"Right Choice for Parents, Real Chance for Children?"

As you get into this "new era" of education of which President Obama speaks of it is truly evident that America needs change. I believe that increasing the CHOICE for parents on what school they would like their child to attend is good for American education. We have been in need of change for quite some time and offering this CHOICE to parents could be a start to the answer of how to make American education better. Think about the quote "the right choice for parents and the real chance for children". I have lived by this motto for years. Why you might ask? Well it is the motto of my school. It is in a sense our promise to those who believe in us and are a part of our school community. Parents choose to come to my school because it is what they feel is in the best interest of their child. They appreciate the specific programs that are offerred and are interested in many of the options that we offer (more one on one time, 20 students per class, the teaching of values and character...following state standards etc). Whose to say that the government or anyone else can tell a parent what school a child should attend...it clearly is the parents CHOICE. I believe that having CHOICE is definately one of the most wonderful aspects of our country..we are free to have the CHOICE of where to send our children to school. There is a reason that parents have chosen a particular school. Part of our enrollment forms feature a section where parents are to write a paragraph on why they believe this school is best for their child/children. The secretary allowed me to look through some of my kids files and read what the parents were looking for. I came to a realization that two things semed to be important to the parents joining our community. They were particularly interested in the fact that we are a school based on a character curriculum and smaller class sizes. I read a bunch that mention that they like that all teachers have to be highly qualified and that all of our schools also take the state mandated tests. Some of them were not pleased with traditional public schools and were looking for a change. It doesn't matter what happened in each case but that parents do have the right to again find a place that is a "better fit" for their child. There are two quotes that stood out to me from the article "Public or Private". The first one said "the public has absolutely no right to judge on anyone whether a parent chooses to send their child to a public or private school". It isn't for the public to decide but for the parents. Also, the quote "every school is as good as its admin, staff admin, policies, class size, parent support, and budget". It isn't always about the choice that parents make for their child/children but what the school may offer that could be an important reason why the choice for parents is good for American education. I have seen amazing things happening with our schools and if it were not for the option of CHOICE I feel that many students would be at a disadvantage and would not be where they are today. For me the quote "the right choice for parents and a real chance for children" has a true purpose. Could this be the change America needs?

Private Schools

According to Hess, "public schools have a commitment to prepare students to be productive members of a social order, aware of society responsibilities, and prove an appropriate placement for each student." If we only look at this definition, and do not take funding, etc. into account, then most schools that have the child's best interest (not their money making) in mind, could be deemed a public school and should be able to provide "public schooling".  But when listening to Mary's presentation, the slide she showed that said that public schools serve society and private schools serve the individual and the family, made me think. I looked at Hess' definition and thought even through serving individuals/family vs society, you are still looking for that same end result. Hess also says that a public school is often associated with legitimacy, nondiscrimination, and shared values. Well guess what, most private schools fall into those guidelines as well. In general, this issue all revolves back to government and money. There is a separation of church and state and federal moneys are limited to those institutions that choose to incorporate the two. So a school can't talk about God and receive aid, but companies can come in and basically "take over" a failing school and make a profit off of it, and that school still receives federal funds? There is something wrong with that system in my eyes. I often want to look at people who push money away from private schools due to religion and ask them how they think education started in the first place. Using a bible, imagine that.... 

Private Schools

I feel that any organization that can provide an open, balanced, safe learning environment should be permitted to provide public schooling. “It is not clear that public schooling needs to impose restrictions on who may provide services.” We run across that problem of defining an open, balanced, safe environment though. With lack of restrictions, any provider should be able to refer to their school as public.
People have raised great concern among religious providers. I think they feel this way because religion has been completely stripped from our traditional public schools. I found it interesting when Hess said, “The nation’s early efforts to provide public education relied heavily upon local church officials to manage public funds.” We once we’re a nation that was built up from the faith of the church. Now, we are the complete opposite. Religion and public schools are two very separate issues. I think we have taken away what our public schools were once all about. Overtime, we stopped caring about faith and morals. It solely started becoming more about the government and money. Fredrick Hess goes on to talk about; “In recent decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the push for a “wall of separation” had overreached and run afoul of First Amendment language protecting the “free exercise” of religion.” It almost is like we have reverted back to slavery times. At one time, we segregated against blacks. We had all white schools and all black schools. Now, we do that with religion. If you want any kind of religion you have to attend a religious school because traditional schools were stripped of it.
I agreed with the statement; “we have never imagined that providing opportunity to all students meant treating all students identically.” The only dilemma is there is no one school that is successful at this. We have such a wide variety of students these days; gifted, special needs, children with religious backgrounds, etc. This is where we have start building special schools for special needs. I think it is important we revisit what public education was about before we started bringing politics into it. Somewhere down the line, we forgot about what education was all about. It is about making sure our students are provided an open, balanced, safe learning environment. We started focusing more on the politics of it all and stopped focusing on what is most important for our children.

Homeschooling

Homeschooling is becoming more and more of a popular educational model as time goes on. In an Education Week report, the number of children homeschooled in the United States in 2007 rose to 1.5 million from 850,000 in 1999. There have been numerous reasons given for this increase, including the parents' views on public education and/or other beliefs. In my opinion, whether or not a child is educated in the home or in a school building the parents are responsible for his/her education. Even if children attend a "traditional" public or private school it is vital for their parents to be involved in what the children are learning and working with them at home, especially in the younger grades.
There are so many variables that go into the homeschooling model. I believe that if students are homeschooled there needs to be some way to monitor what is being taught and how they are learning. In her presentation, Jenn told us that in a majority of states all that a parent has to do is provide information that tells the local schools what the child is going to learn and then show that they learned it (using a portfolio or other assessment tool). In choosing that material, hopefully the parent would take many factors into account, including what the public schools are teaching. I think that if parents are completely involved in their child's learning and not just giving him or her videos to watch or worksheets to complete (I guess the term to use would be "unschooling") then it can be a positive environment and have a lot of benefits, but there needs to be some sort of accountability that learning is actually taking place. This may be in the form of the public schools "evaluating" the learning of the homeschooled child by testing or possibly even an interview.
Honestly, I have mixed feelings about homeschooling. I think that it can be done well, and have known some kids who were taught at home that ended up being very successful in college and beyond. But I definitely think that children who are homeschooled have to have some outside form of social interaction. True, there are groups of families that get together to take their kids on field trips and also do a lot of other activities together, but I believe that kids need to have interaction with their peers in both educational and more social settings. Whether they join a community sports league or take other lessons/classes, there needs to be some outside of the home contact with people their own age. Parents that choose to educate their children from home need to be able to provide not only the content that is important for their child to learn, but also the experiences that they may be missing if not in the "traditional" classroom.

Public School vs. Home School

The discussion of the role of parents and teachers in a child education seems to be debated and talked about everyday if you are a teacher. I will honestly state that before the presentations I have always believed that parents played an important role in promoting and guiding a child’s education but I was against home schooling. After the presentations I can start to see some benefits to be home schooled but I also still think that for the majority of students public school environment is better.
In past articles we mentioned how in the work field society is looking for individuals that are prepared to be responsible, work well with others, and have good social skills. Like Hess stated in What is a public School? “it’s the public components of schooling to include the responsibility for teaching the principles, habits, and obligations of citizenship.” I think children can better obtain these skills in a more social setting than being alone or with only a select group of students at home. I think that children who are home schooled are going to miss the opportunity to learn these skills while growing up. I’m not speaking for all home school experiences but for the majority I have heard or seen effects from often these are major skills they are missing. When you are learning at home you do not have to be responsibility for remembering what work you have to complete, or take responsibility for having correct supplies because your parents give everything to you. Often when students are entering a public school system after being home schooled it takes them awhile to figure out how to handle things on their own, take responsibility for the education actions (like turning work in, remembering to do homework, get supplies and much more) and they often do not know how to properly socialize with their fellow peers and work in group settings. It was mentioned in the article Focus education that many people were being home schooled due “to bad experiences with teachers or school bullies to a proliferation of time-consuming outside activities to worries over peanut allergies.” I agree that we shouldn’t just ignore these issues, like bullying, but children also need to learn how to handle these issues on their own. If they are athletes they need to learn how to manage a working life with their sports. Unless you are some outstanding athlete at some point you will have to get a full time job to support you financially when still competing in sports. I mean even a lot of pro volleyball players still have to work normal jobs to obtain their lives financially but they have learned to juggle their schedule. I believe these are skills are important to learn at a young age.
Another situation that often occurs in teaching is that the school is teaching or presenting information in which the parents do not agree with. In the presentation it was mentioned that this debate is often brought up around the topic of evolution. Hess argued that teachers often do teach their own beliefs but I disagree. I think this situation can be handled in various ways, whether that is selecting a preferable setting for your child like a religious or private school, or home schooling but I believe if you really talk to the teacher, and they were teaching with the open mind and all equal approach to how a public teacher should teach, then they will teach the general facts not based on bias opinions. As a science teacher I often get confronted with this issue when we teach about evolution and global warming. One time I was confronted by a parent about whether I was teaching both sides to the global warming issue. I stated that I was a science teacher so I only gave scientific facts about the issue. I taught them about the atmosphere, pollution, greenhouse effect, and what is global warming and the statistical facts behind the concept. They then asked me whether I would put down students who would state they didn’t believe in global warming. My answer to this, and all other science topics that are controversial, is that I let the students state this and say that this was their opinion. I can’t teach opinions or beliefs but rather just facts and that I would be happy to look at any facts and statistics that they would like to bring in to support the statement. Then we often have the lesson on when stating case or point of view you need information or facts to support your ideas. I too may have my personal beliefs on global warming or even evolution but its not my job to teach this but it’s my job to teach the scientific facts. I often give the example that I can tell a kid what the color orange is and show them a shirt that is the color orange. It a known fact in art that orange is orange but if a student is to state well I don’t believe that is true to me that is blue then that is fine. He could hold that belief, there is nothing wrong to that but for my class and teaching the facts is it’s orange. I think it’s important that children get all the facts that are out there and it’s there choice to then decide what they want to believe. I think if you are to really believe in something you should be acceptable to hearing all sides of the story and then making your decision on what you decide is correct. I will never tell a child that what their parents taught them is wrong but I will tell them the facts and let them decide what they want to in the end.
The one thing I did like about home schooling is the freedom to teach what the child would like to learn. In the presentation it was mentioned how if a child should ask a question about a star you can then have a unit about stars and take them on field trips about the topic. Teaching this way you can then get the child excited about learning and further the knowledge on the topic then what can be presented in short bits at school. At the same time though a parent can still doing these things while they are getting a public education at school and support what they are learning with school with activities the family can do at home. In the end I am not as against home schooling as I was before the presentation. I do believe there are situations and sometimes settings, which home schooling would be a better setting than public school. But in the end I believe these students would be missing out on individual growing experiences in their life.

Did it start with free breakfast?

This week we discussed many different health issues that are being faced every day by our children. Some health issues that our children are facing include Childhood Obesity and Nutrition. As we were discussing the topics we kept referring to parent’s responsibilities. I feel that every day we educators are taking more and more of a parental role than ever seen before.
As I discussed this topic with my peers at work this week, we keptreferring to the same thing time and time again. They feel that theynoticed the biggest shift from parent responsibility to teacher responsibility occurred with the inclusion of free breakfast to students. The teachers said that before this occurred they could remember how actively involved all parents were, but once the free breakfast started parents started showing less and less. Also if they had food for their child, they would just send the child to school early so that the child was out of their hair earlier.
Over the years we have seen a huge increase in the amount of students who are obese. I believe this is a direct connection to the children now eating twice a day at the school. As stated in the article StudiesSuggest School Cafeterias Still Need to Trim the Fat showed this example“elementary school students were more likely to be overweight when their schools offered French fries or desserts more than once a week.” Every day at our schools the student’s lunch comes with some type of dessert, whether it’s a cookie, pudding or jello. If studies are showing this type of statistics why are we offering this type of food to our students?
So I believe that it is a joint responsibility on how poor our children’s shape is. If the schools had not started offering free breakfast I feelas though parents would be more responsible. At the same time we should be able to offer different programs for the needy and not have parents abuse the program meant to help others receive the nutrition they need to participate throughout a rigorous day of school.

Home Schooled Athletes - Should they be allowed to play?

With the recent success of Tim Tebow in the national spotlight in football a nationwide debate has been created. That is, Should students who are home schooled be allowed to play on public schools sports teams?
I personally am indifferent to the situation. I feel that if a student lives in a district and his/her parents choose to home school their child for whatever reason it is, it should not be held against the child if they wish to play a high school sport. With the growing number of bad options that are being presented to our children; Such as drugs, alcohol and sexual activity. How can we set a limitation on a student’s willingness to participate in after school activities? Also during the course of the presentation we discussed a home schooled child’s social interaction time frame with people of various cultures. Megan stated, “The real world goes beyond interacting with only one type of person, you have to take orders from someone and be able to adapt too many different social settings in a real world work place.” If a child is home schooled, playing on a public school team might be their only option to interact and develop socially on a different level.
Also in jenn’s PowerPoint she discusses the main argument that parents of home schooled children make. Jenn states, “One argument that home-schooled parents make in favor of access to extracurricular offerings is that they pay taxes that finance the public school enterprise. Therefore, they claim, they are entitled to take advantage of the school's offerings to the extent that they and their children are interested in doing so. Paying taxes is not the equivalent of paying tuition for public school.If it were, then people who have no children, or whose children are grown, would not have any obligation or reason to pay. Yet we all paytaxes, regardless of whether we have children and of how many we have.” In Amherst we have a situation that is different from most public school settings, if a child wishes to play a sport they have to pay $450 to participate and that doesn’t guarantee them playing time. So for me if a child is willing to pay to participate and be part of a team, I see no reason to restrain the child from playing. This child is attending school, getting the grades, and staying out of trouble. This is a lot more than we can say for a large number of students. The last thought I wish to make is, our job is about developing all children’s future, are we limited to only developing the children we teach?

Homeschooling Students

Homeschooling allows parents to take direct responsibility for their child's education. Parents can take responsibility for their child's education by choosing a curriculum, and approach to learning, and the principles and values on which these are based on. No other education arrangement offers the same freedom to arrange an education designed for an individual student; in homeschools, parents are responsible not only for selecting what their children will learn, but when, how, and with whom they will learn (Rob Reich). Homeschooling allows for the individual child to work at their own pace. I can understand why many parents would choose to homeschool their child because it allows them to control exactly what their child is learning and who is teaching their child. However, there are two negatives that I see with homeschooling. One is that children who are homeschooled do not have as many opportunities to interact with other children who have diverse perspectives. By homeschooling, students are primarily only learning what their parents beliefs are and may not be as exposed to diversity compared to those students in public schools. Customizing education may permit schooling to be tailored for each individual student, but total customization also threaten to insulate students from exposure to diverse ideas and people and thereby shield them from the vibrancy of a pluralistic democracy (Rob Reich).
Another question that I found my asking when reading about homeschooling is how qualified are these parents to be teachers? According to a 2000-2001 Barna survey, homeschool parents are 39% less likely to be college graduates. Are these children who are being homeschooled learning everything they schould be learning when they are not being taught by a certified teacher? I can understand parents wanting to teach their children because of moral and religious reasons. However, when children are homeschooled they are not being exposed to as many diverse people and ideas that they would find if they were to attend school. I am not sure if there is a solution to this problem because parents can not completely customize or control their child's education if their child is going to a traditional school.

"Who should be permitted to provide public schooling?"

Hess believes that anyone should be able to teach our children as long as they are being responsibile and following their public mission. Public schools have always had to deal with for-profit groups so why now shouldn't for-profit groups be able to run schools and instead of being "private" be labeled completely public. Hess believes what we call "private" schools could really be public schools because they follow certain societial guidelines and are not run the way the use to be run. Religious schools are the main factor this idea. Religion no longer has the control in communities as it once did. These religious private schools could be grouped into public schools because they do follow certain guidleines and standards the state and federal government have created. I agree with this point and believe that children should be able to attend a school that is safe and will help them learn the most they can. If a Catholic school does it for some kids then let those kids go there. I just think all schools need to be on the same page so we know our children we be able to function later on in society no matter where they went to school. In the article, Cathloic Schools Eyed for Charter, New York City wants to turn Catholic schools into public charter schools but they can't do this because the state needs to change laws in order for this to occur. The state of New York has a great idea to create new public schools and this is something all states should do. You can see though how private schools have been looked at in the past just by how the state laws are written and how they have to be changed. I believe parents and children should have the right to choose where they want to attend school and I think the states and federal government need to change and make this work. All schools could be labeled public schools because they all have a mission of educating the youth of America so they all have a common purpose, we just need to create a common set of goals in order for all American children to have equal education.

Home Schooling Responsibility

As stated in this weeks presentation between 1.9 and 2.4 million children are being educated in a home school setting. Parents are making the choice to educate children in their homes due to their religious and moral stances and also in the hopes of providing a safer learning environment for their student then what can be offered in a public school setting. They are choosing to make their student's education their responsibility as they have a right to, however the issue that I have with this responsibility is how effectively the children who are in the home school setting are being instructed. I agree with Holt when he says that home is the natural base for exploration of the world. And it is. At the beginning of every school year I make a point to tell the parents in my classroom that THEY were their child's first teacher, and I will be building off of the foundation that they and previous teachers have set. However, there comes a point where a student will benefit from leaving the home and being exposed to the world around them, specifically through the public school setting. As shown in our presentation, there are numerous home schooling formats, including a few that provide for involvement in the community and other "public" areanas. But how many families are choosing that option? And if they are choosing that option, are the activities varied, or are they all linked to the particular church that that family belongs to? No one is sure. As seen in our presentation, the statistics relating to home schooling are vague at best, which directly relates to my point: Yes, the parents have a right to make their student's learning their responsibility, but are they living up to that responsibility?

Homeschool Responsibilities

The responsibility of educating children ultimately rests in the home, so it seems only fitting that there are parents who are taking on that responsibility and educating their children in a full-time capacity. As Jenn pointed out, home-schooling was the 'norm' in the early 1800's. The need for all children to have a balanced education brought about compulsory education. It was felt that immigrants, farmers' children, and urban children all needed to be educated in the basic structure of our society and democracy. Every child needs to be able to read, write, and do arithmetic. However, this brigs into account concepts and ideals that may not be in line with the values of the particular family unit. As noted by Fredrick Hess, "it is inappropriate for public school teachers to use their office to impose personal views upon a captive audience." (p. 163) The manner in which a child is educatied is therefore under the authority of the parent(s) of the child.
Choices in the educational process are numerous and they continue to grow. Parents are given many options when it comes to teaching their children. Although many homeschoolers teach tehir chldren outside of the public school environment for religious reasons, there are a growing number of homeschoolers who are teaching their children because they are disappointed with the public school system. In the "Focus on Education" article mentioned earlier, it was stated that "academic concerns outweigh religious reasons." Some see that the pubic schoool does not meet the needs of their special education child. Some have had bad experiences with bullies or with a poor teacher. Others see homescholing as an inexpensive option to an individualized education. Whatever the reason, homeschooling is just one option available for parents who are dissastisfied with the methods by which their children are being taught.
One of the greatest appeals of the homeschooling choice is the lack of regulation. As Dr. Scott pointed out, "the lack of regulation is the greatest strength [for this choice], but it is also the greatest weakness." Unregulated schooling practices could create a culture of children who are not being educated in subjects that are necessary to compete in society. Rob Reich, in his article "On Regualting Homeschooling: A Reply to Glanzer", states that he believes that "parents...bear the burden of proof in showing that parents, in their capactiy as teachers, will meet the state's and child's interests in education." Reich supports greater regulation for homeschooling. He also believes that there is "no good evidence about the performance, academic or otherwise, of homeschool students." All homeschooled students should be registered and all students should take basic skills tests. Is the homeschooling curriculium too subjective? Should there be "basics" that should be covered? Who's to say what...by when...how? I do believe that homeschooling has a place in our educational system and I have considered homeschooling my own children on a number of occasions, but there are still a great deal of questions to be answered. For now, I allow my children to go to the public school, support them wherever I can, and be in contact and communication with their teachers, so that we may all (student, parent, teacher) work together for the best interest of the child.

Home Schooling:A Choice in a Democratic Society

Home schooling has been growing considerably according to Jenn’s presentation with over 2 million home schoolers nationwide. Jenn and “Home Schooling Grows” stated that the primary reason given for parents to choose to home school was for moral or religious reasons. Parents want to assure that their children are raised with the values and beliefs that the parents believe are crucial to the well-being of their children. “The Civic Perils of Home Schooling” states “parents view the education of their children as a matter properly under their control and no one else’s.” They want to be able to choose what their children learn and how they learn it. The author of “The Civic Perils…” has the view that this “dilutes active democratic citizenship”. I do not understand how home schooling is a component of the demise of democratic citizenship. Isn’t it just the opposite? Are not home schooling parents exercising their democratic right to choose what is best for their family?
Our question was “How should we apportion responsibility between families and public schools?” The responsibility for our children lies solely in the laps of the parents. It is only by our parental choice that we give over control for the education of our children to the public school. When you really think about it, most of us send our children to public school, because it is the norm, without really even considering anything else, except maybe a religious private school. We give control to the school for the curriculum that our children will learn and how it is taught. How many parents have actually gone to the ODE website and looked at the state standards? Most of us just blindly accept that the school knows best and say “Here are my children.” I have never had a parent question me over curriculum or teaching methods, except on how they can help their child study.
I applaud parents who have taken back their God-given rights to raise their children as they see fit. Oftentimes, home schooling parents are seen as radical and extremist. Bring up the topic in a public school teachers’ lounge and watch the disgust and even some anger come out. Maybe we are threatened. Maybe we do not understand how a family’s biblical world view may cause them to choose home schooling. Somehow we always remember that one family that home schooled and what a disaster it turned out to be. If the majority of home schooling experiences were disasters, why is it growing so rapidly? Personally, I would have loved to home school, and my daughter actually begged to be home schooled. However, my husband and I chose to have our children attend our public school, because we exercised our rights to choose that option as the best for our family. As parents, we should put as much thought into our child’s K-12 education options, as we did for their pre-school experience or will when it’s time to choose a college.

Who Should Provide Public Schooling?

Right now, pretty much anyone can provide a public education. The parents are left with many choices on how to educate their children. Ria said it best in her post about parents having the right to decided what is best for their child's education, whether it be public, private, charter or homeschooling. Hess even states that it is not clear that public schooling needs to have restrictions on who provides services. Those parents who choose to homeschool have that right. Jen told us in her presentation that between 1.5 and 2.4 million kids are homeschooled. There is no way of knowing what these kids are learning at home and if they are receiving a rich education.

Mary also discussed the decline in private school education. Right now in this economy, public schooling is the better route. Again, it is ultimately up to the parents to decide. Public schools have no tuition, and if you are in a good community like River or Westlake, you know that their levies pass and that their test scores are high. They are great school districts. Mary also mentioned that the lack of enrollment in the private schools could be due to lack of faith. Which goes back to the economy as well. People are pressed for money. Times are rough, a lot of people have lost faith. There has also been a change in social values. Families have changed. Families don't sit down and have dinner together anymore. Everyone is on the go. Too many families are broken and have no structure. Times have really changed.

Public schooling is open to all in this country. There are no restrictions. Anyone can attend. It is the sole responsibility of the parents to decide what is best for their child when it comes to their education.

Private schools vs. public schools

I will start with what I understand from the readings, the definition of public schools and what Hess’ perspective is on public schools. According to Hess, “public schools have a commitment to prepare students to be productive member of a social order, aware of society responsibilities, and prove an appropriate placement for each student.” Okay, so this is a pretty broad definition. I did like what Hess said a public school is not……“not accountable to the government, there is no voting public and as for vouchers, that raised a whole other issue.” Another purpose of the public school (Hess) is provide the academic learning for students to serve the needs of the individual and the state. Ah - here comes the government. Then it said on page 158 that “the citizens who lack in education don’t contribute to society and drain the public resources.” This to me meant that if we do not educate our students to become working citizen of our communities then they will be on welfare and food stamps.
Now the “who” on providing this wonderful public service. Public service is defined as a service performed for the benefit of the public. (dictionary.com) I would love to think that all of our schools and teachers have the benefit of the public (students) in their best interest. I believe that most teachers start off this way. They are right our of college and they can’t wait to make a difference in a child’s life. Then they start that first job and after a couple of years there is more and more restrictions in their teaching, students are not prepared to learn (no breakfast, home life is bad, etc.) and then the teacher’s are held accountable for that year end test so they make sure that the students know everything on that test by the end of year. Whew! Sometimes I think we are being picky on the “who” and should be asking, “Are they making a difference?” You hear about these wonderful schools that are helping children read and writing but they don’t have the money to succeed so they go under. We should be focusing on whomever is calling themselves a public school and are they providing the service that the students deserve and are coming there for. This is why charter schools open in areas where the public school systems are not doing very well, for example, Lorain and Cleveland. Then the public schools say that the charter schools are stealing their students and their money. Well, provide the great education and the students would not leave. We all know there is much more to this…..if the school system had the money, resources, etc. then maybe they would not be in this predicament. I can’t help going back to the teachers. If the Lorain and Cleveland School Systems (not personal - just all I know) had all great teachers that wanted to truly make a difference in the children’s lives that they are providing the service to, would we have all of these problems still? Sometimes I think that some of the teachers are trying 100% and some are floating through. Does this make a difference? I am not sure.
Mary’s presentation about Catholic schools hit home for me. I have been asking the question of what has happened in the last ten to fifteen years to families, homes, schools, and children that has made our society so different as it was when I went to school. I realized one aspect (yes, I realize that there are numerous) that I feel the general public has participated less in is religion. Mary mentioned that in 1965 85% attended a Catholic School and currently 49% attend. I know we discuss money issues in sending a child to a Catholic School but I think that is just recently with the economic times. I believe that our religious beliefs have dwindled and it is not as important that your children receive this in addition to education. I believe that Mary called this a “crisis of faith”.

Whose to Say What a Public School is Anyway?

"A public school has components of schooling that include the responsibility for teaching the principles, habits, and obligations of citizenship" (Hess pg.158). As I think about the question of who should be permitted to provide public schooling I believe we need to look further than these components that are a part of any school public or private. First of all, whose to say that only a public school includes those components mentioned. In my opinion we could see a responsibility for teaching principles, habits, and obligations of citizenship at any type of school. Second of all, I believe that any school can consider themselves a public school if they are funded by a state and they are held accountable for things such as attendance, test scores, their teachers, their funding etc. Hess also said on pg.157 that "schools that are considered public are those schools that policy making and oversight are the responsibility of governmental bodies, such as a local school board". The third thing is that a public school is a school that is available to anyone regardless of your status, wealth, race, or religion.
The best example of this for me is the school that I work at. I work at a charter school and although it is a public school many people think that we are private. We are privately operated public schools financed through state of Ohio per-pupil foundation funds. At my school we receive no local property tax money/cannot charge tuition but we do collect a materials fee. We accept all students and cannot discriminate on any basis. All of our teachers are state certified. Our students are required to pass state-mandated proficiency (or achievement) tests as other public schools. We are subjected to financial audits by the auditor of the state of Ohio to ensure long term financial viability and accountability for taxpayer funds. At my school we focus on student academic excellence, promote good character, and ensure small class sizes (only 20 students per class). The reason that we are a public school is because we are accountable to the state over everything we do. I just recently found out that if our attendance rate is 93% or lower on the principal report each month we can be shut down. We also can be shut down based on discipline reports (too many suspensions etc) and of course our testing scores. We strive to be an "effective school" of which we were rated last year and this year our goal is to be rated "excellent". After speaking with my principal I later found out that our schools are actually way more accountable than other schools.
I can't exactly say whether the definition of a public school should be redefined but I do know that those schools who are accountable in some ways and who use the states money should be under the category of a "public" school. Also, any school who accepts students regardless of their status, wealth, race, or religion also should be considered a public school. I feel we need to look further than the components and focus more on the accountability aspect. We may be a charter school but we are dedicated and accountable far more than most schools and we do not receive the credit of which we too deserve the recognition.

Home School Dilemma

I believe the choice to homeschool shows a true commitment and dedication to one's child(ren), not to mention much needed patience and dicipline. If a parent truly has their child(rens)'s best interest at heart I believe they should be able to have the final decision in the approach of their education. I have a neighbor who has home schooled her two boys up until the oldest graduated from H.S. and was able to obtain a football scholarship because he played football for the local public H.S., and the younger brother is currently a sophmore in a charter school. I asked my neighbor why she chose to homeschool and she reiterated many points that Jennifer brought out in class. My neighbor stated that she checked into the public and private schools but they didn't encompass all three of the components of an education that she regarded important:1)academics, 2)spiritual emphasis, and 3)cultural enrichment/awareness-as far as pertaining to a young black male. She chose to home school because she had an "awakening, where God said this is what i needed to do for my children." She went on to tell me that it benefited her because:1)it allowed for stronger social skills with adults, 2)it allowed for hands on activities (she utilized many of the methodologies presented in class), 3)a freer spiritual but serious approach to education, and 4)allowed her teach her Christian values while living it on a daily basis. This correlates with Jennifer's presentation as well as that of the article Home Schooling Grows where it was cited "the biggest motivation for parent's to teach their children at home has been moral or religious reasons."As far as whether these homeschool children should be given access to services provided by the public schools (i.e. extacurricular or auxilarry services in the form of OT/PT/SLT or PE)...I say why not? Why deny these children any opportunity to socially interact with their peers? more than likely,these will be the same children they'll be playing with in the neighborhood. This is where apportioning responsibilitieas between famalies and the local school or school district must be held accountable equally. School districts should allow homeschoolers to be a part of the school community and be involved as much as possible. When there are activities (i.e. field trips, sporting events) parents would have to be mandated to be present, accountable, and sign a waiver of responsibility on the part of the school or staff members. The waiver would be implemented to protect staff. After all, they do not know these children, their personalities, let alone whatever issues. People are also choosing homeschool to keep their children safe! As Brian presented last week in class school violence and among children in general is on the rise. We see it in the media everyday...look at Success Tech H.S., Columbine H.S., or Virginia Tech!As pointed out in the article Amid Hard Times, Home Schoolinh Famalies Persist "people are looking to homeschool as an alternative more in light of economic circumstances." My neighbor, an administrative educator, worked during the day so she collaborated with another homeschooler who also was a Christian educator that worked in the afternoon. My neighbor taught math and social studies in the afternoon while the other mom taught music and science in the morning. It was even brought to my attention that one of the superintendants of Warrensville Height H.S. homeschooled the gradson and allowed/encouraged interaction between the public schools and homeschoolers. Many school district discourage homescooling because that is additional funds that is being lost per day for educational purposes from the state. I believe that's called per diem. Therefore, that child is viewed as a lost in working capital.Between the class presentation, talking to my neighbor and other homeschoolers I admire and support these parents and agree with the statement "these famalies are already sacraficing-when times get tough, there's no belt left to tighten. These are famalies who homeschool because public education wouldn't serve the needs of their child," and parent's can't afford private education, as Mary's report indicated.

Our Public Schools Practice Reverse Discrimination

How should we divide responsibility between families and public schools? If I remember correctly, we live in the United States of America, and we do have a constitution with a first amendment. "The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws 'respecting an establishment of religion' or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievences"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). This being the case considering our rights as citizens, don’t we have the right to educate our children the way we see fit?

It is clear to me that the parent’s role as the primary educators of their children has been usurped in public schools as well as some private schools. This can be traced through the history of our public schools back to the anti-Catholic rhetoric going on during the 19th century, and today it can even be seen in your local diocesan school due to the watering down of the faith (Noll, 2008). I have seen more Catholics than ever before jumping on the homeschooling bandwagon, all because the true faith which they are trying to teach at home is being undermined in their local schools.

According to Frederick Hess, in his article “What is a Public School? Principles for a New Century”, the public school should teach children the essential skills and knowledge that make for productive citizens, teach them to respect our constitutional order, and instruct them in the framework of rights and obligations that secure our democracy and protect our liberty, however, unfortunately, today’s public schools are explicitly promoting a particular world view and working harder to stamp out familial views and impress children with socially approved beliefs (Noll, 2008). Schools have intruded on the familiar sphere (Noll, 2008), and faculty members make no bones about advancing their own liberal agenda, at the cost of undermining the morals and values many parents are teaching at home. Hess states, “in a liberal society, uniformly teaching student’s to accept teen pregnancy or homosexuality as normal and morally unobjectionable represents a jarring absolutism amidst profound moral disagreement” (Noll, 2008). Remember my definition of moral relativism? Is this not what is being taught in our schools today? The head of Christ’s Church on earth, Pope Benedict XVI, has stated that moral relativism is one of the greatest evils of our time. In light of all of this, is it no doubt that so many parents want to withdrawal their children from these schools that are undermining their authority and primary duty as parents?

So to bring up the question again, how should we divide responsibility between families and public schools? I think it would be very hard to turn the tide of extreme liberalism that has infiltrated our schools, and give parents equal responsibility in public schools. God has been stripped from schools, and so we are at the point of no return. Reverse discrimination has affected those who want their children to hear God’s laws and practice Christian virtues in their everyday lives as citizens of the United States. I don’t think God will ever be able to return to public schools, and so homeschooling is bound to increase. We still have the right to educate our children as we see fit. Let’s pray this will not be taken away as well.

Who's Choice is it Anyway?

As long as we have the right to choose in this country parents will have the ability to home school their children, pay expensive tuition or enroll their child in the public school system. That's what our country is about. Choices, laws, rules and regulations...education is a major sector in our society that is affected by all four. In Jessica Shyu's article "New Terrain", she referred to the example of the Obamas when they were deciding where to send their daughters to school once living in D.C.. Shyu said the public had no right to judge the family's decision on public vs. private schooling for the girls. I interpreted her statement as, "Decisions based on schooling for your child is private and outer sources have no right to judge what you feel is best for your child."

My parents attended public schools but made the personal decision for me to have a Catholic education. Are we Catholic? No, however my parents felt that during my elementary and high school years, public education was not meeting the needs of its students. We lived in an area that had poor performing schools so they sacrificed financially, to provide me with the best education available. Though all schools have their own "drama" within its students, my parents felt uniforms provided structure and allowed me to focus on academics. Public schools at that time had no dress code. When students wore certain articles of clothing it was considered "gang related"...which lead into the concern of safety for my parents, when comparing Catholic and public schooling.

When answering the question "What are the purposes of public schooling?" Hess says the academic learning serves both the individual and state needs. He reminds us that "public" school components are the responsibility to teach principles, habits and obligations of citizenship. Previously we've discussed the school's role in character education. We agreed, for the majority, that a great teacher will teach these lessons indirectly to students anyway. These components should be apart of any school, public, private, charter or Catholic. As adults, we have an obligation to the children in society, to teach and lead them, in an effort to create civilized members for our communities. Education is something that should be valued, experienced and accessible to everyone. All schools provide that basic concept but the reality is that not all schools deliver the best quality.

In Mary's presentation, we learned that Catholic education was established to educate certain groups that did not have access to education (young girls, Native Americans and Africans). As time went on, schools that were religious based, included religion in their curriculum setting them aside from "public" schools that were government controlled and limited to religious avenues. Education has evolved since the beginning of the 19th century (according to Mary) that the ability to choose your child's education is another milestone for society, in my opinion. As long as funding is available for parents to send their children to Catholic or private schools and the struggle to rebuild some public institutions remains evident, I think we will always have the "public vs. private" issue.

To answer Hess' question "Who should be permitted to provide public schooling? " is confusing to be honest. Public schools are "free" for enrollment and attendance with strict control from local and state government and federal funding. Private and Catholic schools follow certain areas of federal and state laws but answer to different stakeholders on a local level. The reality is that not every school provides the same quality of education or operates effectively the same. For these reasons, it's every parent's right to choose they type of education for their child how they see fit.

Exposure to the Outside World Essential

This is an interesting question to consider in the home schooling debate. In our class discussions we have looked at the teacher-parent relationship from a different angle. We’ve debated whether or not teachers should “fill in” where parents and families are lacking. The question of should we help the student reach their highest potential when their parents aren’t has come up. People tend to either feel that teachers should help out for the sake of the child. Or, teachers shouldn’t because they already have so much responsibility and are enabling the parents. But Hess discusses a different angle in reference to home schooling. The idea that teachers are trying to correct the family is an invasion.

I think that, as in many situations, a middle ground is the way to go. Students are frequently home schooled because the parents feel it is in their best interest. Jenn discussed a variety of reasons ranging from religious/moral to environment. This comes down to the idea that parents want to choose how their child is educated and formed into their future self. I can respect this to an extent. The article Amid Hard Times talked about how much home schooling strengthened the family structure and how the older children believed in it to the extent that they would sacrifice for their younger siblings. But I also feel the sheltered environment robs them of learning about others, being exposed to uncomfortable situations, and diversity of life. In Hess’ chapter the educational thinkers called this, “freeing students from the yoke of their family provincial understandings”. If a family is biased against an ethnic group or way of thinking my bet would be that that would be portrayed through in their lessons and work. Personal bias does come into play in all families, but when students attend school they are at least exposed to other environments and ideals for 6-8 hours a day. The interactions with teachers and other students will have an influence on their opinions. This exposure prepares them for the future in the working world and lives up the diversity of our country.

I am not arguing against home schooling. Like anything I am sure it can be done in an appropriate manner with good intention. I love the idea of families getting together and planning excursions and I understand when it is necessary for some individuals like those with health issues. But I do think it would be beneficial for the students to get some education/time away from their family structure.

It's in the Definition

We live in a democracy and the notion of permitting or not permitting a group to provide a service seems unusual. The service provided in terms of schooling is, I think, to educate a child to become the best and most productive citizen that he/she can be. The question of public or private education seems to be the choice that the parent makes according to their means and values. If we think of "public" in terms of, as in the Hess article, "those directly accountable to elected officials or funded by tax dollars and whose policies are the responsibility of local government, such as the local school district," then we single-mindedly exclude all those other educational environments, like religious schools, other private schools and charter schools. Maybe traditionally we do think of public schools as the ones that are free, but just as the Hess article proves with the tuition charged by inter-district choice plans, this is not always the case. I do think the underlying issue, like the books notes is the meaning of public. Does public mean open to all? Does it mean free education? Does it mean equal?
I think that if the state chooses to mandate the private sectors core subjects as in the Iowa schools article, even to the smallest degree, then that school should have the availability of the tax monies that the public schools receive. Although I lean toward accepting credible,upstanding entities to teach children like charter schools and religious schools, I am more traditionalist in my views as to whether these "businesses" are public in their definitions. Mary's presentation showed the slide, "private schools serve the individual and family and public schools serve the larger society." This proves the privacy of private schools.
So, who should be permitted to provide public schooling? I think, the providers must fulfill the definition of public, without the balance sheet interfering. Public in terms of directed by the state with monies allocated for education, for example. That is not to say private schools do not provide excellent schooling and produce outstanding citizens, but they are not "public" in their mission. Their services cannot be had by all in the public arena and must be labeled exclusive.

Jarod's Law - is it too much?

Okay, so I just finished watching the Jarod’s Law video and news clips from Kari‘s presentation. It is so sad what has happened to this little boy and the pain his family went through and is still going through. I could understand the family wanting to make a difference after finding out that other children died from this same kind of accident and nothing had been done about these tables.
However, I read through the stipulations of Jarod’s Law and it has gone off the deep end. I totally agree that schools should provide a safe atmosphere for children to learn. I don’t think that any school is in a situation that they knowingly are unsafe for the children to come there everyday. (Okay, maybe a few once I looked through the list of Jarod’s Law Health Inspection sheet.) Come on, it is not this safe anywhere in the USA that I could imagine - how about our homes and local stores!? Most of the items listed seem like common sense. Someone in class mentioned a lipgloss being taken out of a teacher’s drawer because of the health inspections - maybe the students should be taught not to go into the teacher’s drawers. I read online that the Ohio Department of Health is responsible for developing the forms, templates and checklists to be used before and after the inspection. Also, the ODH has to develop a list of dangerous and recalled products that might be found in schools and distribute this list to the schools. Who was paying for all of this before, did the ODH receive addition funding for this project or is it just dividing it among the employees they already have - adding more workload.
I am not saying that this bill is not effective - I have 3 children in school and I am trusting that the school is doing everything to keep them safe. My questions are who is paying for all of this? Did the ODH receive additional funding in Jarod’s Law? Did the lawmakers take into account all of the additional money that needed to be spent for someone to check for litter outside the building and make sure there is no standing water on the playground?

Jarods Law

While I agree that children are vital members of society we must not forget that they still need guidance and education from the senior members of society in order to grow and flourish. I strongly feel that while the passing of Jarod's Law may cause an inconvenience to our school and health department officials, it is a completely necessary move in order to ensure our children's safety. If we cannot protect the youngest members of our society from things like lead poisoning, recalled playground equipment, and access to dangerous materials then what type of society do we live in? I understand that some school districts have seemingly gone overboard with their attempts to correctly implement this new law,however, it seems to me that the great good this Law will provide outweigh the negatives. While funding is certainly an issue, i feel that ensuring our children's safety is a high priority and if financial cuts in other areas must happen in order to schools to make the necessary and often past due upgrades then so be it. We owe it to our children to provide a safe environment in their schools and if this law is what it took for that to happen then i applaud the lawmakers.

As a parent i would expect the school my daughter will attend have procedures in place to ensure that 1. No paint, roofing material, or other sealants or coatings can be applied during occupied periods without exposure control methods 2.School playgrounds and fall zones will be inspected3.Walls and ceiling shall be intact with no water damage, stains, mold, or chipped or peeling paint4.Custodial closets must be inaccessible to unauthorized individuals.5.Schools must appoint a representative to inspect the school on a quarterly basis for dangerous products (from jarod-law.pdf) and the list goes on. These are common sense safety precautions that we, as parents, make sure are practiced in our homes and child care centers. It is common sense to me that schools should be held to the same standards. We owe it to are children to provide them with safe learning environments, no matter what the cost.

“Our drive and determination to pursue safer schools for Ohio children is driven by our belief that Jarrod’s death was completely preventable”, says Jim Bennett, Jarrod Bennett’s dad. “Through working with House Representative Tom Raga, and other legal professionals, we’ve discovered to our surprise that Ohio did not require school safety inspections for grades K-12. Although the dangers of the cafeteria table design which killed Jarrod had been made public for over 10 years by the Federal Governments Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), effective awareness and remediation had not occurred. We believe HB203, Jarrod’s Law, will create a safety inspection program for known dangers, subsequently creating awareness and remediation, and a safer environment for our children to learn.”

We owe it to our children, as the most vulnerable members of our society, to ensure that their health and well being is our number one priority.

I guess I would not consider myself a traditional educator after reading that quote. I believe that once a child is born, they are an active member of society. They are experiencing everything that we experience, even if it does not affect them on the same level.
I am a substitute teacher for Lorain City Schools, and when Deb was giving her presentation and passed around the emergency procedures for LCCC and Amherst, I started to think about all of the different schools that I am in each day. I don’t think that I put much attention toward what the emergency procedures were in the different schools. I of course have noticed the picture hanging by the door that directs you in the proper direction for a fire drill, but other than that I believe that I would be quite lost of what to do in any other emergency situation which makes me very uncomfortable. The more I thought about it, the more it bothered me; I don’t really understand why the procedures have to be different for the schools. This is why I think it is crucial to have practice drills for all types of emergency situations, so the students are each aware of what they need to do. If your students are prepared for the situation, then hopefully if their regular classroom teacher isn’t there, they would still be able to complete the task.
By establishing a plan with your students ahead of time, will better prepare them for an emergency situations that they may incur over the course of their lives, this is a large correlations between the schools and society. This is a large part of what teachers as role models prepare their students for.
The article about disaster drills mentions “even with the recent lowering of the national alert level, administrators remain on their guard”, I think regardless of what the alert level is, schools and the children that attend should always be prepared for any situation that may arise. A real emergency is not going to be planned, so being caught off guard and not prepared could result in disaster.

Safety In Schools

I was not familiar with Jarod's Law until Kari gave her presentation. I feel terrible that this tragedy could have been prevented. I think that the overall goal of Jarod's law is good but that it is so extensive that is limits the experience that students should be able to have to truly learn. It should be the schools responsibility to create the safest experience possible. However, I am afraid that the students will be so protected that they wont know how to solve their own problems. I also do not want all the fun to be taken out of learning. For example, at my school the students love reading on the carpet and on bean bag chairs. It would be a shame if all these resources were taken away.
When reading about Jarod's Law it said that all schools who receive government funding must comply with the law. I work at a charter school and I have not heard anyone there talk about Jarod's Law. Also since Kari's presentation I have seen that my school violates some of the rules that are stated in the School Environmental Health and Safety Inspection checklist. For example my school stores folding chairs in the hallways which Jarod's Law does not permit. My school also has carpeting around water fountains which is not allowed because moisture will acumulate. At least at my school it does not seem like yearly health and safety inspections are being done. It seems like more needs to be done to make sure that schools are following the regulations stated in Jarod's Law.

School Violence...Teacher's role

I believe that all children come to school to learn the things that will allow them to become a good citizen. I have always believed that this is my first goal when teaching my students. I know a lot of the times my students will not remember what I teach them in math or science 10 years from now but they will remember how to treat others and interact with others in a way that will allow them to become successful. School violence is something that is needed to be addressed in schools and with parents. Bullying and violence doesn't start at school it starts when they are at home and very young. Like Brian told use...3-7 year olds can't understand that what happens in the media is not real. If parents are letting their young children watch movies and tv shows with violence in them they are going to become numb to it. If children come to school already being somewhat numb to violence than of course they are not going to realize what they are doing and if they are bullying someone. Students need to know what violence is and what is morally exceptable in society today. Some kids come to school and are very behind in learning the difference between right and wrong and it is up to the school community to teach them and their parents values and morales. Schools really have become the center for learning not just for the students but also for their parents and the communities. I believe a lot of school violence and bullying could be prevented if people are made aware of it when they are young and first starting school. The program Steff was talking about obviously did its job in her brother's school and I think programs like that would work just because they show everyone every type of bullying and how by not doing anything you are an indrect bully. Just by opening people's eyes to school bullying I think would stop a lot of what teachers see on a day to day basis.

The Safety of Our Nation's Children:The Effect of Jarod's Law

Kari's presentation of Jarod's Law was very throrough and informative. I had heard of the untimely and unfortunate death of young Jarod but was unaware of the impact of this sad story. How can there be any questions or doubts that children are members of society? The children of today will grow up to be our law makers, educators, nurses, doctors and yes, even sanitation workers. Everyday my children wake up and go to school. For them it is a place where they go to learn...whether they like it or not...but it is also the place they go to socialize with their friends. As parents we all believe that our children are safe while at school, but as Brian and Kari, and the media, continues to remind us, this is not the case.
The purpose of Jarod's Law is to "pursue safer schools for Ohio children" (http://www.the-bennetts.com/WhyJL.htm.) It's so tragic that this young boy's death brought to light the fact that nobody was being responsible for the general safety and inspection in our schools. Now the law is in place, but it places furtherf inancial burden burden on our districts because even though the State is mandating it, the State is not allocating money for the expenses or needed adjustments to correct the violations according to the article Jarod's Law Redefines School Safety Standards.
I agree totally with Mary on her blog in rference to protecting the children but not at the cost of our tax dollars. The State and Federal government are so quick to omplement laws and standards but without proper financial backing. Whatever happened to the old proverb "it takes a village to raise a child"? We, the parents and educators are the village, and we need to work collaboratively to protect and educate our future generation, who will in turn set standards for our society, our nation. Does that last statement worry you? It should!

School Violence

I believe that children are already members of society by the time they reach school. They are the vulnerable, disadvantaged parts of society. When it comes to school violence, I think sometimes teachers do overlook it. This is not done intentionally, but sometimes the signs are not always there or we miss them. It's difficult to see the signs when you have a class of 25, and there is only one of you. But is the teacher the only factor in a child's life? No, but I agree that we as educators are a huge part. I also feel it is important to think of all the components that factor into a child's life. School is not the only factor. We must remember that by the time a child starts school he/she has already been around for five to six years. How was that child raised prior to coming to school? What are the morals/values that take place in his/her household? Does the guardians of that child display violent acts?

I do believe that teachers play a role when it comes to school violence. As a teacher, we try to teach our students to become good citizens. We show them how important it is to take responsibility for your actions, use manners, use your words when you're upset, etc. We try to do this using indirect ways though; our daily rules, completing assignments, etc.
I think it is important that educators find the time to sit down with their students and talk about bullying and school violence. Teachers tend to get caught up in grading, lesson plans and tests that they tend to forget about issues like violence and bullying. I feel its important we explain that school is a community. In order for our community to be effective we must work as a team. This only can go so far though. If our students are learning differently at home, we can only hope they rise above their home life.

Should Children Be Active in Planning for Emergencies?

Children are indeed members of society the moment they are born. But it is as they grow that they increase in responsibilities and wisdom and are able to make more mature decisions. You cannot expect a child to act like an adult or to be able to think like one. Certainly all children are individuals, but we must be careful in how we treat them and not expect them to be able to think out all consequences of any given situation. As members of my classroom, the children are often invited into a discussion about our class rules and policies. These discussions are guided by me and give the children opportunities to talk over the "why" of rules and procedures with one another and with me. In this way, they are making the classroom decisions their "own" and are able to "share" in the decisions in the classroom. Ultimately, I, as the classroom teacher, am responsibile for the children in my care.
Even though Deb shared that Ohio "suggests" that emergency plans are created, most of the schools with which I have worked, have a formal plan in order. The district and each individual school has plans in place to deal with varying emergencies such as fire, tornados, and lock-down situations. Plans should be practiced in drills and all staff should be trained in procedures that are necessary to each type of drill. The students have a responsibility to follow the directions given and perhaps be a "buddy" to a special needs student during an emergency. Drills provide a better understanding of what is expected of students and staff in case of emergency. As is stated in "Disaster Drills..."we need to talk to the children, not "to frighten them, but ... [to] say something to them about why we are doing this". Information for emergencies should be posted by the door and the location of this information should be familar to students as they may need to aid a substitute teacher in the procedure.
As a substitute teacher, I know that I need to look for the emergency procedures posted in each classroom. Usually, each teacher has a substitute folder prepared with a listing of where everything is in a classroom, including these emergency procedures and packets. I think that all substitutes should recieve some training in emergencies and the specific school policies. I have been unprepared as the fire alarm went off one day and I was unaware what the certain signal meant. The students had practiced and were able to let me know what type of drill it was and what I needed to take with me. This shows that the more they practice, the better prepared they are to face the emergency with calmness.
Someone in class brought up the idea of how we know if it is a real emergency so that we might have the right "mindset" and know how to deal with the students. I believe that each time the drill begins, we should treat it as the "real thing". Why should our attitudes be different? Do we expect our children to be quiet during drills? If it were a real emergency, should they be quiet? For example, in the case of a lockdown, the lights should be off, the door locked and the children should be quiet. As Brian (?) had shared, he had recently had a situation where it was "real" although he did not know it was. Be prepared and when the real situation occurs, the fear factor will be minimal.

Children:The Underestimated Members of Society

Children are the underestimated members of our society. Children years ago had much more responsibility when we were a rural nation. Farm kids would be up before sunrise milking cows, cooking breakfast for younger siblings, walking miles to school. In some cultures, there is no such classification as “teenager”. When a child reaches 12 or 13 they are considered “adults” and are expected to act as such and contribute to their society as such. Are we underestimating our youth or have the opportunities to contribute to society faded away? This past summer a tornado ripped through an Iowa boy scout camp killing 4 and injuring many, but over and over again we heard how the boys immediately jumped in to help the injured using the first aid and life-saving skills they had been taught. These were boys 13-18 years old. Maybe we need to treat our students as capable and responsible citizens and empower them with emergency preparedness skills, so they are not sitting in the hallways or gyms during a disaster as frightened victims waiting to be helped or saved (“Disaster Drills Emphasize Plans to 'Shelter' Pupils at School”), but are educated members of a survival team. Even the youngest students can learn basic first-aid and safety procedures. Don’t we already teach them things like stop, drop, and roll? I do not remember any student being fearful about catching on fire after learning this safety method of putting out clothing fires. Actually, I think the opposite is true. The more a child knows about what to do in an emergency, the less fear they have.
Deb’s Emergency Procedures presentation clearly demonstrated the need to have plans in place for disasters and the need to practice the plans. The Collinwood School fire was scary, because the major escape route was blocked and panic ensued. This scene was played out not too many years ago in a nightclub fire. A fire broke out on stage and almost all rushed to the main exit. The exit was jammed with panicked patrons and many died. After the fire, the news reported that there were other exits available to the patrons, and many more, if not all, could have been saved. How does this relate to our schools? Our fire drills happen at predictable times and rarely are exits blocked. Have you ever had a fire drill during the lunch periods? Our school has not, because it would create too much chaos and put lunch times behind schedule. Yet when would a fire most likely erupt in the cafeteria kitchen? Our practice drills could use a little creativity.
Granted, our students need adult direction and expertise to be ready for disasters, but maybe we should enable our student body to be active, educated participants in our emergency preparedness. Then, as they go out into society, they will take what they have learned in our schools into the home, church, work place, and community. We will all be the better for it.

Jarod's law

First of all I must say that I think what happened to Jarod to create Jarod’s law is horrible. But I do think the law took some safety precautions a bit far. Even in the law itself it sates that “the purpose of the school inspection rules is to provide minimum standards and procedures for inspection for school.” I think the purpose should be to make a safe environment for students to learn but secondly, if this is the minimum amount than I would be afraid to see the maximum.
The school environment should be the baby step to learning how to become independent individuals in society. If they are suppose to be members of society as stated in the quote then shouldn’t we expect the students to have some responsibilities in their behavior in school. When they leave the school setting they will need to know how to keep themselves safe and know how to do things on their own. I feel like in todays school setting students have little responsibility to be accountable for their actions. I once had a lab where the kids had to toss paper plates to see how far they would through them, working on estimation and measuring skills. I set it up with the as many safety precautions that I could but of course one of my students threw a plate when another student was walking in an area they were not suppose to and got hit. Now even though I took as many safety precautions as I could someone still got hurt because they were doing what they were not suppose to be doing. So is that now my fault or the students? It would probably be mine for not having adequate space for the activity but I have to work with what I have and took as many precautions that I could. Plus, I work with teenagers so I thought they would know how to handle paper plates by now. So whose fault is it?
When reading over the new restrictions I started thinking about what older school buildings, that can’t afford remodeling, will do to adjust to the new standards. Also, what are the penalties of not following the rules? Do they have to pay a fee? I just think it will be hard for all schools to fit all the regulations. For example, one of the rules is to restrict noise, including traffic noises. If the school was built many years ago there is really nothing you can do to prevent this distraction. Or if they start construction by the school that is not the schools fault or choice. I know as a teacher I too hate when there are distractions outside but I do the best I can do to limit them but there is not much more I can do. In the end I believe we should make the school as safe as we possibly can but knowing that we can only work with what we have. Not all schools are modern schools and will not be able to be up to code on all the rules. Also, the school setting should be a starting point for entering the real world. If there are already members of society then they should know how to handle themselves and be safe in all environments. We are there to assist these skills and make sure they are making the right decisions throughout the day. If we make the school environment such a safety bubble then they will be shock when they are suddenly on their own and not use to different situations that may occur. I think it’s important to teach the kids how to be safe and responsible for themselves. So we should do our best to protect them but the students also should hold a level of responsibility of there own.

Hello All!
Just wanted to share....
I was reading up a bit on the current news and saw this article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_re_us/text_message_threat
Seems pretty new so I'm sure more information will be developing. But technology (cell phones) brings violence, safety, and emergency procedures to a whole new level!!

Protect Our Future-The Way We Know How

This quote is sort of general to me and I am having difficulty relating it to emergency procedures for the youth. But, I guess when you think about it, it is true that students are already members of society. When you are born you become a member of the society. However, I still agree that one of the roles of schools is to produce good citizens and productive members. Through their years in school the students become more and more developed and begin to give back more things to society.

For students to be able to be part of society, we must protect them. Emergency procedures protects the youth in the case of an emergency to be able to make it to the next day as a citizen. I think that Deb’s presentation showed us how important it is to practice these procedures. It was heartbreaking hearing some of the history on this topic. I also couldn’t believe the stat from the Preparing for Emergencies article. 18 states don’t have requirements for written emergency plans. I feel like this is something that could easily be so universal. I love the little red flip book we passed around class. Having that in a visible spot by the door of every room of every building would be great! It is universal so substitutes or anyone in the room could easily find what to do. (I was thinking back to the other day when I was visiting a school to tutor a child. A teacher I know asked me to just pop in and watch her kids while she ran to the restroom. What if at that moment the fire alarm went off? With a universal plan I could just grab the flip book and go.)

I was thinking about how emergency situations can be different and the same in varying environments. I have worked in many special education settings where behaviors in the classroom could result in an emergency. I think that MOST teachers do everything with a good intention and the good of the student in mind. But I know at times we can be fearful to react to situations in certain ways. I worked at a school for students with cognative delay and an alternative school for students with behavior difficulties. In both places I received training for Non-violent Crisis Intervention for working with this population. (Appropriate holds to protect the student or staff.) At the alternative school the supervisors trusted that you would only use these methods when you felt it was necessary for the safety of the staff/students or when needed to control behaviors. At the school for students with CD you could really only use specific holds with specific children who had behavior plans. This was nerve racking as a teacher because I didn’t know when it was ok and when it wasn’t. And then people walking through the halls could get the wrong impression. So then I didn’t want to use the holds at all, even though they were necessary at times. In the Mo. House article they found a way to protect teachers from lawsuits so long as they were following policies in place. I think this protection shows the teachers that the administration trusts them. Now I do know that some may not following these policies, but should they really be teachers anyways?

Overall, we have to protect our members who bring the smiles to our classrooms and will hold the hope of our future!

Teachers Role in School Violence

I do believe that one of the primary goals of schools is to produce good citizens or productive members of society. It is my opinion that traditional educators do have part of the responsibility to work with students as they are already members of a society. The question is what type of society do they belong to? When they come to the institution of the school they have already been raised and are well on a path that has been chosen for them. When I say we do not know what type of society they are coming from that is because everyone comes from a different style of home life. We do not know if they have come from a stressful environment or what kind of values or morals they may have or not have. This means that we can only do our part in instilling in them good values, morals, and the right choices while they are in our care. I believe that the productive part of being a member is part of the responsibilty of teachers, parents, and the community or environment in which the students live. As a parent it starts as the child is young and they should be responsible for telling their child that things such as hitting and name calling are not acceptable ways to act to another individual. The community that our students come from also plays a huge role because teachers have no idea what types of outside influences their students are facing outside of school. The teachers can do something about creating productive members of society. We can teach good character, life long lessons about bullying, school violence etc and work to be good role models to our students.

As much as I feel we should do more to help students along on a productive path I feel that we are in a constant war with media etc as discussed in class. From early on our students have seen inappropriate television, movies etc. We have students who watch tv where all of the violence and crime they continue to watch as part of normalcy in their daily routines. Some of our students have lived in a fantasy world of video games where they are constantly witnessing crime and violence. Our students today are also faced with the realization that are country is at war and that killing the enemy is the right thing to do. It seems to me with these examples and more that perhaps some students by time they reach school age may not be a productive member of a society. A quote that I have heard from the Bisborne Herald can simplify my exact concerns. "Children will always be the most vulnerable members of a community, and it is shameful that by ignoring early signs of trouble, society is motivated only by tragedy, empathy, or sympathy". Why is it that something bad has to happen first before anything is done in our schools about the violence? Teachers have a huge responsibility because the students are in our care for quite some time. We sometimes are their safehaven to get away from the bad and the ugly. Both teachers and parents need to be aware of how the media is impacting our students and continue to find ways to direct them or lead them down a path where the result is that they are becoming a productive member of our society.

Tug of War with Children in Society

I loved Kari's school bullying blog because she touched on the issue of self acceptance and attention seeking behaviors of students committing violent acts. I definitely feel that some students bully other children as a way of "acting out" and to deal with their own personal issues. People who torment other kids are typically experiencing a lack of control in their lives. Stressful home living and lack of attention can place a tremendous amount of stress on a child.
Are children overlooked as being apart of society? I think children contribute to society in their own way, representing a population that is often misunderstood and easily misguided by uncontrollable factors. It can be easy to forget that children are apart of our society. Schools today are sometimes the primary home for kids. At times, this may be a child's only sense of stability placing his or her teacher in the parental driver seat. In one of our earlier presentations, we discussed the issue of character education, debating the school's role in creating active members of society and the responsibility parents have in the matter. David Gribble's quote, "The truth that traditional educators have overlooked is that children are actually members of society already", holds a strong opinion toward teachers in society.
Today, educators are expected to fulfill a much larger role than the one they were hired to do...parent the children they teach. In the article "PTA Parent:Guiding Your Family's Video Game Play" they offer a list of skills to parents that can help children succeed in all aspects of life. Some of the skills include follow up consequences for misbehavior, ask children how they feel, ask questions that help children solve problems on their own and encourage sharing and helping. These are basic skills that should certainly be taught in the home and reinforced in school. I think non-educators forget how difficult a teacher's job is from day to day. Parents have a choice on how many children they want to have, where teachers are told how many they are too teach. Naturally, a good teacher will fulfill the parent role because of the time spent with children in the classroom. It becomes unfair to the teacher when children are brought to school without the basic concepts of "home training".
Again we always fall back to the question of who's responsibility is it? Schools today are taking on larger roles educating both the parent and child in some areas. The age old quote "It takes a village to raise a child" has fallen by the way side. Now, it seems like some parents have the"It's the school's job to raise the child, give the parent a break" frame of mind. The truth is children learn from their environment (home life, media types, friends, school, etc). As adults, we are responsible to foster growth and teach kids right from wrong. Today, however, the shoes are larger to fill in society because the issues are more complex than before. As an educator, are you ready to play the role?

Keep Our Children Safe

Children are indeed members of society starting when they come out of the womb. We as parents and teachers need to do everything in our power to protect them.

I was not familiar with Jarod's Law until reading Kari's presentation just a few minutes ago. It is a tragic event that should have never happened. In the article "Jarod's Law Redefines School Safety Standards," health officials regard it as one of the most comprehensive school safety programs in the country. I read in Kari's presentation that the safety inspectors come out on a yearly basis and complete a thorough inspection. Is it only the non public and public schools that get inspected? Do they look at charter schools or daycares or pre-schools at all? Children cannot learn in an environment that is unsafe. Many complain that the cost of these saftey precautions are taking away from their children's education. I know I would only send my child to a school that was safe and had a strict safety code and or manual for parents to read. Accidents like Jarod's should have never happened. Those are the types of accidents that can easily be prevented. I don't understand why more states have not adopted this law. The research shows that it is indeed helping since the law is very strict on the inspections and getting problems solved in a timely manner. Money should not be the reason our children can't be protected in our schools.

Protecting the School Society

Because children are members of our society, it is our duty as a whole society to protect every member. Therefore, it makes sense that Jarod’s Law would be enacted.

Essentially this law will help better protect all the members of the school society. In Kari Patrick’s presentation on Jarod’s Law, it was mentioned in a report by Deb Silverman that the safety standards in schools had not been revised since the late 1970’s (1977). This new Ohio House Bill 203 was signed by Governor Taft on December19, 2005. According to Deb Silverman from her report “Jarod’s Law Redefines School Safety Standards”, health officials have recognized it as one of the most comprehensive school safety programs in the country. Obviously, a lot of time has elapsed and through the tragedy of this young boy, new safety guidelines have to be enforced in schools (http://www.odh.ohio.gov/rules/final/f3701-54.aspx ).

Under this new law, schools will be required to have yearly inspections to identify any hazardous materials that need to be removed or stored properly, or building/playground equipment that are in violation of the code, according to Ms. Patrick. Who is going to pay to fix these problems? I like what Ms. Patrick quoted from an anonymous blog posting, “I fully support the safety of school children as much as the next human being, but I must ask, safety at what cost? At the cost of education? At the cost of interest in science and knowing, and seeking the truth with one’s own hands and intellect”(http://introverteddeviate.blogspot.com).

Yes, we need to protect all members of our society, even our children in our schools, but at the cost of their overall education, and at the cost of our tax dollar? Accidents will happen, and it is so very sad this tragic one did to the Bennett family. Will this new law take precaution to the extreme? Guess we will have to wait and see.

Should we have to add one more thing to our to do list?

As a teacher you hold many responsibilities in taking care of your students and their education so should improving our students health care be added to the list? I think schools can help improve a students health but I don’t think they should be held responsible. Most eating habits are started at home, which then influence what they eat at schools. Just as teachers hold a role model position in learning I think they can hold the same position with health issues. They can mention in class different activities the students can do at home and then share stories about when they do something active and how much fun it was. When it is a nice day I always tell my students that part of their homework is to go outside and have fun! Then the next day I would ask who went outside and mention if I either took a walk or went bike riding in hopes it may give the ideas to try it themselves. I once told my students that I was going to take a day off one day because I was going to run a half marathon. We then talked about what a half marathon was and how long you have to run to complete one. The next day one of my students told me she was inspired to go jog a mile because if I was able to run 13 miles at my age then she should be able to jog a mile but she said she was surprised how difficult it was. So we can be an influence by role molding the behavior.
In the article from Edweekly “Oregon Teachers want a Bite from Forbidden Foods” it mentioned how teachers were petitioning to get junk food in the teachers lounge, even though the kids were restricted. I know how hard it is to get through the day without junk food but it’s important to follow through with what we tell the kids is good to do and do the same habits ourselves. In the article it even mentioned, "If we pass this law (allowing junk food in the teachers lounge), we are setting up teachers for accusations of hypocrisy”, which is true!
Part of being in a safe and welcoming environment is being in a healthy environment as well. One way is to eat healthier but there are other things you can do too. In the speech it mentioned how kids today have a lower life span then their parents and that obesity rate is three times higher then it was in the 1970’s. These facts just show that our kids not only need exercise but also education in how to be healthy. That is why health classes are important and even in science teaching them how their body works can start a lead to a healthier lifestyle. Just as it’s important in educating the students it’s also important to educate their parents when you can. During open house at the beginning of the year you can have a speaker come in and talk about the importance of vaccines and health insurance. In the article “Insurance Access Linked to Scores” in mentioned how students with health care improved reading scores on national assessment test. Yes, this could be a coincidence but think about it. Don’t you often feel like you function better when you are healthier than when you are sick. So just like us at work it’s just as important that the kids get the best opportunity to stay healthy. So I believe it’s not our sole responsibility in teaching kids to have a healthy lifestyle, but we can help it many little was throughout the day to lead them down the path of becoming healthier.