Re: [pf] public schools/ was we took...

by Molly Williams

12 December 2000 03:26 UTC

I don't disagree with what Diane wrote, that, in fact, some kids are
"saved" by school and the relationships they participate in at school.
But I see that as a desirable by-product, not as the /purpose/ of
school. 

Some kids also get more physical activity at school (thru phys ed,
recess) than they would otherwise [though for some it probably provides
less exercise than they would get if they didn't have to go to school];
some kids get hot lunches they wouldn't otherwise get; some get daycare
and afterschool care, so their parents can work more and earn more
money; and any time a large group of people are forced to come together
for 6-8 hours per day 5 days a week for 12 years, they will learn about
diversity! 

But I don't think schools exist to provide hot lunches, physical
exercise (though you could argue the other way on this, based on ancient
Greek schools), babysitting, and diversity. They exist to provide
academic education in arts and sciences. THAT education should provide
them with the means to think and reason, which will help them
understand, for instance, the issues of diversity. School is not
primarily, IMO, about knowledge, although it involves knowledge; it's
about teaching children how to think, how to value, how to choose, how
to learn, so that they can become useful and happy citizens. If children
learn to value qualities because a teacher models them, that's great --
but it's a by-product of the actual learning process.

More and more, schools are taking over the legitimate role of parents
and of other community groups -- in providing meals, in nurturing
children (like the "I love you!" principal!), in providing
day/afterschool care, in observing children for behavioural problems and
suggesting remedies, in administering medications, etc. These are not,
IMO, the primary functions of a school. It's true that children need
these things, and that parents more and more seem less able or willing
to provide them themselves, but that indicates to me that we should be
educating parents on how to raise kids, not forcing schools to provide
parenting. I am constantly amazed that for the most important job in
life, there is no training! We expect parents to instinctively know how
to parent, but experience shows that many don't. Parenting models are
required, and some people just have lousy or non-existent models.

I believe life is better when a community of adults cares for children,
but I don't believe the public school system is the way to do it. If you
place too many extraneous responsibilities on the school system, it will
do none of them well. Better to focus energy on actual academic
education than to scatter energy doing everything else that parents,
churches, neighbours, scouts and other local organisations, should be
doing. My dad used to volunteer for Junior Achievement -- I don't know
if it's around anymore -- which was basically a big brother/big sister
program, held in the evenings, where professional and business people
"fostered" teens and pre-teens toward careers. 

If nurturing children and fostering community is such a great thing,
then companies should be paying for this kind of program -- it will
ensure better workers and a better working environment; and churches
should be leading the way with programs for kids, to ensure that
children grow up with strong values. Instead, we tend to rely on
taxpayers and public programs to do the job of parents and private
organisations. That's fine for emergencies, crises, the poorest of the
poor. But it's not fine, IMO, for everyone all the time! And more
importantly, it's not true community. Community is people coming
together voluntarily, willingly, to achieve a common goal. It's not
involuntary payments to maintain a system we're not actually
participating in.

I think academic education is a great thing and I believe we as
individuals and as communities are all better for it. I think the much
lauded self-esteem is a natural by-product of learning, not a
prerequisite to it. When you learn something new, you feel good about
yourself, on the basis of a legitimate accomplishment. Self-esteem is
meaningless, as far as I am concerned, apart from accomplishment
(however you conceive accomplishment/success). It does not exist by
itself, not for long, anyway.

I am not against hot lunches, after-school care, or other things that
make life better for children or adults. I don't even mind paying for
it. What I mind is paying for quality academic education and getting
everything but.

~ Molly

"Fitzsimmons, Diane" wrote:

> I respect Molly's opinion greatly.  However, at this point in our society, I
> see no other choice for schools to do things in addition to educate.  In
> fact, I believe school's greatest asset is that -- when operating more or
> less correctly -- it enables people from diverse backgrounds to get along.
> I know many of you have had different experiences.  I'm just saying that
> I've seen a lot of kids helped -- saved, if you will -- through school.
> Shouldn't be that way; they should have loving families or adequately
> incomed families.  But they didn't. And school was where they got food, got
> clean, got warm and/or got loved.  Sometimes they also learned to read and
> write.
> 
> Diane Fitzsimmons
> Norman, Okla.