put in the time and effort to raise and educate their children so they are prepared to join our society as productive, self reliant citizens...not nanny state wimps destined to live off someone else's labors.

The below is a perfect example of Amo's comment about the "liberal left" deciding it knows better than parents how to raise children, assigning unelected bureaucrats and "inspectors" to second guess the parents!:

"A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

"The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was ^^inspecting all lunch boxes^^ in her More at Four classroom that day.

"The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home. "...

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=8762

Don't be fooled. They want your child to grow up dependent on the government...its part of a long tem plan to turn this country into a socialist state...goodbye Constitution and the greatest social experiment ever conceived. We voted in these people and we are now paying the price.

don't be fool...of course we want our children to be raised by corporate hacks...and brilliant leaders like you folks vote for.....fantastic! Probus, you are an anarcocommie fascsizzle

Amo, I'll call you Probus...a great emperor from the 3rd century.....he took it like a man!

Joan--Truth has no Agenda!

Excuse me??? "right-wing publication"??

Facts are facts!!

Also, Joan--you must not be a parent, or it is strange that you seemingly have no concerns about state agencies interfering unduly with parental rights and responsibilities.

Most people see state inspectors ("agents") "inspecting all lunch boxes" as a gross overreach! Are you saying you have no problem with this?

So louis, do you have anything intelligent to say or are you a by-product of the socialist state?

I am a by-roduct of your socialist state. Look, Claire Luce Booth, I think called you folks dumb farmers, well she was probably a CIA-Time Magazine invention. I don't like to call the people, by nature stupid, even if that is what you are, not my style. I certainly don't claim to speak any greater intelligence than you Probus, but certainly your choice in leaders is...well..socialist inspired...

Please let me know if you are a woman, Amo........I wouldn't want to offend your sensibilities by telling you to take it like a man, if you indeed are not. Time to run to Monroe and pick up some amo, farmers!

Imagine something like lunchbox inspections taking place in North Carolina. Republican North Carolina. States rights-loving, former member of the Confederate States of America North Carolina. I wonder how many "liberal left" are running around in North Carolina? Apparently, there are still a few remaining!

I'm trying to wrap my head around a lunch lady (armed with a chicken nugget) as an "Agent of the State".

Joan -- you know you've hit a nerve when Tricia questions your parenting, welcome to the club.

All of you should turn off your computers and go think about what it means to set a good example for our community and children. Enough with the acrimony. We should have a bullying program for the adults in town too!

Bridgeport's Magnet schools are actually pretty good. Third grade reading scores are better than Trumbulls among others. Of course the other neighborhood schools are very weak.

And Louis, my momma told me to never argue with a fool, so you are now on your own.

Good one Amo!

Perhaps we should cut louis some slack, because he does at least recognize that his inherited Democrat party has 'left him.'

In the midst of his confused gibberish, at 11:35 a.m. today he actually posted some 'sense':

..." Lunchbox inspections, frisking students, yet while everyone is deep in everyone else's business, the basics of democracy and western civilization are not being thought of. ...Teach them to think for themselves, have them memorise the essentials, why not recite the Gettysburg address? Instead we still speak of midnight basketball, everyone raising a kid, who is none of your business."

Every child should be required to memorize and recite the Constitution and it's amendments, The Bill of Rights, The Federalist Papers, The Gettysburg Address, Genesis, Fountainhead, and the Monroe Doctrine in order to graduate from grade school...but you know what...the leftists running our schools will never co-operate...they would prefer to inspect lunch boxes, fear bullies and berate capitalism as some kind of sin (that somehow, mysteriously, pays their salaries. Ha

Amo, the "leftists" don't want to berate capitalism. They just don't want Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Mitt Romney, among others, to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. And they point out the incontrovertible truth that since the inception of the Reagan/Bush Republican tax policies about 30 years ago, the disparity between the rich and everyone else has grown disproportionately, as has the federal deficits. The "leftists" will also point out the abject hypocrisy of those on the right, who somehow want to cast the Republicans as the party of fiscal responsibility. Ironically, one of the most intrusive and expensive federal mandates to ever be made law was passed by President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress-No Child Left Behind. Then Bush and the Republicans gave us Medicare Part D without finding a way to pay for it. And two wars without finding a way to pay for them, along with a massive new federal agency with tens of thousands of new employees. That dreaded EPA that the arch conservatives want to get rid of is a product of President Nixon, and the Department of Education was elevated to cabinet level Department (as part of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare) by Eisenhower in 1953. I would have more respect or the Tea Partiers and I would actually say very little about their positions if they would just stop blaming the Democrats for everything and acknowledge that the GOP has been just as culpable for the challenges they identify.

Well I don't know if The Fountainhead should be required reading but it happens to be my favorite book! Being an individual and not conforming for sake of conforming - not a bad message for our young people!

Hey, what is wrong with having children read books that will help create a mindset eager to become a productive citizen? Would you prefer having them read books that teach them how to game and live off society as freeloading socialists?

Didn't we fight a few hot and cold wars to keep socialism at bay? Your granddaddy must be spinning!

I believe in God, and I go to church each and every Sunday. However, I realize that the original Pledge of Allegiance did not have "under God" inserted into it until the 1950's. Yes, you are absolutely right. I believe in social justice. I went to a meeting tonight to discuss helping build and orphanage and a school in one of the poorest parts of Haiti, and I hope to go there for a week in late office and I will do my best to help in anyway I can. I would be thrilled if we could put all political differences aside and you would support such a worthy endeavor, and I promise I won't try to convince you to vote for President Obama this November.

Wow, late August, not late office. Automatic speller gone wild.

Bill Holden, the article says it was a state employee....and no Kristy, I think that parents should be able to pack a lunch like that....but I also know that a lot of kids have no lunch at all provided for them from home, or something completely lacking in nutrition. Thank goodness we have nutritious meals in our schools.

Tricia, those same founding fathers that you are talking about that should have put more references to God in the Constitution....well, they didn't. What those men did, though, was state that free men should be counted as one and all others as 3/5's of one man. They allowed slavery, and didn't give women the right to vote, something they didn't get until 1920. Thank goodness that our society continues to evolve. If it didn't, the Church would be condemning folks who said the earth wasn't flat, Southern farmers would still be owning slaves, and you wouldn't even have the right to vote. All of those changes brought to you by Progressives (you're welcome).

And I don't mean to throw the Founders under the bus, but when they said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I wonder why these Divinely inspired men chose to say ALL men, when they really meant SOME men....certainly not the slaves the owned, who enjoyed neither liberty nor the pursuit of happiness.

I'm not a fan of this argument Tom. It's the same thinking that made a bunch of people want to revise Huck Finn. It's like revisionist history. Times change and society evolves. As a woman, I'm obviously not thrilled that I was not included in the "all", or the countless others, including the slaves. It was a different time - it's like suggesing that Founding Fathers should have specifically mentioned gay people - The Declaration of Independence was written in the context of those times. Do I believe that slaves should have been included in the "all" - of course - I wish women had been too but the truth, whether we like it or not, is that women were not considered equal to men in 1776. Later, the framers wrote the Consitution in the context of similar times and so over the course of our country's history, it has been the job of our representatives to correct and amend based upon society's changes. I think it's unfair to criticize the Founding Fathers or the Framers as though they should have had a crystal ball to predict the changes in society that would take place over the next few hundred years.

Back in the day, we gave money to our local churches and charities and they used the money to help the poor in our town. Everyone knew where the money was going and very little was used by the charities to pay for their services. The people who received the help were thankful. I remember seeing a boy a few years younger than I wearing my old coat. I was quietly proud to help out.
Now, the government tries to intrude in the process. They think they know how to collect money (obscene taxes) and where and how to spend it. In the process, they take their cut for government employee wages, pensions, health care, barbershops etc. No one really knows how much is distributed; but we do know it is frequently given to agencies (like Acorn) that support the political (as opposed to charitable) process. The government has no constitutional right or mandate to do this. Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome.

What Tom is doing as a volunteer and what I do as a volunteer in a related program is the right thing to do.

Pam, on the subject of "more local control of education," did you see that Malloy is applying for a waiver from NCLB?

There is an article about it in Wilton's Patch:

http://wilton.patch.com/articles/connecticut-applies-for-nclb-waiver-3251145d

Hi Tricia,
I did hear that from someone, but thanks for the article link. I think this is a step in the right direction.

I guess I don't understand why they don't just revise the law, rather than make all the states individually apply for waivers? Is it because the process to change it, would take more time than applying for waivers? Or are individual states required to apply for waivers for specific regulations within the law? In other words will CT be exempt from the law in total, or only parts of it? Are there discussions about changing the NCLB regulations, rather than just exempting parts of it, to states that apply?

Are there any states that actually see the law as beneficial to their schools? (e.g. they are receiving substantial extra funding because of the law)

Tricia
No one wants to admit they made a mistake. But when they created this education initiative that is measured, there is no denying it's failure. NCLB, is a measured, failed program.

I agree that more local control of education is the answer.