Parent Report Cards?
primalmother <[email protected]>
PARENT REPORT CARDS?
Lynn M. Stuter
February 12, 2003
NewsWithViews.com
"USA Today" carried an article on February 6, 2003, stating that parents in=
Lebanon, Pennsylvania, may be among the first in the nation to receive a re=
port card from their child's school on "how involved they are in their child=
's education."
What does the school mean by this? Does the school mean how active is the p=
arent in overseeing the education of his or her child? It would not appear s=
o. Further on in the article, school district superintendent, Marianne Bartl=
ey, is quoted as saying "the goal is to make sure parents are sending their =
kids to school ready to learn and keeping on top of their academic progress.=
"
There's that nebulous term again: ready-to-learn. How is that defined? Acco=
rding to the article, one parent stated, "if you take care of your kids, it'=
ll show up in the report."
So, if you take care of your kids, they will be ready-to-learn? Think again=
. It becomes obvious, in reading the article, that it isn't the parent defin=
ing the terms, setting the standards, deciding what constitutes ready-to-lea=
rn, it is the school. Likewise, it isn't the parent doing the grading; it is=
the school. So actually, what we are talking about here, with parent report=
cards, is parents being accountable to the school.
Remember when the "partnership" concept was pushed: parents in partnership =
with the school? So, is this how "partnership" is defined: the school sendin=
g home a report card on how well parents are doing in providing to the schoo=
l a child deemed by the school to be ready-to-learn? It would appear so. Doe=
sn't this, then, make the parent the junior or silent partner in this partne=
rship? It would appear so. Isn't this the very concept that Joseph Fields pr=
esented in his book, "Total Quality for Schools" when he wrote, "Parents lea=
rn that they must provide the best ready-to-learn student possible"...? Oh d=
ear you say? Oh dear, indeed!
When parents objected to the "partnership" concept years ago, at the beginn=
ing of education reform, their concerns were dismissed as the paranoid ravin=
gs of the "religious right." Guess concerned parents were not so paranoid af=
ter all; guess they had good reason to be concerned. How short our memory; h=
ow quickly we forget that parents were lied to, made fun of, ridiculed.
Should parents be "anxious" about these report cards, as the article sugges=
ted some might be? "Anxious" doesn't come anywhere close to describing what =
parental reaction to this should be. Parents should be very concerned and ve=
ry outraged. Why?
A child that is deemed not ready-to-learn is considered to be "at risk for =
failure." Under Goals 2000 and its peripheral legislation, a child at risk f=
or failure must be given the help he or she needs to alleviate the at risk f=
or failure factors. If it is deemed the parent is the problem, is obstructin=
g or refuses to do what the school deems is necessary "in the interests of t=
he child," then intervention by social and health services, even child prote=
ctive services, is indicated. Either of these agencies can remove a child fr=
om a home without cause, without warrant, without due process. This is alrea=
dy happening.
The long and short of this is that the schools have gained the authority th=
ey need to force parents to do what they want in the raising and education o=
f the child.
Parents should be outraged. Capital switchboards should be jammed with call=
s from angry parents. Parents should be marching in the streets. This is not=
hing short of the communist polytechnical system of education in which the c=
hild is a ward of the state.
The parental right to oversee the upbringing and education of the child is =
an inherent, God given right. That means no legislature under our constituti=
on has the authority, directly or indirectly, to infringe on that right.
While the "USA Today" article tries to downplay the authority the school ha=
s been given over the parent, the implications are very clear:
"... parents who do not live up to any of their responsibilities would be c=
ontacted by an outreach worker who would try to help them become more involv=
ed. And parents who cannot or will not cooperate would have an 'adult mentor=
' assigned to their child." The adult mentor is there in the interests of th=
e school, not the parent. As such, it is obvious that an adult mentor will c=
ause alienation of child and parent.
The article goes on to quote Superintendent Bartley as saying, "If they're =
just really resistant, they say, 'Get out of my home, go away,' we still hav=
e a responsibility for that child." That responsibility includes reporting t=
he parents to social and health services or child protective services.
But this won't happen to you? Don't bet on it. The list of what constitutes=
"at risk for failure" covers the imaginable as well as much that is not.
The parents in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, whose daughters were given g=
enital exams by the government school never thought what happened would happ=
en either. The genital exams were also the outreach of Goals 2000 and readin=
ess-to-learn. The school was checking the girls to make sure they were not a=
t risk for failure by having been molested by an adult or parent. It didn't =
matter that there was no indication that these girls had been molested. It d=
idn't matter that the parents were not notified of the exams, did not give p=
ermission, were not present when the exams were done. The school was merely =
acting on the authority given it to ensure nothing stood in the way of the s=
chool producing "a world class workforce."
That's outrageous? Yes, that's outrageous. Certainly, it's outrageous! But =
parents and citizens need to understand that in dealing with the government =
schools, they are dealing with a system that sees the child as a "resource" =
or "human resource" to be conditioned to the perceived environment of the "c=
reated future"--the sustainable global environment. If the parent gets in th=
e way, the child will simply be removed to an environment more conducive to =
the conditioning process.
Sources:
Associated Press; "School district eyes 'parent report card';" USA Today; F=
ebruary 6, 2003.
Fields, Joseph; "Total Quality for Schools; A Suggestion for American Educa=
tion;" Milwaukee: ASQC; 1993.
© 2003 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved
Mother and wife, Stuter has spent the past ten years researching systems th=
eory with a particular emphasis on education. She home schooled two daughte=
rs, now grown and on their own. She has worked with legislators, both state=
and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance and education refor=
m. She networks nation-wide with other researchers and citizens concerned w=
ith the transformation of our nation. She has traveled the United States an=
d lived overseas. Web site: http://www.icehouse.net/lmstuter%c2%a0%c2%a0 E-Mail: lmstu=
ter@...
Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter14.htm
Lynn M. Stuter
February 12, 2003
NewsWithViews.com
"USA Today" carried an article on February 6, 2003, stating that parents in=
Lebanon, Pennsylvania, may be among the first in the nation to receive a re=
port card from their child's school on "how involved they are in their child=
's education."
What does the school mean by this? Does the school mean how active is the p=
arent in overseeing the education of his or her child? It would not appear s=
o. Further on in the article, school district superintendent, Marianne Bartl=
ey, is quoted as saying "the goal is to make sure parents are sending their =
kids to school ready to learn and keeping on top of their academic progress.=
"
There's that nebulous term again: ready-to-learn. How is that defined? Acco=
rding to the article, one parent stated, "if you take care of your kids, it'=
ll show up in the report."
So, if you take care of your kids, they will be ready-to-learn? Think again=
. It becomes obvious, in reading the article, that it isn't the parent defin=
ing the terms, setting the standards, deciding what constitutes ready-to-lea=
rn, it is the school. Likewise, it isn't the parent doing the grading; it is=
the school. So actually, what we are talking about here, with parent report=
cards, is parents being accountable to the school.
Remember when the "partnership" concept was pushed: parents in partnership =
with the school? So, is this how "partnership" is defined: the school sendin=
g home a report card on how well parents are doing in providing to the schoo=
l a child deemed by the school to be ready-to-learn? It would appear so. Doe=
sn't this, then, make the parent the junior or silent partner in this partne=
rship? It would appear so. Isn't this the very concept that Joseph Fields pr=
esented in his book, "Total Quality for Schools" when he wrote, "Parents lea=
rn that they must provide the best ready-to-learn student possible"...? Oh d=
ear you say? Oh dear, indeed!
When parents objected to the "partnership" concept years ago, at the beginn=
ing of education reform, their concerns were dismissed as the paranoid ravin=
gs of the "religious right." Guess concerned parents were not so paranoid af=
ter all; guess they had good reason to be concerned. How short our memory; h=
ow quickly we forget that parents were lied to, made fun of, ridiculed.
Should parents be "anxious" about these report cards, as the article sugges=
ted some might be? "Anxious" doesn't come anywhere close to describing what =
parental reaction to this should be. Parents should be very concerned and ve=
ry outraged. Why?
A child that is deemed not ready-to-learn is considered to be "at risk for =
failure." Under Goals 2000 and its peripheral legislation, a child at risk f=
or failure must be given the help he or she needs to alleviate the at risk f=
or failure factors. If it is deemed the parent is the problem, is obstructin=
g or refuses to do what the school deems is necessary "in the interests of t=
he child," then intervention by social and health services, even child prote=
ctive services, is indicated. Either of these agencies can remove a child fr=
om a home without cause, without warrant, without due process. This is alrea=
dy happening.
The long and short of this is that the schools have gained the authority th=
ey need to force parents to do what they want in the raising and education o=
f the child.
Parents should be outraged. Capital switchboards should be jammed with call=
s from angry parents. Parents should be marching in the streets. This is not=
hing short of the communist polytechnical system of education in which the c=
hild is a ward of the state.
The parental right to oversee the upbringing and education of the child is =
an inherent, God given right. That means no legislature under our constituti=
on has the authority, directly or indirectly, to infringe on that right.
While the "USA Today" article tries to downplay the authority the school ha=
s been given over the parent, the implications are very clear:
"... parents who do not live up to any of their responsibilities would be c=
ontacted by an outreach worker who would try to help them become more involv=
ed. And parents who cannot or will not cooperate would have an 'adult mentor=
' assigned to their child." The adult mentor is there in the interests of th=
e school, not the parent. As such, it is obvious that an adult mentor will c=
ause alienation of child and parent.
The article goes on to quote Superintendent Bartley as saying, "If they're =
just really resistant, they say, 'Get out of my home, go away,' we still hav=
e a responsibility for that child." That responsibility includes reporting t=
he parents to social and health services or child protective services.
But this won't happen to you? Don't bet on it. The list of what constitutes=
"at risk for failure" covers the imaginable as well as much that is not.
The parents in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, whose daughters were given g=
enital exams by the government school never thought what happened would happ=
en either. The genital exams were also the outreach of Goals 2000 and readin=
ess-to-learn. The school was checking the girls to make sure they were not a=
t risk for failure by having been molested by an adult or parent. It didn't =
matter that there was no indication that these girls had been molested. It d=
idn't matter that the parents were not notified of the exams, did not give p=
ermission, were not present when the exams were done. The school was merely =
acting on the authority given it to ensure nothing stood in the way of the s=
chool producing "a world class workforce."
That's outrageous? Yes, that's outrageous. Certainly, it's outrageous! But =
parents and citizens need to understand that in dealing with the government =
schools, they are dealing with a system that sees the child as a "resource" =
or "human resource" to be conditioned to the perceived environment of the "c=
reated future"--the sustainable global environment. If the parent gets in th=
e way, the child will simply be removed to an environment more conducive to =
the conditioning process.
Sources:
Associated Press; "School district eyes 'parent report card';" USA Today; F=
ebruary 6, 2003.
Fields, Joseph; "Total Quality for Schools; A Suggestion for American Educa=
tion;" Milwaukee: ASQC; 1993.
© 2003 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved
Mother and wife, Stuter has spent the past ten years researching systems th=
eory with a particular emphasis on education. She home schooled two daughte=
rs, now grown and on their own. She has worked with legislators, both state=
and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance and education refor=
m. She networks nation-wide with other researchers and citizens concerned w=
ith the transformation of our nation. She has traveled the United States an=
d lived overseas. Web site: http://www.icehouse.net/lmstuter%c2%a0%c2%a0 E-Mail: lmstu=
ter@...
Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter14.htm
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/14/03 6:31:10 AM, Nest4Robin@... writes:
<< Parents should be very concerned and very outraged. Why?
A child that is deemed not ready-to-learn is considered to be "at risk for
failure." Under Goals 2000 and its peripheral legislation . . .>>
That's like the booga-booga stuff I used to get from HSLDA when I was first
homeschooling and they assumed they could scare me into joining for my
immediate PROTECTION. They told me what to be angry about, who to call, and
exactly what to say when I got them on the phone.
-=-Oh dear you say? Oh dear, indeed!
When parents objected to the "partnership" concept years ago, at the
beginning of education reform,. . .-=-
Educational reform has been going on in the U.S. since schools were
developed. They're probably talking about just the reforms being discussed
in the mid-80's when the Christian Homeschooling movement got going.
-=-. . .their concerns were dismissed as the paranoid ravings of the
"religious right."
-=-
Bingo.
Sandra
<< Parents should be very concerned and very outraged. Why?
A child that is deemed not ready-to-learn is considered to be "at risk for
failure." Under Goals 2000 and its peripheral legislation . . .>>
That's like the booga-booga stuff I used to get from HSLDA when I was first
homeschooling and they assumed they could scare me into joining for my
immediate PROTECTION. They told me what to be angry about, who to call, and
exactly what to say when I got them on the phone.
-=-Oh dear you say? Oh dear, indeed!
When parents objected to the "partnership" concept years ago, at the
beginning of education reform,. . .-=-
Educational reform has been going on in the U.S. since schools were
developed. They're probably talking about just the reforms being discussed
in the mid-80's when the Christian Homeschooling movement got going.
-=-. . .their concerns were dismissed as the paranoid ravings of the
"religious right."
-=-
Bingo.
Sandra
Betsy
**A child that is deemed not ready-to-learn is considered to be "at risk
for failure." Under Goals 2000 and its peripheral legislation, a child
at risk for failure must be given the help he or she needs to alleviate
the at risk for failure factors. If it is deemed the parent is the
problem, is obstructing or refuses to do what the school deems is
necessary "in the interests of the child," then intervention by social
and health services, even child protective services, is indicated.
Either of these agencies can remove a child from a home without cause,
without warrant, without due process. This is already happening. **
Just this week, my dentist told me of a case where this happened to him.
(And presumably he lives in a ritzy neighborhood with "good" schools.)
An administrator threatened to call CPS and have his teenage daughter
*taken away from him* solely because the father argued with the school
about having his daughter serve an unfair detention.
So if anyone thinks that schools would only use this power and these
threats discreetly and reasonably, get over that idea real fast.
Betsy
for failure." Under Goals 2000 and its peripheral legislation, a child
at risk for failure must be given the help he or she needs to alleviate
the at risk for failure factors. If it is deemed the parent is the
problem, is obstructing or refuses to do what the school deems is
necessary "in the interests of the child," then intervention by social
and health services, even child protective services, is indicated.
Either of these agencies can remove a child from a home without cause,
without warrant, without due process. This is already happening. **
Just this week, my dentist told me of a case where this happened to him.
(And presumably he lives in a ritzy neighborhood with "good" schools.)
An administrator threatened to call CPS and have his teenage daughter
*taken away from him* solely because the father argued with the school
about having his daughter serve an unfair detention.
So if anyone thinks that schools would only use this power and these
threats discreetly and reasonably, get over that idea real fast.
Betsy
Betsy
**There's that nebulous term again: ready-to-learn. How is that defined?
According to the article, one parent stated, "if you take care of your
kids, it'll show up in the report." So, if you take care of your kids,
they will be ready-to-learn? Think again. It becomes obvious, in reading
the article, that it isn't the parent defining the terms, setting the
standards, deciding what constitutes ready-to-learn, it is the school.
Likewise, it isn't the parent doing the grading; it is the school. So
actually, what we are talking about here, with parent report cards, is
parents being accountable to the school. Remember when the "partnership"
concept was pushed: parents in partnership with the school? So, is this
how "partnership" is defined: the school sending home a report card on
how well parents are doing in providing to the school a child deemed by
the school to be ready-to-learn? It would appear so. Doesn't this, then,
make the parent the junior or silent partner in this partnership? It
would appear so. **
It sounds like the schools are saying to the parents "you work for us"
and thinking "and we work for the funding".
In this high pressure system, it seems like no one is working for the kids.
Betsy
According to the article, one parent stated, "if you take care of your
kids, it'll show up in the report." So, if you take care of your kids,
they will be ready-to-learn? Think again. It becomes obvious, in reading
the article, that it isn't the parent defining the terms, setting the
standards, deciding what constitutes ready-to-learn, it is the school.
Likewise, it isn't the parent doing the grading; it is the school. So
actually, what we are talking about here, with parent report cards, is
parents being accountable to the school. Remember when the "partnership"
concept was pushed: parents in partnership with the school? So, is this
how "partnership" is defined: the school sending home a report card on
how well parents are doing in providing to the school a child deemed by
the school to be ready-to-learn? It would appear so. Doesn't this, then,
make the parent the junior or silent partner in this partnership? It
would appear so. **
It sounds like the schools are saying to the parents "you work for us"
and thinking "and we work for the funding".
In this high pressure system, it seems like no one is working for the kids.
Betsy
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/14/03 2:06:11 PM, ecsamhill@... writes:
<< In this high pressure system, it seems like no one is working for the
kids. >>
Absolutely true.
One reason I quit teaching was that it wasn't about kids at all. It was
about test scores and competition with other schools for special federal
funding. If the funding involved manipulation of numbers so our district was
shown to be poorer than the next one over so we got more federal funds, fine.
In the budgetary considerations, there are school busses and cafeterias and
re-roofing contracts and all kinds of truly necessary expenses and
considerations of making government factory schools work. But none of the
decisions look at the kids first. They're the product, not the budget and
not the management, poor things.
Sandra
<< In this high pressure system, it seems like no one is working for the
kids. >>
Absolutely true.
One reason I quit teaching was that it wasn't about kids at all. It was
about test scores and competition with other schools for special federal
funding. If the funding involved manipulation of numbers so our district was
shown to be poorer than the next one over so we got more federal funds, fine.
In the budgetary considerations, there are school busses and cafeterias and
re-roofing contracts and all kinds of truly necessary expenses and
considerations of making government factory schools work. But none of the
decisions look at the kids first. They're the product, not the budget and
not the management, poor things.
Sandra
joanne comito
>I worked as a nurse in school clinics and ended up
> One reason I quit teaching was that it wasn't about
> kids at all.
quitting because I couldn't stand anymore how we
treated the kids. Everything was done to "help them",
but it felt totally false to me (even though done with
good intentions by a lot of the staff). Asking kids a
million questions about their family life,
"risk-factors" (ie alchohol, drug, food choices),
grades, and then funneling them to a counselor if they
fell out of the range we considered "normal".
These poor kids must've felt like they were under a
microscope. And if they were doing poorly in their
classes, the assumption was always that it was the
kid's (or family's) fault--not that perhaps the
classes weren't relevant to these kids' lives.
If kids don't fit the mold there's something wrong
with them--they must need counseling, medication etc
etc--never is there talk that they system they are in
might be damaging.
Joanne
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com