New Hampshire Lawmakers Pass Law Allowing Parental Objections To Curriculum

[thereisnospoon]

A friend of mine started a school many years ago. She's a smart and incredibly hard-working woman.

Anyway, I remember one of the things she told me was you never ever let the parents determine the curriculum. They would get parents, she said, who'd want to tell the teachers how to do their jobs. But even through it might make the parents unhappy, they wouldn't compromise the school to make them happy.

Professionals don't do things the way amateurs think they should be done.

If you don't like you electrician, you get another electrician. You don't stand over his shoulder and say, "Don't you think the wire should go HERE?"

Here's the problem....There are hundreds of electricians in every community across the country.
Public schools are a captive market. The government tells the parents which school they must attend. There is little choice.
None of this would be necessary if educrats didn't think of things such as "outcome based education", elimination of grades, 'teaching the test', relying on standardized tests to measure student performance, politically correct based discipline codes and of course the dumbing down of public education.

Not really. The difference is you only get an electrician if you can afford it. Public school is free.

It's not a "captive market". It's a free alternative to the market.

Public school is free?....Are you on crack?
Ok....If public schools are not a captive market, then explain your way out of these two things..
One, the school district in which one resides mandates where students must attend.
Two, all property owners in a particular school district MUST pay as part of their property taxes, funding for the district's schools.
In most cases more than half and in the case of where a friend lives in NY, 80% of his property taxes are listed on the bill as "school taxes".
Please do not bring private schools into the discussion. You know as well as I do private schools are academically and financially exclusionary.
The only alternative to public schools is home schooling. Which I might add, many more people are doing for their children because they are fed up with the politically run government schools.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Not really. The difference is you only get an electrician if you can afford it. Public school is free.

It's not a "captive market". It's a free alternative to the market.

???

Of course it's a captive market. You can refuse the services, but you still have to pay for them. The only people who have the freedom to opt out are those who can afford to pay both the taxes for school AND tuition at a private school.

The point is that your ability to send your kid to public school doesn't depend on your ability to pay for it. And that's how it should be. As conservatives like to say, not everything in life is "fair". But in this case the most important fairness is that all kids get to go to school, even if (or even especially if) their parents are poor or selfish or neglectful.

It might be true that everyone pays property taxes in one way or anther (even if they rent or whatever). But not everyone pays the same, and "punishment" for being poor isn't that your kids don't get an education.

Also: you forgot homeschoolers.

Of course it does. If parents wish to send their kids to better schools they opt to buy a home in a nicer neighborhood with good schools. Nicer neighborhoods cost more to live in. Homes are valued higher and as such as saddled with a higher property tax burden. Therefore, better schools cost more.

 

[dblack]

The point is that your ability to send your kid to public school doesn't depend on your ability to pay for it. And that's how it should be. As conservatives like to say, not everything in life is "fair". But in this case the most important fairness is that all kids get to go to school, even if (or even especially if) their parents are poor or selfish or neglectful.

It might be true that everyone pays property taxes in one way or anther (even if they rent or whatever). But not everyone pays the same, and "punishment" for being poor isn't that your kids don't get an education.

Also: you forgot homeschoolers.

I didn't forget homeschoolers (in fact, I've done that), they have to pay for schools even if they don't use them.

My beef with public education isn't the cost sharing as much as the control. I think it's really bad idea to have government controlling the education of it's citizens. It's as dangerous as letting government control religion. Or the economy.

 

[chanel]

NH formally adopted the new "Commom Core Curriculum" set to go in effect next year. I hope they didn't accept any Race to the Top funds. They might have to "unjoin".

Common Core State Standards Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not really. The difference is you only get an electrician if you can afford it. Public school is free.

It's not a "captive market". It's a free alternative to the market.

???

Of course it's a captive market. You can refuse the services, but you still have to pay for them. The only people who have the freedom to opt out are those who can afford to pay both the taxes for school AND tuition at a private school.

Just so, unless the "need" is so great that the parents make the $$$ sacrifice. Catholics have and do, Pentecostals have and do, millions have and will continue doing so.

The classroom's educational goals cannot be held captive to one or a few parents who don't like it.

 

[Photonic]

[/COLOR]

There's a difference between modifying a kid's education because he has special needs, and changing it because his parents want the Book of Mormon taught in class. (Or the Bible, or Koran, or the Kama Sutras, or whatever.) Or because his mom thinks she know better how to teach math than the math teacher does - even if she's right, it's still a bad idea.

not really. I feel it is up to the parents to decide how best to educate their child.

If I, as a parent, decide the structure of my child's education is not conducive to his being able to learn, I should have the ability to affect change I feel will benefit him. It's called 'parenting'. Making decisions for your child that you feel will benefit him.

In my case, I DID know better how to teach my child, as did a ffew of his new teachers this year who have Asperger's experience. His straight A's tell me changing things was not a bad idea.

I am NOT saying have teachers forced to teach subjects they are not familiar with. That would certainly NOT be in their child's best interest. I AM saying that giving direction in regards to WHAT they are taught and HOW they are taught, certainly should be part of a parents job in raising their child.

And, in saying that, if the parents viewpoint as to content and method differ from the school system, and they do not fall under ADA like my son does, then they SHOULD be required to pay for any and all costs involved in allowing them input. Which, coincidentally, is EXACTLY what this law calls for.

Well, look, we have a couple of points of agreement here. Nobody's saying that parents and teachers shouldn't work collaboratively. Or that parents have no role in their kids' education. Or that parents don't have a duty and an obligation to make sure their kids are getting an education.

No one's saying parents shouldn't get involved if they they think their schools suck, or their kids' teachers suck.

What this law says is that parents get to decide whether the women's suffrage movement should be part of history, or maybe they should just leave out the part about the Civil War. Worse yet, it says they're supposed to teach 29 students one thing, and one student something else.

My daughter's not school age yet. But I can't imagine going to her teacher and saying, "Hey, I know this is your job and everything, but I've designed this new lesson plan for her. I want you to teach her this, while you're (somehow) teaching everyone else something else." it just strikes me as crazy.

If I really thought it was a crappy teacher or a crappy school, I'd find her another teacher or another school. I wouldn't try to tell the teacher how to do her job.

This is precisely what I mean.

 

[Photonic]

???

Of course it's a captive market. You can refuse the services, but you still have to pay for them. The only people who have the freedom to opt out are those who can afford to pay both the taxes for school AND tuition at a private school.

The point is that your ability to send your kid to public school doesn't depend on your ability to pay for it. And that's how it should be. As conservatives like to say, not everything in life is "fair". But in this case the most important fairness is that all kids get to go to school, even if (or even especially if) their parents are poor or selfish or neglectful.

It might be true that everyone pays property taxes in one way or anther (even if they rent or whatever). But not everyone pays the same, and "punishment" for being poor isn't that your kids don't get an education.

Also: you forgot homeschoolers.

Of course it does. If parents wish to send their kids to better schools they opt to buy a home in a nicer neighborhood with good schools. Nicer neighborhoods cost more to live in. Homes are valued higher and as such as saddled with a higher property tax burden. Therefore, better schools cost more.

I had friends who would travel for an hour and a half every day from a different school district just to be at the school I went to.

 

[dblack]

The point is that your ability to send your kid to public school doesn't depend on your ability to pay for it. And that's how it should be. As conservatives like to say, not everything in life is "fair". But in this case the most important fairness is that all kids get to go to school, even if (or even especially if) their parents are poor or selfish or neglectful.

It might be true that everyone pays property taxes in one way or anther (even if they rent or whatever). But not everyone pays the same, and "punishment" for being poor isn't that your kids don't get an education.

Also: you forgot homeschoolers.

Of course it does. If parents wish to send their kids to better schools they opt to buy a home in a nicer neighborhood with good schools. Nicer neighborhoods cost more to live in. Homes are valued higher and as such as saddled with a higher property tax burden. Therefore, better schools cost more.

I had friends who would travel for an hour and a half every day from a different school district just to be at the school I went to.

Which costs money...

In any case, the issue here is who will control the education of children, parents or government.

 

[bodecea]

Craziness. What a bureaucratic nightmare. A new curriculum? New texts? For each child?

How would you like to be the kid whose parents put you in a special class because they object to biology?

The good news, I guess, is that it'll happen one time, the parents will get a bill for $50k, and it'll never ever ever happen again.

What idiocy.

Agreed. But parents footing the bill is only half of it. The school district is still responsible for taking the time to set up the new lesson plan for each student's special curriculum, which would take time away from the "normal" students, and could add more burden to teachers who already have their hands full teaching the normal curriculum. If five different students get their own different lesson plans, does the teacher have to teach and grade those five different curriculum along with teaching and grading the normal curriculum? This law is absurd.

Incorrect. The parents who want the changes are responsible for ALL costs involved. That would include new teachers, support staff, etc. ANY cost associated with their request would be their responsibility. If additional staff is required so as not to overwork teachers, they pay. Additional materials? They pay.

There is NO cost in any way to the school system, according to the way the law is written.

Looking at it that way, I have no problem with the law.

 

[paperview]

Agreed. But parents footing the bill is only half of it. The school district is still responsible for taking the time to set up the new lesson plan for each student's special curriculum, which would take time away from the "normal" students, and could add more burden to teachers who already have their hands full teaching the normal curriculum. If five different students get their own different lesson plans, does the teacher have to teach and grade those five different curriculum along with teaching and grading the normal curriculum? This law is absurd.

Incorrect. The parents who want the changes are responsible for ALL costs involved. That would include new teachers, support staff, etc. ANY cost associated with their request would be their responsibility. If additional staff is required so as not to overwork teachers, they pay. Additional materials? They pay.

There is NO cost in any way to the school system, according to the way the law is written.

Looking at it that way, I have no problem with the law.

It will impact.

"Although the text of the legislation states the policy will have no fiscal impact on state, county or local revenues or expenditures, critics insist it will still burden school districts by requiring them, potentially, to help develop and approve individual curricula for each student.

"This bill will downshift an enormous cost burden on to cities and towns. It requires school districts to create individual curricula for each and every student and the costs of developing those plans will be passed on to local taxpayers," New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley said.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/277287/20120105/new-hampshire-passes-law-allowing-parents-devise.htm

I've got a major problem with it. Already our property taxes are the highest in the country and they just zoomed up again this past Dec.
'Bout choked when I opened the bill.

The new tea bag contingent in the NH House is a truly scary lot.

 

[Photonic]

Of course it does. If parents wish to send their kids to better schools they opt to buy a home in a nicer neighborhood with good schools. Nicer neighborhoods cost more to live in. Homes are valued higher and as such as saddled with a higher property tax burden. Therefore, better schools cost more.

I had friends who would travel for an hour and a half every day from a different school district just to be at the school I went to.

Which costs money...

In any case, the issue here is who will control the education of children, parents or government.

No, it cost him an earlier wake up time so he could bike to school.
It's actually more like experts vs parents. I would not trust a parents expertise in formulating a subject to be taught any more than I would trust an electrician to teach me astrophysics.

 

[Photonic]

I am stunned that you would be surprised if most parents even knew basic addition. What does that say about 'most parents'?

I see your point, and I raise you this: If the teachers don't know better, what makes you think the parent would know better?

Perhaps the parent is as educated or better educated than some teachers?

I say leave the education to the child.

Are you advocating children self teach?
That is the only true way to determine proper direction.

Guided by a teacher, of course.

A parent is a child's first teacher.

Uh huh.

 

[bodecea]

Here's what I'd like to see....some red state, Texas for example...incorporate ALL those Right wing suggestions on Education and do it for at least 13 years...long enough for a complete wave of students to pass thru from K-12.

Incorporate:
1. No teacher's union at all
2. Vouchers
3. School Choice
4. Parential control of curriculum
5. Intelligent design, Creationism taught
6. School led prayer.

And sit back and watch.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it does. If parents wish to send their kids to better schools they opt to buy a home in a nicer neighborhood with good schools. Nicer neighborhoods cost more to live in. Homes are valued higher and as such as saddled with a higher property tax burden. Therefore, better schools cost more.

I had friends who would travel for an hour and a half every day from a different school district just to be at the school I went to.

Which costs money...

In any case, the issue here is who will control the education of children, parents or government.

We the People will control the education of children through our legislative processes.

You want to participate, then get active.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

Ok so N.H. wants to take the power out of the hands of the Dept of Education and put it into the hands of the citizens of their state.

Just how does this show they want more govt in their lives (aka big govt)?

 

[dblack]

We the People will control the education of children through our legislative processes.

Well, they'll try to. If parents are wealthy enough, or willing to make the sacrifices necessary, children can avoid such indoctrination.

You want to participate, then get active.

I don't really have any interest in doing that. I have no desire to force my values on other people's kids. Unfortunately, a lot of people do have such an agenda, and public education is a convenient tool for their cause.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Ok so N.H. wants to take the power out of the hands of the Dept of Education and put it into the hands of the citizens of their state.

Just how does this show they want more govt in their lives (aka big govt)?

The governor was correct in vetoing this democratic assault on republican government.

 

[paperview]

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.

Ok so N.H. wants to take the power out of the hands of the Dept of Education and put it into the hands of the citizens of their state.

Just how does this show they want more govt in their lives (aka big govt)?

The governor was correct in vetoing this democratic assault on republican government.

Yes, but the damn override by the teabag coalition got it passed.

And I'm pissed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ok so N.H. wants to take the power out of the hands of the Dept of Education and put it into the hands of the citizens of their state.

Just how does this show they want more govt in their lives (aka big govt)?

The governor was correct in vetoing this democratic assault on republican government.

Yes, but the damn override by the teabag coalition got it passed. And I'm pissed.

Take it to court and see if the legislature overreached its authority. In this case, the override may be constitutional, and can only be corrected after idiot parents come close to breaking the system, which may be the sum game of their desire.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

Ok so N.H. wants to take the power out of the hands of the Dept of Education and put it into the hands of the citizens of their state.

Just how does this show they want more govt in their lives (aka big govt)?

The governor was correct in vetoing this democratic assault on republican government.

Again how does taking the power of cirruculum out of hte hands of the Dept of Education and putting it into the hands of local citizens paint those who did it as "big govt"?



Regardless of if you think this whole thing is good or bad its definately not giving the govt more power over anything but giving the people more power.