[vegascowboy]

Just love this one.

One more shining example of the liberal, unionized public education system.

During a Michigan House Education Committee hearing earlier this month, Debbie Squires, director of the Michigan Elementary and Middle Schools Principals Association, told members that while parents may have have the best intentions, they may not know what‘s best for their children’s education.

“[Educators] are the people who know best about how to serve children, that’s not necessarily true of an individual resident,” Squires said. “I‘m not saying they don’t want the best for their children, but they may not know what actually is best from an education standpoint.”

That prompted a retort from Chairman Thomas McMillin: “Wow, parents don‘t know what’s best for their child…”

Squires responded by saying again that parents might want what’s best for their children, but might not have the capability to know.

Read more here.

Given, there are parents out there who probably couldn't point out the difference between chalk and a chalkboard, but to suggest that parents don't know what's best for their own child's education and what should or should not be taught is ridiculous to me.

A Liberal's Guide to What Parents Don't Know

1. how their child should be educated and what they should be learning in the classroom
2. what their child should or should not eat
3. how much exercise their child should get

Care to add to the list?

How about giving parents the benefit of the doubt that they might not, in fact, but complete morons and that they might, in fact, actually know what's best for their own children?

[mighty_duck]

Originally Posted by vegascowboy

Given, there are parents out there who probably couldn't point out the difference between chalk and a chalkboard, but to suggest that parents don't know what's best for their own child's education and what should or should not be taught is ridiculous to me.

Except for saying it's ridiculous, you aren't making much of an argument.

Some parents are idiots, and don't know what's good for their own child. That's all that was said in your quote. You seem to agree with that, but don't much like the implications...

[vegascowboy]

The implications with which I do not agree are those that contend that parents cannot or should not be allowed to parent because someone else (government, public school system, fill in the blank) knows better.

While I've pointed out that there are parents who do not have a clue, I think the vast majority of them do know what's best for their own children and should be allowed to...oh, I don't know...parent.

Look at the bigger picture. There is a growing trend in this nation on the part of government and others to plant themselves firmly in the middle of our kitchen table and dictate what we should or should not do with regard to parenting.

I realize that the example in the OP isn't the forest. It is simply one tree in a large forest of government invasion.

[annabenedetti]

Originally Posted by vegascowboy

Look at the bigger picture. There is a growing trend in this nation on the part of government and others to plant themselves firmly in the middle of our kitchen table and dictate what we should or should not do with regard to parenting.

Agree 100%, VC.

Here's another in a long line:

The Carolina Journal reports on this thrill-packed adventure of the Food Police:
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.

Read more:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49543

[1PeaceMaker]

Originally Posted by annabenedetti

Agree 100%, VC.

Here's another in a long line:

The Carolina Journal reports on this thrill-packed adventure of the Food Police:
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.

Read more:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49543

In my honest opinion, the kid needs more protein than the turkey and cheese. But who is the state to feed a child like that without even consulting the parent?

They do not know the child's needs like the parent does. Chances are, meddling will eventually be found to have caused more harm than help.

[The Horn]

No, I don't want the state to take children away from their parents,unless they abuse or neglect them. I'm just appalled by the way so many fundamentalist and evangelical parents brainwash and indoctrinate their children.
When I went to public schools on Long Island in the 60s, there was no "indoctrination" of any kind. Nobody told us kids anything about what our religious beliefs should or should not be. Nobody pried into our private lives .
Homosexuality was not even an issue back then. It just wasn't discussed. No one, either kids or teachers, even seemed interested in this matter.
We all just minded our business and kept our religious beliefs,or lack of them, to ourselves. Of course, some of the kids I went to school with and the teachers I had were gay. But I wasn't interested in what they did in private. I wasn;t brought up by my parents to be obsessed with what other people did in private .
There was no school prayer. But this wasn't a problem. Idiot evangelicals today claim that the removal of prayer from schools has led to a breakdown of morality in society and to schools filled with violence and drugs, sexual promiscuity etc. Poppycock !
These problems happened for completely different reasons.
The schools I went to were perfectly orderly places .

[mighty_duck]

Originally Posted by vegascowboy

The implications with which I do not agree are those that contend that parents cannot or should not be allowed to parent because someone else (government, public school system, fill in the blank) knows better.

But the implication weren't spelled out. Indeed, there are many ways to "fix" this problem, or we can decide that all of the cures are worse than the original disease, and not do anything.

Recognizing facts should be first:
Some parents don't know what is best for their children.

Now we should ask:
"What, if anything, should be done about it?"

[ebenz47037]

Originally Posted by mighty_duck

But the implication weren't spelled out. Indeed, there are many ways to "fix" this problem, or we can decide that all of the cures are worse than the original disease, and not do anything.

Recognizing facts should be first:
Some parents don't know what is best for their children.

Now we should ask:
"What, if anything, should be done about it?"

But, the reason this "professional educator" said that parents shouldn't have a say in what school their children go to is because she's afraid that public schools will lose funding because parents are choosing to enroll their children in private schools or to home school them. Public schools get paid for the bodies on their roles.

But, if parents aren't qualified to choose what's best for their children's educations, why stop there? Why are parents given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to raising their children up until school age (five years old in most states)?

[vegascowboy]

Originally Posted by mighty_duck

But the implication weren't spelled out. Indeed, there are many ways to "fix" this problem, or we can decide that all of the cures are worse than the original disease, and not do anything.

Recognizing facts should be first:
Some parents don't know what is best for their children.

Now we should ask:
"What, if anything, should be done about it?"

You think that the primary concern should be the fact that some parents are lousy at parenting rather than the fact that many believe that no parents are capable of parenting?

It seems to me that the problem is to convince them parents, who have the biggest vested interest in their own children, shouldn't have their right to parent removed from them little by little.

[Rusha]

Um ... the parents.

[Jukia]

Originally Posted by vegascowboy

The implications with which I do not agree are those that contend that parents cannot or should not be allowed to parent because someone else (government, public school system, fill in the blank) knows better.

While I've pointed out that there are parents who do not have a clue, I think the vast majority of them do know what's best for their own children and should be allowed to...oh, I don't know...parent.

Look at the bigger picture. There is a growing trend in this nation on the part of government and others to plant themselves firmly in the middle of our kitchen table and dictate what we should or should not do with regard to parenting.

I realize that the example in the OP isn't the forest. It is simply one tree in a large forest of government invasion.

Or to paraphrase Rick the Holy, "Keep the government out of the kitchen but let it check the bedroom."

[BillyBob]

Originally Posted by mighty_duck

Some parents are idiots, and don't know what's good for their own child.

Around here we call them 'libs'. [and a few other things]

[kmoney]

It seems that the issue wasn't about curriculum but about what type of school to choose.

Here are Squires comments, which came during a discussion about a new school choice program that would allow more parents to send their kids to charter schools, especially those online:

And that had another link. here

The quality of the cyber and charter schools is being questioned.

Educators, including the state Board of Education, have asked that lawmakers not allow more of the schools to open until several years of academic data is accumulated to determine if the schools are effective.

Who is best able to determine if cyber schools are providing a good education? How is that determination made?

[1PeaceMaker]

Originally Posted by mighty_duck

Except for saying it's ridiculous, you aren't making much of an argument.

Some parents are idiots, and don't know what's good for their own child. That's all that was said in your quote. You seem to agree with that, but don't much like the implications...

Given that homeschoolers are having such success with their children and given the fact that some children absolutely loath and fear school from past experiences, we would lose something really important as a nation by turning into Germany.

[woopah]

why whould a parent who couldn't tell the difference between a chalk and the chalkboard know what is best for their child better than a highly qualified and experience teacher? whilst it should be the parents decision to decide what school their child attends I would say that the advice of professionals can be highly useful