s/o Should parents have any influence in public education?

[Anonymous]

I've been a public school teacher for 25 years now.

Parents should be involved in the big things - digital vs hard copy textbooks, SRR, grading practices that apply to the whole district, etc.

Parents should NOT be involved in curriculum, meaning what we teach. Schools are around to educate everyone in the community and that needs to be reflected in the curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Teachers should be able to teach topics that some parents find offensive.

I would argue that that’s a fundamental standard of quality education, for kids to be able to critically think about the things that their authority figures say to them.

A functional society requires adolescents to have sex education, for kids raised in one religion to know about and respect the right of others to practice another religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been a public school teacher for 25 years now.

Parents should be involved in the big things - digital vs hard copy textbooks, SRR, grading practices that apply to the whole district, etc.

Parents should NOT be involved in curriculum, meaning what we teach. Schools are around to educate everyone in the community and that needs to be reflected in the curriculum.

+1

I’ve taught for a similar amount of time and agree. I wish parents would band together and push back on the excessive amount of testing students are forced to do. It is so oppressive and quite frankly useless. But if parents weren’t involved then only Ed tech companies would decide what your children do all day. And they make money from technology and testing.

[Anonymous]

Yes some…but I think the US has become so much more diverse (in all respects) diverse over the years that it is very difficult to find agreement in most districts.

I live in a state that has had an open enrollment policy for public schools for over 30 years. This seems to reduce some of the infighting. Not only can parents purchase a home in the district of their choice, but they have the additional option of open enrolling their kids in a neighboring district they feel is a better fit (as long as they can drive their kids- no transportation included). Many do. My kids’ school district is around 40% open enrollment kids to 60% residents. But that has been a gradual process over decades of course…not something that happens overnight.

I also think some districts are just so LARGE now, with huge middle and high schools, and that really complicates things even further. So many voices, and makes any sort of change very difficult. Also attracts “political” school board candidates who are trying to make a name for themselves and use the position as a stepping stone. Unrelated, but I think it also contributes to the “super competitive extracurriculars” from an early age that IMO are not good for kids and families for so many reasons…high level travel sports teams in elementary school, intensive music training from a young age etc. Often locking lower income families out of some of those activities.

[Anonymous]

I was two sets of schools:

Schools for kids who behave and want to learn.

Schools for kids who don’t.

That’s my vote.

[Anonymous]

There should also be opportunities for community involvement — not just parent involvement. My /our taxes pay for the public schools. I /we do this because we want to be a part of an educated community, and value child and family focused services. Having a small segment of the community end up with a disproportionate influence is not appropriate for public education. I like the idea of having smaller districts, but I could see that easily increasing the differences in resources available to many schools and their students and communities.

[Anonymous]

It's kind of like asking if polls should drive campaigns and policy. There was a time when people put in leadership positions lead. When you put that into the hands of the plebes, well, you basically get mob rule.
No, plebes, who are mostly unqualified to make major decisions, should not be in leadership positions nor have undue influence on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There should also be opportunities for community involvement — not just parent involvement. My /our taxes pay for the public schools. I /we do this because we want to be a part of an educated community, and value child and family focused services. Having a small segment of the community end up with a disproportionate influence is not appropriate for public education. I like the idea of having smaller districts, but I could see that easily increasing the differences in resources available to many schools and their students and communities.

I think school board elections cover that, though? I know our district also allows non-parent residents to speak at meetings and their input seems taken into consideration equally with that of current parents. That being said, our board shrugs off most feedback altogether unless it comes in the form of a large public petition (which definitely includes residents who don’t have kids) or massive email or phone campaign of some sort.

[Anonymous]

No. Too much ignorance and interference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes some…but I think the US has become so much more diverse (in all respects) diverse over the years that it is very difficult to find agreement in most districts.

I live in a state that has had an open enrollment policy for public schools for over 30 years. This seems to reduce some of the infighting. Not only can parents purchase a home in the district of their choice, but they have the additional option of open enrolling their kids in a neighboring district they feel is a better fit (as long as they can drive their kids- no transportation included). Many do. My kids’ school district is around 40% open enrollment kids to 60% residents. But that has been a gradual process over decades of course…not something that happens overnight.

I also think some districts are just so LARGE now, with huge middle and high schools, and that really complicates things even further. So many voices, and makes any sort of change very difficult. Also attracts “political” school board candidates who are trying to make a name for themselves and use the position as a stepping stone. Unrelated, but I think it also contributes to the “super competitive extracurriculars” from an early age that IMO are not good for kids and families for so many reasons…high level travel sports teams in elementary school, intensive music training from a young age etc. Often locking lower income families out of some of those activities.

Fully agree with this.

[Anonymous]

After spending the past year engaging with other parents on various issues in ACPS, I can see why the school board mostly ignores them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was two sets of schools:

Schools for kids who behave and want to learn.

Schools for kids who don’t.

That’s my vote.

Me too. I post this weekly here. I almost thought I ran into my own comment. But haven’t commented here today.

And kids can move between schools in open periods of enrollment. New commitment to behavior? You’re in the school with meaningful work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There should also be opportunities for community involvement — not just parent involvement. My /our taxes pay for the public schools. I /we do this because we want to be a part of an educated community, and value child and family focused services. Having a small segment of the community end up with a disproportionate influence is not appropriate for public education. I like the idea of having smaller districts, but I could see that easily increasing the differences in resources available to many schools and their students and communities.

I totally disagree with given non parents an equal say in tht schools. They have no skin in the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should also be opportunities for community involvement — not just parent involvement. My /our taxes pay for the public schools. I /we do this because we want to be a part of an educated community, and value child and family focused services. Having a small segment of the community end up with a disproportionate influence is not appropriate for public education. I like the idea of having smaller districts, but I could see that easily increasing the differences in resources available to many schools and their students and communities.

I think school board elections cover that, though? I know our district also allows non-parent residents to speak at meetings and their input seems taken into consideration equally with that of current parents. That being said, our board shrugs off most feedback altogether unless it comes in the form of a large public petition (which definitely includes residents who don’t have kids) or massive email or phone campaign of some sort.

Yes the SB mostly ignores parents. A big part of this is that the county is too damn large.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After spending the past year engaging with other parents on various issues in ACPS, I can see why the school board mostly ignores them.

NP: in our district, it seems like only the “very very passionate” (who mostly come off as crazies due to the way they present things, even if they may have some good points somewhere in there) ever speak up about anything. The majority of parents are either generally uninterested or don’t speak up (so as not to be accidentally lumped in with the previously mentioned crazies).

So the board generally only hears from people that seem….quite nutty…and I don’t blame them for generally ignoring.