"Parental Rights in Education" bill

Post Reply New Topic

^ That looks like entitlement problems.

"Those who could afford" most likely just payed someone instead of hiring a volunteer, so you didn't encounter them.

That would be an extremely neglectful parent if the parent left the childcare for the tutor.

Most parents actually wouldn't like it if the tutor did more than tutor their children.

From this one statement alone, it seems safe to assume that you have never been a tutor, paid or not.

It always seemed to me more like the parents were abdicating their own responsibilities by "dumping" their children (and their children's problems) onto me so that the parents would not have to take any blame for their children's poor grades."Hired" implies being paid for effort.  I never did it for the money, but to give something back to the community.  Judging by how abusive some parents were toward unpaid volunteer tutors, I assume that they were much more abusive to paid teachers.

Yes....I have been a tutor. Don't make assumptions.

I have been a paid tutor and registered none of the abusive behaviors Fnord described... well, different times, different places.

In my tutoring experiences, I have found that parents really don't want you to get into their personal lives.

Ah, I see . . . certainly, parents do not want anyone "getting into" their personal lives (especially when there is evidence their children are being abused at home).  However, that has nothing to do with parents wanting to "get into" the professional lives of their children's teachers and tutors.

When their children excel, parents tend to take all the credit.

When their children fail, however, parents tend to dump all the blame on teachers, tutors, school administrators, coaches, police, politicians, atheists . . . everyone except themselves.

THAT has been my experience.

Of course, there are parents like that. And this affects their kids adversely.

But I didn't run into this sort of thing when I was tutoring children. Usually, I tutored within ethnicities who have a decent admiration for teachers and for authority in general.

I guess this might be a matter of people having different experiences in similar things.

I think most people would object to teachers not being able to mention same-sex relationships.

Obviously nobody wants young kids to be taught how to have sex but let’s face it, that’s not what the bill is targeting. It’s targeting basic “some people have two daddies or two mommies, and that’s OK”, or basic education about gender identity.

We had a similar law in the UK, called Section 28 (because it was part of a longer Local Government Act). It was chilling and basically led to a whole generation not being taught that homophobia is wrong.

Could you spell that out to me?

Mandates of any type create lawsuit and firing traps for teachers. The language is rarely very clear, and even when the language is clear, perfectly innocent and unintended actions can fall onto the wrong side of the law. In many ways it feels like the laws are designed to strike fear into the teachers so that they will roll over and act like slaves to any parent who makes demands of them, and also more broadly to send a message to society about what the politicians think societal values should look like.

In public school, teachers don't and should not work for parents. They work for society as a whole. Good teachers place their first level of loyalty to the students they are working with, even when that means they have to go outside of the curriculum they are hired to teach. I've seen teachers go out of their own pockets to give students lunch money, to give students safe after school space when their home life is toxic, and so on. Parents HAVE EXTENSIVE RIGHTS already, and get a stack of papers every year telling them what those rights are. Some teachers do have personal agendas, but the issues that creates can always be dealt with from within existing law. So when states try to add more laws and mandates, suspicion is always warranted.



Yes, yes, and thanks for the information on section 28. I think the goal is to allow prejudiced messaging (from society, or politicians, or parents) to children with no one ever allowing the children to see any message that would contradict such prejudice. That means the child with two mommies will be bullied and teased until her family break ups. That means the girl who acts like a boy will be bullied and teased until she changes her presentation. The only reason teachers have turned to topics of sexuality and gender is because they've seen the teasing and heard the questions. If they can't address it, that teasing will go unchecked. These laws aren't protecting children; they are hurting children who don't fit the box.

You are 100% correct. Not ALL parents, of course. But far, far too many.

A likely unpopular view but since human relations and sexual studies are already taught to highschool students then why is it wrong for young people to additionally know that other forms of sexuality exists?

If parents are struggling to explain the "birds and the bees" to their kids then at least schools can take on this role provided the teachers are properly trained to communicate these "normal" facts of life to their children.

Looks the "prudes" are cancelling teachers over the stupidest things. Wowsers running amok over the education system.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/15/us/m ... index.html

How old are the children in these sexual studies groups?



Is this really a problem these days with a much more open society than it was 50 years ago?