Because NCLB isn’t intrusive enough
Posted
September 22, 2006 at
11:35 am by
Prescott
Here’s the latest piece of news that set off my Libertarian Bat Phone™: Nevada, the state known worldwide for its conservativeness, high moral standards, and overall regard for its citizens, pushed a law through its legislature requiring Nevada school districts to send home the “Educational Involvement Accord” with all of its students. The EIA is a contract that parents must sign, pledging “active involvement” in their child’s education, and that they will encourage their children to read, attend school, complete their homework, and cut back on TV and video games. The big kicker is that they must also promise to volunteer a minimum of 5 hours per year at school or a school-sponsored event.
While no one would argue that the above recommendations are worthwhile, and a goal we should all strive for, taking it beyond suggestion and signing it into law is going too far. A parent that takes no interest in whether or not their son skips school or if their daughter studied for that Algebra final is a shitty parent, to be sure, but they have the right to be a shitty parent. If I choose to allow my kid to flunk out of school, then my family has to deal with the guilt and the consequences. Every child has a human right to a quality primary education, but that doesn’t mean they should be forced to take full advantage of it. It’s extremely insulting to us that actually *do* give a rat’s ass — I have no one to answer to about my children other than myself, period. Being required to volunteer at the school feels less like volunteering and more like being sentenced to community service. To solve the problems within our school districts, we need *less* government interference in education, not more. Is it any wonder that private schools are better than public, while operating at the same — and often less — cost per student?
What’s next, government appointed guardians who keep a log of my children’s fruit and vegetable intake? Maybe transponders installed in our televisions and computers so schools can monitor our kids’ off-campus activities? Oh, right…
Tags: civil-liberties, Education, educational-involvement-accord, government, nevada, school |
5 Responses to “Because NCLB isn’t intrusive enough”
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately in an effort to remove commercial messages, irrelevancies, excessive foul language, racist/sexist/hateful comments, spoofed/cloaked IPs and/or personal attacks and will be edited/deleted at our discretion. Thank you for your patience.
1. CrankMama said:
September 23, 2006 @ 11:50 am
Except that anytime you’re trying to educate kids in a group (in public school) the quality of their homelife (or lack thereof) DOES impact those around them. Where do personal rights give way to the rights of the group?
2. Prescott said:
September 23, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
Should my freedom of speech be taken away because a group is offended by what I am saying? It’s easy to grant liberties to people that are doing the “right” thing; acknowledging the rights of people that are doing something we may not like or approve of is what makes this country truly free.
3. CrankMama said:
September 24, 2006 @ 7:30 pm
Ostensibly, the rights potentially violated are those entitling each child to a quality public education. This is assuming that the rules laid out by the EIA to encourage “active involvement” is a way of legislating against the negative impacts lack of involvement have on the group. This goes beyond “being offended” about things said under the auspices of free speech and to the crux of the issue of personal freedoms. Public education as an institution is by necessity an infringement on basic rights, as is any participation in any sort of group. One essentially has an unspoken “contract” to abide by the rules of the group. If the group changes those rules, one can obviously opt out (as are many parents who put their kids in private schools or who champion the charter schools movement).
I believe a quality public education is a right worth defending…
4. Jessica said:
September 24, 2006 @ 8:08 pm
Actually, I would argue that education isn’t a “right”. It’s a service and a privilege. If the “group” is going to make parents parent only a certain way in which to allow our children that privilege, who’s to say that “the group” won’t insist that only breastfed children be allowed to go to public school. It’s not a crazy suggestion. Many would liken those who formula fed to selfish, uninvolved and uncaring mothers.
The state or group has no right to determine how parents wish to parent and as for the “opt out”, that should apply to those who wish parent’s rights to be taken away, in effort to provide student uniformity and personal moral convictions. How many homeschooling moms choose to do so because they wish their children to have a Christian schooling experience?
Just my opinion anyway…
5. kim said:
November 29, 2006 @ 12:42 am
Strong leadership and dedicated teachers trumps parent involvement. I know this because I’ve seen it. The majority of the students at the school my children attend do not have parents who are “actively involved” in the currently popular and sometimes government mandated manner, or truthfully who are involved at all. The incredible staff at the school has cultivated a culture of community, pride, and excellence. They’ve done this in spite of lack of parent involvement and most definitely in spite of NCLB.