 |
| . |
If the first two comments were supposed to chum the waters for intelligent responses to Tony's blog then I suspect the interest is faint. That is why if all he says is true nothing ever happens to really change the status quo at the PTA-level organizations around the country and at schools. Parents really are too passive as they went to school at a different time and in loco parentis did function well in the schools. Teachers as a group are not to blame, individuals are.
I thought I'd break it down a little. Here goes.
Chums Forever
Part 1) "If the first two comments were supposed to chum the waters for intelligent responses to Tony's blog then I suspect the interest is faint. That is why if all he says is true nothing ever happens to really change the status quo at the PTA-level organizations around the country and at schools."
This is an interesting statement for a couple of reasons. The early bird posts are not necessarily kick-starters on the blog, but oftentimes the quick responses to what is going on, and what is going up. There were two posts, and one was a Welcome Back. The other was a post-Halloween gag, I suspect.
Both were made before 7AM on a Friday, which is a miracle in and of itself in the first place!
But this post can be read two ways, and that is what intrigued me most about it. My knee jerk reaction was that the poster felt that paying me a compliment was chumming the waters. First off, I love that phrase. For anyone unfamiliar with the term, chumming the waters is a term associated with fishing.
Essentially you take parts from a fish (the scrap) and grind it all up, then toss it into the water in order to attract larger fish to the area. You might recall in the great seventies horror film Jaws that there was a scene where the shark hunter chummed the water to catch a great white shark (click here).
The implication of the term being that the two posts were planted as bait to get things started, but that they didn't succeed, i.e. the interest is faint. I loved the ambiguity of the statement because it could imply that no one is interested in what I am saying, which is not what I believe the poster was trying to say. That, unfortunately, was the way I first interpreted it.
I apologize. I am very defensive, and sadly - for me anyway, it may or may not ever resolve. I wasn't always this way. I learned to be this way in Sierra Madre. I am trying to change that knee jerk response/defense mechanism. Not because I am willing to forgive and forget - the people that set this in motion have never said they were sorry they did what they did - but because it creates schism with people who are not instigating it.
A case in point being the recent IEP meeting I attended in which the very same Program Specialist who ignored our emails and our pleas for support in 2010, showed up as the current program specialist. I requested that the professional leave the meeting. To those who said we did nothing to be proactive back then, I can only say that you have no idea how proactive we were. Once bitten, twice shy; it ain't gonna happen again.
Put the useless out to pasture, or in a cubicle, but don't send them to us.
Oh, by way, I use social media and I like it.
Part 2) "That is why if all he says is true nothing ever happens to really change the status quo at the PTA-level organizations around the country and at schools."
That is probably true. I could just do what most people do which is to pretend there isn't a problem, or what the really blind amongst us do, smile and pretend it will get better if we just think *positively*. Sorry, but I stopped believing in Santa Claus a long, long time ago. I seriously doubt he's going to be coming down my PTA chimney any time soon.
On In Loco Parentis
Part 3) "Parents really are too passive as they went to school at a different time and in loco parentis did function well in the schools."
Interesting point. In loco Parentis. This is an idea that roughly translates to the school acting as the guide or as a parent in place for a child in a parental function. That is, to make decisions and act as a parent in the absence of an actual real parent being there.
The only problem is that this person isn't necessarily an advocate for the child. Let me illustrate it thus; if a child is suspected of being in possession of a drug or weapon - and before you assume I am talking about heroin and a machete (it could be ibuprofen for menstrual cramps and a small pair of scissors), that parent should be looking out for the rights of ALL of the children, including the child who is standing accused. That isn't always, if ever, the case.
The Legal Free Dictionary (click here) defines In Loco Parentis as The legal doctrine under which an individual assumes parental rights, duties, and obligations without going through the formalities of legal adoption. It is a legal doctrine describing a relationship similar to that of a parent to a child. It refers to an individual who assumes parental status and responsibilities for another individual ... By far the most common usage of in loco parentis relates to teachers and students.
In loco parentis is generally the school safety card that administrators at schools and school districts pull to trump what they believe to be a threat to the status quo. Usually the gang card is thrown out there, but that could be anything the administrator deems a threat to public order on campus. Thus, the definition can include anything from a Los Angeles Dodgers baseball cap to a design advocating marijuana or alcohol use to a specific color of fabric like silver and black.
This works in all directions, by the way. In California it was used to deny children the ability to wear an American flag on their shirt on Cinco de Mayo (click here) as the stars and stripes was seen by the administration as an inflammatory statement in the hands of proud American students. The courts supported the position of the school staff. They may as well have worn a shirt with a giant pot leaf on it.
The Legal Free Dictionary later clarifies that ...
By the 1990s, and into the 2000s, the loco parentis doctrine seemed to be in full force as schools attempted to safeguard students. Many institutions enacted controversial rules governing dress codes and so-called hate speech, all in the name of protecting students. Violence on campuses, however, became a very real threat. In 1994, Congress enacted a federal policy toward weapons on school grounds when it passed the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-382, Title I, § 101, October 20, 1994, 198 Stat. 3907). According to the act, schools are required to expel students who are found in possession of a gun. After the 1999 Columbine, Colorado, shootings, reinforcement of this act escalated, and schools enforced zero tolerance policies toward the possession of any article that may pose a potential threat. As a result, students have been expelled from school for having such items as nail files, plastic knives, and model rockets. Although many students and parents filed lawsuits in protest, most cases were denied since, according to the courts, school authorities have the right to maintain school safety.
So, in essence, because of the actions of some very dangerous individuals, and the failure of whomever is responsible to teach ethics and morals, any threat - real or imagined - has to be treated in the same manner. So, everyone pays the piper.
This fails to take into consideration a number of environmental and emotional factors, and turns everyone into a potential threat or criminal. It essentially does what the system has been trying to do for some time - it seeks to standardize and minimize our individuality, and define what our humanity should look like to ourselves - and what it should look like to one other.
Exactly
Part 4) "Teachers as a group are not to blame, individuals are."
I agree with you. You are correct, but teachers are individuals.
Erratum
Sometimes posts from blowhards and haters don't get through over on the Tattler, but we get to read them anyway. We have lower standards than the Tattler. Here are this week's winners.
Hey TB, stick to playing your " music" , I'm tired of hearing how you and your kid got screwed.
Ha ha. My music is popular around the world and my bands are noted as pioneers. I am interviewed for books, documentaries, dissertations, magazines, and I have been offered a book deal of my own. I have released more than twenty albums, and seen most of the world. My music is used for movie soundtracks, video games, and has been covered and cited as influential by actual working musicians in most genres of rock music. The shirt designs I create sell in stores all over the world. Not a bad gig.
Let me know how your hobbies are going.
My soul is fine. Tired of all the whining. There are bigger problems than this. So he and his kid have issues. Big Deal.
The Big Deal is that the worse you make this out to be, the more it reflects on the city of Sierra Madre. It is no secret that this town has its share of obnoxious and spiteful nitwits. Statements like this one can only hurt your property values. Ha ha.
3 years after the fact and Mary and Tony still can't let it go, reguritating (sic) the same grievances (sic). Face it, your kid was not ready for a regular classroom. You tried to force him in and the others stood up to you. You lost. move on and feel blessed that things are now going well for your boy.
The best speller of the month. No wonder Johnny can't read. His parents are completely illiterate. Let me remind thee of the "i before e" rule. Ever heard of it? What is reguritating? Is it a kind of degenerate behavior common to the residents of your world?
We had one due process served on us by PUSD when this Sierra Madre thing went down. We won. Our child is at the school, so be sad in your own special sort of way.
The OCR did not rule against us, they simply stated that some of our claims weren't supported. PUSD spent tens of thousands of dollars lying their way out of that one. Then they took us to due process and THEY LOST.
We have subsequently filed three due processes, in which the district settled, three more claims with the OCR which we won, three compliance complaints with the CDE which we also won, now they are going to be re-filed for failure to implement and two more due process complaints.
If you are keeping score it is Brandenburgs 10, PUSD 0 with one draw.
The PTA doesn't want it to get taken to the school, so they deflected to the district. And there are 5 more complaints in the stall. The failure is not on our part, it is on the district's part.
So thank you very much for the opportunity to set the record straight. But next time you might want to try and figure out what you're talking about first.
http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com (This article is reposted from Tony's Thee Brandenburgs blog. To view it in the original please click here.)