New Hampshire Lawmakers Pass Law Allowing Parental Objections To Curriculum

[JakeStarkey]

Chanel, I have tremendous respect for public educators. You all get a raw deal in the press and on the boards. You overwhelmingly, as a group, are trained well, do well, and work hard.

Thank you.

 

[MeBelle]

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?

Obviously not.
Good example of why parents SHOULD get involved!

384

 

[dblack]

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.

If they weren't paying the taxes to support the schools, they might be able to afford it.

 

[MeBelle]

Corporal punishment was the rule of the day back in the 60's.

My Mother was labeled by a teacher as 'evil', because she couldn't sit still or focus. My Grandmother took the teacher at her word because in those days a parent never stood up to a teacher.
The real issue was my Mother had ADD thus saw the end of the paddle more often than not.

 

[dblack]

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.

So, if you can't figure out a way to control government, you're just screwed? This is why putting significant portions of our lives under government control is problematic. Minorities always lose.

 

[Againsheila]

I guess I don't understand. What are you saying?

The law requires parents who want the same type of educational changes for their child that my son got (but whose child does NOT fall under the Americans with Disabilities act like my Asperger's some does), to PAY for any charges involved in the educational changes they want for their child... unlike ADA children like mine who are covered by the system.

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.

Not sure how much plainer I can say that.



Mostly I was commenting on what Photonic said about it being dangerous for parents to modify a child's education. I modified my sons, and it was a great success for him.

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.

Yeah, we can't have kids graduating who actually KNOW math now, can we?

 

[J.E.D]

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.

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.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Republicans hate science because science involves facts.

Republicans hate facts.

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

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.

 

[Conservative]

Completely ridiculous and not doable. Obviously if parents object to the sex ed curriculum, they should be able to opt out. But the state determines the curriculum and benchmarks, not the parents. If they oppose what's being taught, they should run for the school board, the legislature, or get a job at the Dept. of Education.

Only once was I asked by a parent to waive an assignment on religious grounds. The students were to illustrate "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" I said "Ok" Problem solved. No statute necessary. Sheez.

So, if the school board decided to teach creationism INSTEAD of evolution, no problem, right? after all, the state determines the curriculum and benchmarks, not the parents, right?

 

[Conservative]

If so, that does not give you the right to modify classroom instruction without direct permission to do so. Home or private school would be your child's best option.

As a parent, I have every right to determine HOW my child is educated, and with what knowledge. This law simply codifies that right, and stipulates that the parent must PAY to exercise it if their opinion differs form that of the school board.

I do agree that school choice as opposed to curriculum change is a better option, but that is part of my point It's an 'option'. One of many that a parent has the right to make the decision about.

EDIT:

if it costs $37,500 for me as a parent to change the curriculum and so on for my child, this law stipulates I am responsible for that cost in it's entirety. If I want to pay it, then there you go. If not, I have other options in exercising my parental rights... home school, private or religious school, etc.

Do so, if the commodity in public school does not meet your needs, but you have no right other than through school boards and legislatures; in other words, through the people's representatives.

this law would seem to suggest you are incorrect.

 

[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.

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.

 

[MeBelle]

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".

Head to Head: Should the state require gay history to be included in school textbooks? - Sacramento Opinion - Sacramento Editorial | Sacramento Bee

This should be an elective, not a requirement.

 

[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".

Head to Head: Should the state require gay history to be included in school textbooks? - Sacramento Opinion - Sacramento Editorial | Sacramento Bee

This should be an elective, not a requirement.

That's an article....I asked for the Curriculum. What is it? Where is it?

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

That Bastion of Far Right Conservatism.

 

[Sundial]

The law requires parents who want the same type of educational changes for their child that my son got (but whose child does NOT fall under the Americans with Disabilities act like my Asperger's some does), to PAY for any charges involved in the educational changes they want for their child... unlike ADA children like mine who are covered by the system.

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.

Not sure how much plainer I can say that.



Mostly I was commenting on what Photonic said about it being dangerous for parents to modify a child's education. I modified my sons, and it was a great success for him.

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.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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".

Head to Head: Should the state require gay history to be included in school textbooks? - Sacramento Opinion - Sacramento Editorial | Sacramento Bee

This should be an elective, not a requirement.

In today's PC world, such courses would be mandated as requirements by liberal educrats because they know few if any would elect to participate.

 

[Sundial]

Republicans hate science because science involves facts.

Republicans hate facts.

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

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.

 

[dblack]

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.

 

[Sundial]

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.

 

[MeBelle]

Show us that "gay Curriculum".

Head to Head: Should the state require gay history to be included in school textbooks? - Sacramento Opinion - Sacramento Editorial | Sacramento Bee

This should be an elective, not a requirement.

That's an article....I asked for the Curriculum. What is it? Where is it?

Did you read the article?
It states: "...now scheduled to begin during the 2015-16 school year."
Apparently California hasn't written or appropriated the curriculum, yet.