Most of us have heard the phrase, 'it takes a village to raise a child'. The topic raises many questions as to where responsibility lies in teaching our children how to be caring, productive, responsible members of our community. Clearly everyone who interacts with our children within our community has some impact on influencing our children's morals, thoughts and behavior. A kind senior citizen at the library might help your child reach a book on a shelf, the local baker may hand them a free cookie, a park ranger might stop them in the park and point out a snapping turtle in the road and pick it up and move it, or a policeman might stop your child and tell them to put on their helmet while riding their bike. All of these people in our community will collectively influence our children, who they become, who they admire, trust and want to emulate. The schools clearly take on a significant role in our children's development, but is too much responsibility being forced their way? New government mandates, and optional programs that fall under the 'loco parentis' program, bring this question to the forefront. Who is ultimately responsible for teaching and developing a child's moral compass? Should teachers be responsible for instilling values, as well as a caldron full of math, reading and science skills? What exactly is the parents role in all of this now? Is our only responsibility now, to get them dressed, feed them breakfast, and put them on the bus? Are costly government mandates now installing regulations on how to raise our children, because they don't think we are capable of teaching right from wrong? Are parents too willing to hand over the reins, because they are busy and overwhelmed with juggling work, while making sure their children make their baseball practice, flute lesson, and playdate, before coming home to 2 hours of homework? Yes, a community has a great deal of influence over our children's values, but shouldnt a parent be the compass when it comes to instilling morals?
Does it take a Village?
The topic raises many questions as to where the responsibility lies in directing our children's moral compass.
Boards
All Boards »
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."
I never could memorize anything, vocab, spelling, the periodic table; I still can't. I never knew more than a few phone numbers until I got a cell phone. I did manage a 3.1 gpa for a bachelor's in engineering, so I can't be a complete fool. So, I can't support your idea of requiring memorization and recital. Those requirements were nothing but bad grades, and humiliation, for me. Discussion, debate, critical thinking and similar approaches on teaching those documents I would certainly support. Well, not The Fountainhead, and the book of Genesis? Am I misunderstanding? Curious as to why you want that in here.
I hope you don't think it's okay that this school took away this child's lunch. It was a turkey and chees sandwich, a piece of fruit and potato chips. The school gave this child chicken nuggets. I hope you're not defending this particular village of idiots.
Didn't we fight a few hot and cold wars to keep socialism at bay? Your granddaddy must be spinning!
Tom is a social liberal who cannot see (or won't admit) the failings of statism. Instead of the "Pledge of Allegiance" to our country, which I still believe (and recited in school), in which we support "One nation under GOD, with Liberty and Justice for all"--Tom seems to buy into the un-Constitutional notion of "social justice."
Here is one article that will give you the truth that you claim to hold so dear. I have more in case you're interested. http://www.thetimesnews.com/articles/lunch-52587-barnes-child.html Richard, I am proud to be a member of your club!
And, whoever decided that chicken nuggets are healthier than a turkey and cheese sandwich should return to their village of idiots and never return.
Of course I knew that "under God" was added to the Pledge, but belonged there all along, according to the founding principles, which recognize that our "unalienable rights" and liberties come from GOD, NOT government! Have you forgotten, Tom, that "In God we Trust" is our national motto and has been on our coinage since 1864? The national anthem, written in 1814, says "and this be our Motto, in God is our Trust." Charity, "the pure love of Christ," is an entirely different thing than "social justice," which is PBO and the other statists' specious attempt to 'guilt' people into accepting their un-Constitutional confiscation of as much as they want to take of the "fruits of the labors" of the MAKERS, to "redistribute" them to the TAKERS!! Helping people in Haiti is wonderful and commendable! However, you are attempting to conflate two very different things. "Charity" is done by PEOPLE, neighbors, friends, church and synagogue members, etc. The government does NOT do "charity," and Obama actually wants to hurt true works of charity, by taking away the tax exemption for it.
It's ironic that those who are viewed as progressive more than 90 years ago were concerned with individual liberty, not a bigger more powerful government.
Why are you and others defending this? State employees inspected (the article says "examined") lunch boxes and took away a child's healthy lunch because they did not think it was healthy enough- do you not understand what is inherently wrong with this course of action? And, to make matters worse, if that's possible, they replaced the healthy lunch with chicken nuggets, known to any reasonably intelligent person as one of the most unhealthy foods we can put in our bodies. Are you seriously saying that it's okay this happened? What's the difference between this story and inspectors knocking on your door to see what's in your refridgerator, I'm sure you'd feel differently.
It is well acknowledged by the experts that there would ^^never have been a UNION of the colonies into a nation^^ if the Founders had insisted upon ending slavery at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Additionally, beside Bill's and Kristy's points, counting a slave in the way you want--at that time--would have given the slave OWNERS of the southern states undue voting and VETO power over other states! The so-called 3/5 rule was for voting rights for their owners! Would you rather the slave owners have had an additional vote for every slave they owned? Tom, I think you need to find a new church--with preaching on Faith, Hope & Charity (not "social justice"), Repentance and "Forgiveness," so you can overcome your bitterness over past mistakes, even made by GWB (whom you seem to despise, along with "the tea party"). Seriously, Tom, if your tone in these posts is at all reflective of your life--I am sorry to have to say this--but it seems that you are very embittered, rather than succeeding in "the pursuit of happiness." I sincerely hope that will change for you very soon.
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.
There is an article about it in Wilton's Patch: http://wilton.patch.com/articles/connecticut-applies-for-nclb-waiver-3251145d
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)
That quote is from a great article posted today: http://papundits.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/a-failing-grade-for-americas-educational-system/ Here are a couple of other excerpts, but I recommend reading the entirety. ..."four-part series on “The Subversion of Education in America” and more than a decade later not much has improved. The causes are easily identified. One is federal control and the other is the National Education Association (NEA) which, despite its name, is a union." "What the federal government does is redistribute money and at a time when it is broke the notion of spending billions it does not have begs the question of who gets to waste it." It has been known for decades that schools in highly segregated, low-income, urban areas; those with more than half of their students representing African-American and Latino populations are the ones in trouble. Their problems are, as often as not, related to cultural attitudes and language difficulties. The student’s problems begin in their homes and transfer into the classrooms."... ...
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.