RSS Feed

‘Parent Tribal Memory’ Category

  1. “Duty” Trumps “rights”

    February 21, 2014 by Tunya

    Erosion, usurpation, of parent rights has been going on a long time.  From public school sytems, from government agencies, from voluntary organizations, and especially from increasing literature challenging parental primacy in education.  And to be especially noted, from universities and faculties of education, sociology, anthropoilogy, ethnography, eco-psychology, political science, etc.

     

    Biologically, practicaly every creature on this EARTH has been endowed with an instinctual sense to bring their YOUNG to a state of SELF-SUFFICIENCY. 

    This is why the matter of DUTY trumping RIGHTS is important to uinderstand.

     

    Category Education Reform, Obstacles, Parent Tribal Memory | Tags: | No Comments

  2. Family Right to Education Choice #1

    February 20, 2014 by Tunya

    For a copy of Parent Rights in the Education of Their Children see:  http://genuine-education-reform-today.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/PARENT_RIGHTS.pdf
     
    The rights compiled here are those that generally apply in most democratic countries. They have been gathered from sources in Canada, United States, England, and Australia. Some of these rights are self-evident, some are inscribed in law. Others are simply standards which parents have grown to expect when good educational practice is followed.
     
    1. THE RIGHT TO CHOICE
     

    “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948)

     
    This means, that while parents have a duty to see that their children are educated to a reasonable level of self-sufficiency and citizenship, they can choose how this is to be accomplished: public, private or church schools, tutoring, correspondence courses, home study, or other styles. If a style other than a public school is chosen and the parents are challenged, the onus is generally on the state to demonstrate that the child is not being educated at a level equal to his peers in a public school. The mandate of the public schools is to make available to all children in the community an education which is free, appropriate and equal. Parents have a right to choose and expect at least that minimum for their child.
     
    Added notes, Jeb 20, 2014
    Those words above were written in 1975 when a group of parents sat down to gather and codify parents rights.  Much os what was written then undoubtedly apples today — with revisions or additions necessary to meet current times, especially concerning the ubiquitous presence of technology.
     
    HOWEVER:  On this topic of choice and parents as consumers/ clients, customers of the education system, I am ever watchful that some are trying to recast parental primary role into a more incidental support role.  Progressives generally quote the UN Rights of the Child and forget the UN Declaration of Human Rights when talking about children.
     
    Other progressives want to define "students" as the customers, and teachers as "oin loco parentis.
     
    Still others insist that the learners are "students and teachers" together.
     
    All these attempts at watering down the primary family responsibility in education need watching and challenging. 
     

    Category GOOD NEWS, Parent Tribal Memory | Tags: | No Comments

  3. Maybe Going To Court Is The Only Way

    February 19, 2014 by Tunya

    [This is the comment I made, as referred to in the previous post]

    Maybe Going To Court Is The Only Way

    Parents have no clout when it comes to public education decisions. The Common Core standards and 21st Century Learning (Canada) initiatives are being rammed down our throats. There are similar initiatives in other parts of the globe.

    What is astonishing is the unusual agreement between traditional enemies in the system — the ed establishment and the teacher unions. What is evident is that the unions are getting on board because while centralized “standards” may prevail, the choice of materials is being left to the “autonomy” of local teachers or individual schools.

    Thus, the embedding of social justice, critical thinking and emancipatory lessons by teachers in their classrooms will proceed, maybe slowly, but progressive teachers will be emboldened as they go along. And, let’s not forget, critical thinking is no longer the logical, commonsense stuff we might expect. No, it is critical pedagogy, critical Marxist theory, and you’re right, unprepared teachers will be “grabbing” at what’s nearest and handiest. Left-leaning materials will be readily available.

    If we seriously believe that our children and grandchildren deserve both sides presented in controversial content we might need to go to court.

    In England when Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, was challenged by some parents no-one listened until a court case ruled otherwise. There is a UK law, Sec 406 of the School Act, which forbids the promotion of partisan political views in teaching.

    The Judge (2007) did not forbid the showing of the film, but being cognizant of students as a captive audience under the auspices of the School Act his legal guidelines include:
    – It is understood the film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument
    – If teachers do not make this clear they are in breach of the Section and guilty of political indoctrination
    – Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of students when the film is shown.

    I have read blog comments from British students visiting America saying how shocked they are when this film was shown to US students without these guidelines.

    Hopefully, this story might encourage helpless parents to mount legal challenges to indoctrination in public schools.

    Category Obstacles, Parent Tribal Memory | Tags: | 1 Comment

  4. Open Letter to Minister of Education

    February 19, 2014 by Tunya

    Open Letter To Peter Fassbender, Minister of Education, BC — November 08, 2013


    Apparently there is consultation going on concerning some “new” curriculum in our public schools in BC. I saw an item about this in the Vancouver Sun, but the story ended: “The Ministry of Education was not available for comment by press time.” (Oct 23)

    Then an opinion piece by an educator/author (Zwaagstra) from Manitoba complained about the “edu-babble” in these consultation papers, Sun Nov 05. BTW, this story went international so I was able to read it twice. But I, as a member of the public and as a grandparent with grandkids in the education stream in BC, still am not being consulted or invited to do so. An educator from Manitoba is involved, however.

    In contrast, regarding Finance and Government Services, the BC government did buy advertising to invite input — to which I did respond.

    Today (Nov 08) a letter to the editor (Sun) from a BC teacher (Moser) was published that defends the new curriculum. 

    From what I am gleaning, there is to be a full 180-degree reversal of what we “old-timers” were used to. From an even earlier story decrying “edu-babble” in teacher training (Sun, Oct 12) we learn that a teacher is to become a “facilitator” of learning and will be “a guide on the side rather than a sage on the stage.”

    All this worries me very much. Looks like we are going into uncharted waters into something experimental, confusing, and maybe even dangerous.

    I am very, very worried because I have been following the common core discussions in the US. It seems the education systems there are also to have this shift, without the consent of large populations of people who are seriously questioning two things — the rather coercive processes and the intended outcomes. Concerns range from teachers being unprepared to indoctrination of students.

    Since I closely follow issues about school indoctrination I recently wrote a comment to an American blog:

    http://www.educationviews.org/public-school-teacher-why-is-my-daughters-fourth-grade-class-studying-pro-union-common-core-material/comment-page-1/#comment-159245

    In the “olden days” parents used to complain about “mystification” and jargon in education and that they felt left out of discussions because they were made to feel foolish and inadequate. I think that the “edu-babble” concerns that have been emerging lately are testimony to the same, probably intended (?), result. Gagging people to refrain from participating in important societal discussions is similar to voter suppression in democratic elections. 

    There was but one comment to the Zwaagstra online story so far, asking the simple question: “Why is the ministry watering down the curriculum? Is it the result of the lobbying of a vocal minority?”

    Suspicions are indeed aroused when there is so little transparency in this matter. Is it really some plan for constructing one international worldview as voiced by some American critics? And, why is it such an either/or issue? What if teachers and parents and public want more choices than a 100% Zwaagstra or 100% Moser philosophy imposed on them? And why the stealthy imposition anyway? What is there to hide? When and how can we get involved?

    Category Education Reform, Obstacles, Parent Tribal Memory | Tags: | No Comments

  5. Is Phonics Education Malpractice ?

    February 18, 2014 by Tunya

    Phonics As Education Malpractice – Where Did This Belief Come From?

    Surely, everyone would agree that being able to read is key to living a full and useful life. After following the “Reading Wars” issue, I’m still not clear why some teachers resist using phonics as part of their range of approaches to teaching reading. Why is phonics — a proven approach — treated as “malpractice”?  Could it be

    §         teacher training bias?

    §         lack of training in phonics approaches?

    §       political ideological agenda?

    §         deliberate dumbing down?

    §         evidence-based research?

    §         conflicting literacy theories?

    §        Other

    Surely love of reading has to be grounded on the ability to read. To me it verges on professional misconduct for a teacher to deliberately avoid a method that might do the trick for that percentage of students who are not being reached by today’s practices.  Couldn’t parents, on behalf of their affected child, sue because of a denial or withholding of services?

    So, Bruce, are there articles or books where we can find why there is this resistance? This resistance itself needs to be dealt with?  Where do we start?  Is there any good news on this front?

    This decades-long “Reading War” is unfinished business and needs to be settled.  We’ve got urgent challenges ahead with Data Wars lurking.  We can’t afford to have mindless, illiterate people trying to make proper decisions in the 21stCentury.

    Category Education Reform, Opinions in media, Parent Tribal Memory | Tags: | No Comments

Older Entries
Newer Entries