New Hampshire Lawmakers Pass Law Allowing Parental Objections To Curriculum

[Photonic]

 

[Sundial]

The last thing we want is parents taking responsibility for how their children are raised. That's the government's job.

I think the responsibility of teaching a child about a subject should be someone with actual knowledge of the subject.

Or would you have an electrician teach your child biology?

I think decisions regarding how children are educated, barring obvious abuse or neglect, should be up to their parents.

Their responsibility is not choosing HOW they're being educated so much as choosing WHO is doing the educating.

But that's not what this is really about. It's about a generalized distain for teachers - public school teachers in particular.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The last thing we want is parents taking responsibility for how their children are raised. That's the government's job.

I think the responsibility of teaching a child about a subject should be someone with actual knowledge of the subject. Or would you have an electrician teach your child biology?

I think decisions regarding how children are educated, barring obvious abuse or neglect, should be up to their parents.

Then (1) know the candidates and vote in school board elections; (2) attend the superintendent and school board meetings; (3) visit regularly and online with your student's teachers; (4) be regularly involved with your student's home work; (5) do not think for an instance that being a parent subsitutes for teacher responsibility in the classroom.

If you are following these guidelines and still are unhappy, run for the school board.

 

[whitehall]

There's a better way to do it but you have to pay attention to the people you elect. Maybe this makes it easier. It's interesting to note that the left trusts the union based teaching system even though the US ranks pretty low but they don't trust parents to get involved in what's being taught to their kids.

 

[Photonic]

There's a better way to do it but you have to pay attention to the people you elect. Maybe this makes it easier. It's interesting to note that the left trusts the union based teaching system even though the US ranks pretty low but they don't trust parents to get involved in what's being taught to their kids.

No, a parent should always be as completely involved as possible with the education of their child, but having the parent actually capable of severely modifying the education system on a whim is downright dangerous.

I would like to point out that there are many private schools available for parents who want a more specialized education.

 

[bodecea]

Yes, lets allow the parents with literally little to no knowledge of the subject matters have control of how it is taught.

Makes absolutely awesome sense to me.

I think it will be fun to be in a class room with 35 students with 5-10 different curriculums. This will truely help our children in public school succeed.

 

[bodecea]

Parents don't know basic algebra?

I know, let's just have our children taught 'to the test' and forget the rest.

/sarcasm

I would be surprised if most parents even knew basic addition.

I am at a loss for words.

We have one Middle School in the District I live in where 80% of the parents are Illiterate. Now...this idea is going to work SO WELL....Don't you think?

 

[bodecea]

Failed topic.

Of course parents should have a say in their child's education. Least they start teaching ridiculous topics like they do in California. You know like gay history in grade school. Which itself is odd considering most second and third graders don't even know what straight means. Course gay history would only take one afternoon to cover.

Show us that "gay Curriculum".

 

[bodecea]

Sad thing is, schools are full of utterly useless crap that kids can and sometimes have to take.

It all cost money, lots of money.

Such as?

 

[bodecea]

There's a better way to do it but you have to pay attention to the people you elect. Maybe this makes it easier. It's interesting to note that the left trusts the union based teaching system even though the US ranks pretty low but they don't trust parents to get involved in what's being taught to their kids.

Tell us you know how that ranking works, whitehall. I'm listening.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So much for the TP being concerned with spending and big gov't. In New Hampshire, parents can now object to school curriculum, forcing the school district to come up with new lesson plans for the children of the parents who file the objection.

Great job, guys. I see you have your priorities in line.

New Hampshire Lawmakers Pass Law Allowing Parental Objections To Curriculum

The Tea Party dominated New Hampshire Legislature on Wednesday overrode the governor's veto to enact a new law allowing parents to object to any part of the school curriculum.

The state House voted 255-112 and Senate 17-5 to enact H.B. 542, which will allow parents to request an alternative school curriculum for any subject to which they register an objection. Gov. John Lynch (D) vetoed the measure in July, saying the bill would harm education quality and give parents control over lesson plans.

"For example, under this bill, parents could object to a teacher's plan to: teach the history of France or the history of the civil or women's rights movements," Lynch wrote in his veto message. "Under this bill, a parent could find 'objectionable' how a teacher instructs on the basics of algebra. In each of those cases, the school district would have to develop an alternative educational plan for the student. Even though the law requires the parents to pay the cost of alternative, the school district will still have to bear the burden of helping develop and approve the alternative. Classrooms will be disrupted by students coming and going, and lacking shared knowledge."

Under the terms of the bill, which was sponsored by state Rep. J.R. Hoell (R-Dunbarton), a parent could object to any curriculum or course material in the classroom. The parent and school district would then determine a new curriculum or texts for the child to meet any state educational requirements for the subject matter. The parent would be responsible for paying the cost of developing the new curriculum. The bill also allows for the parent's name and reason for objection to be sealed by the state.

How dare anyone speak out!!!!!

 

[Sundial]

There's a better way to do it but you have to pay attention to the people you elect. Maybe this makes it easier. It's interesting to note that the left trusts the union based teaching system even though the US ranks pretty low but they don't trust parents to get involved in what's being taught to their kids.

No, a parent should always be as completely involved as possible with the education of their child, but having the parent actually capable of severely modifying the education system on a whim is downright dangerous.

I would like to point out that there are many private schools available for parents who want a more specialized education.

Which is why the whole thing is a farce to begin with. If they were willing to pay money, their wouldn't be in public schools.

 

[Conservative]

So much for the TP being concerned with spending and big gov't. In New Hampshire, parents can now object to school curriculum, forcing the school district to come up with new lesson plans for the children of the parents who file the objection.

Great job, guys. I see you have your priorities in line.

New Hampshire Lawmakers Pass Law Allowing Parental Objections To Curriculum

The Tea Party dominated New Hampshire Legislature on Wednesday overrode the governor's veto to enact a new law allowing parents to object to any part of the school curriculum.

The state House voted 255-112 and Senate 17-5 to enact H.B. 542, which will allow parents to request an alternative school curriculum for any subject to which they register an objection. Gov. John Lynch (D) vetoed the measure in July, saying the bill would harm education quality and give parents control over lesson plans.

"For example, under this bill, parents could object to a teacher's plan to: teach the history of France or the history of the civil or women's rights movements," Lynch wrote in his veto message. "Under this bill, a parent could find 'objectionable' how a teacher instructs on the basics of algebra. In each of those cases, the school district would have to develop an alternative educational plan for the student. Even though the law requires the parents to pay the cost of alternative, the school district will still have to bear the burden of helping develop and approve the alternative. Classrooms will be disrupted by students coming and going, and lacking shared knowledge."

Under the terms of the bill, which was sponsored by state Rep. J.R. Hoell (R-Dunbarton), a parent could object to any curriculum or course material in the classroom. The parent and school district would then determine a new curriculum or texts for the child to meet any state educational requirements for the subject matter. The parent would be responsible for paying the cost of developing the new curriculum. The bill also allows for the parent's name and reason for objection to be sealed by the state.

read your own article, dipshit...

the law requires the parents to pay the cost of alternative

No additional spending on the part of the state is required. The parents have to pay the cost of development and implementation if they want an alternative.

 

[Conservative]

Yes, lets allow the parents with literally little to no knowledge of the subject matters have control of how it is taught.

Makes absolutely awesome sense to me.

The last thing we want is parents taking responsibility for how their children are raised. That's the government's job.

I think the responsibility of teaching a child about a subject should be someone with actual knowledge of the subject.

Or would you have an electrician teach your child biology?

And it still will be if a parent request an alternative. The parents who object must pay for the development and implementation of an alternative, which would include alternative personnel if requested/required. Existing educators will NOT be required to teach subjects with which they are unfamiliar.

 

[Conservative]

Republicans hate science because science involves facts.

Republicans hate facts.

That's why only 6% of scientists are Republicans.

and why you only use 6% of your brain.

 

[Conservative]

There's a better way to do it but you have to pay attention to the people you elect. Maybe this makes it easier. It's interesting to note that the left trusts the union based teaching system even though the US ranks pretty low but they don't trust parents to get involved in what's being taught to their kids.

No, a parent should always be as completely involved as possible with the education of their child, but having the parent actually capable of severely modifying the education system on a whim is downright dangerous.

I would like to point out that there are many private schools available for parents who want a more specialized education.

tell that to my Asperger's 6th grader, who with my insistence on an IEP this year (completely changes most educational processes in school), has all A's, as opposed to last year where he was a C student at best, and failing at worst.

Because of his diagnosis, the school system picks up the cost involved in any and all changes in education for my son. I should think that libtards would be thrilled that this law requires parents to pick up the cost of this type of thing, and doesn't cost the school system what it must have cost to completely rework my sons education.

 

[Missourian]

There's a better way to do it but you have to pay attention to the people you elect. Maybe this makes it easier. It's interesting to note that the left trusts the union based teaching system even though the US ranks pretty low but they don't trust parents to get involved in what's being taught to their kids.

No, a parent should always be as completely involved as possible with the education of their child, but having the parent actually capable of severely modifying the education system on a whim is downright dangerous.

I would like to point out that there are many private schools available for parents who want a more specialized education.

Which is why the whole thing is a farce to begin with. If they were willing to pay money, their wouldn't be in public schools.

So, who pays for public school?

What? Taxpayers? God forbid they should want a say in what's taught...since they ARE paying for it.

 

[paperview]

From the rest of the article.

"Other issues pending before the state government include a bill to only allow legislature-approved candidates to run for the U.S. Senate, an end to the teaching of evolution in the schools and a provision to allow the legislature to dissolve the judiciary. Other bills pushed by Hoell include a provision establishing a committee to study the impact of compulsory school attendance on families..."

What the hell???

 

[Montrovant]

There's a better way to do it but you have to pay attention to the people you elect. Maybe this makes it easier. It's interesting to note that the left trusts the union based teaching system even though the US ranks pretty low but they don't trust parents to get involved in what's being taught to their kids.

No, a parent should always be as completely involved as possible with the education of their child, but having the parent actually capable of severely modifying the education system on a whim is downright dangerous.

I would like to point out that there are many private schools available for parents who want a more specialized education.

Which is why the whole thing is a farce to begin with. If they were willing to pay money, their wouldn't be in public schools.

This sounds like 'vote for me!' legislation. In other words, it is not expected to actually be effective, but the politicians who voted for it can say, during the next elections, "Look! I voted to give you choice in your child's education. Vote for me!".

I would think that creating individual lesson plans and providing the materials and personnel to teach them would be expensive. Those who object strongly enough, but are unable or unwilling to change things within the system as it stood before this, and can afford the costs likely involved, probably already have their child(ren) in private school or home schooled.

I also feel the need to respond to those who foolishly claim that individuals should have a direct say in how schools are run because they pay taxes. That is ridiculous. Should each individual who pays taxes be allowed to directly affect how the police, or fire department, or public works are run? How about the military? What about people like me who don't have children; my tax dollars are spent the same as anyone else's, should I be allowed to pick a child and change their lesson plan? Paying taxes does not mean that YOU, individually, should be consulted on the running of every organization or business paid for through tax money.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Republicans hate science because science involves facts.

Republicans hate facts.

That's why only 6% of scientists are Republicans.

This is because of the grand larceny of corporate patents, which fits in with the Investor Supremacy dictatorship advocated by the GOP. One scientist got only a $30,000 bonus for an invention his parasitic bosses sold for $300,000,000! If you own a man's work, you own the man.
Scientist should form a union just like superior athletes did. The pros get 50 times as much since they stood up to the owners. I first realized this reading Ball Four, by Jim Bouton, who was a 20-game winner in the 60s and only got paid $18,000, which he had to practically beg for. Scientists resent being Cash Cows for Republican
MBAs with far lower IQs.