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

by Jill Taylor Bussiere

12 December 2000 05:01 UTC

Molly,
    It is indeed true that the schools are weighted down with too much these
days.  I know in our state, so far we don't have breakfast for the children,
and that is one of the concerns.  In North Carolina, however, it was a
necessity for learning.  It is harder to learn things that others set for
you if you are hungry.  If you are learning things that are important to
you, hunger is not as much of a setback.

    Your stated purpose, "academic education in arts and sciences" is not my
understanding of what schools were set out to be.

    Abram and I were reading Thomas Jefferson yesterday.  He felt that the
masses would be raised by education "to the high ground of moral
respectability necessary to their own safety, and to orderly government."

    Ralph Nader also talked much this election season about citizenship and
how it is important - how it is being neglected by adults and that our youth
were not learning to be citizens.

    Although education in this country was first started to train priests
and to convert "indians", an education as the foundation for citizenship was
also a part of a discussion among our founding fathers.

    Now it seems that in addition to learning to become citizens, we need to
learn to be discerning consumers - learn what is harmful to us and what is
not, how items are made, the effect of their manufacture upon the earth,
etc. etc. etc.

    Although I think it necessary for schools to be there in society as it
is at present, they are, as you say, not the best place to receive food,
love, etc.  I would add that they are not the best place to learn to be a
citizen either.

This fall we also read the autobiography of Ben Franklin.  (Well, I read
parts, at least.)  Franklin tells how he learned how to write, and where he
learned to do what he did.  He did not go to school - but rather was a
self-taught individual.

    Those who have something to learn will find a way to do it.  It can
happen inside or outside of schools.

                        Jill  (who is rambling, she realizes as she reads
over this post)


> 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