Girl may suit school for telling mom she's gay...

[Lost-in-FL]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10299356/

[WindRavenX]

1. This is just sickening

Outing is a very painful thing to do-- coming out is an incredably personal process that should be done ONLY when the individual feels like being out.

[Lost-in-FL]

2. I know... but I belive this could have another implication...

If this is possible (a minor to suit for privacy violation) would mean that parents don't need to know if someone is getting an abortion just the same way someone would not want their parents knowing they are gay. Is someone with me on this? is this a different situation?

[Solon]

9. Of course they shouldn't...

for basically the same reasons. Hell, in quite a few states, the parents don't need to know either one of those points you made. Unless what the student is doing is illegal, hurts others or effects school work, then the school is out of bounds in telling the parents anything.

[bammertheblue]

3. Agreed

And being out at school can be a lot different than being out at home. That's something some people find really hard to understand. A person can be out at school and not at home, or vice versa.
I've been tempted to "out" people just because they were so damn homophobic, but I never did....that's just NOT COOL.

[Macman44]

19. Uhhhh, if she

didn't want to come out, she shouldn't have been smoochin with her significant other in public. This girl lacks common sense.

[WindRavenX]

26. You are 100% wrong

No one has the right to call SOMEONE ELSE out that they are gay.

For many members of the queer community, home is a hostile place--being in school or anywhere else is the only place where one can be who they are.
But for someone to snitch on someone like this is appalling, regardless of the fact that she lacked common sense.

The fact remains that if this was another hetero couple, no one would have cared and phoned home. It's discrimination, and it is that simple.

[Robert Cooper]

28. not to mention...

...that this principal has an uncanny knack for being in the 'right place at the right time' to catch them, or he/she has a well-tuned reporting network for gays kissing but not hets.

And what is the principal doing -suspending- this poor girl for previous behaviour? Didn't suspend any hets, did he/she?

Do they not give detention anymore (not that she deserved that either, but as a lesser punishment that continues to keep the child in school and continues the education process).

Oh, that's right, the PS system doesn't believe in any of that stuff when a 17-year-old girl kisses another girl.

And what percentage of the public eligble to vote for a school board believe this problem would be solved by teaching Creationism in school?

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ingac70]

4. Openly kissing and hugging her girl friend on campus?

Can I go back and sue my elementary school for telling my mom I was in the bushes kissing the Roberts twins (identical twin brothers)?

When I was in high school, this sort of behavior (smooching, handholding) got you in school suspension.


It wasn't like she was trying desperately to stay in the closet, now was it?

[Robert Cooper]

25. What was a beautiful way to come out...

...was transformed into an ugly example of bigotry.

Ah to be 17 and in love...and have the thought-police stomp all over you.

[ruggerson]

5. I don't agree that the school doesn't have the right

to discuss her sexuality with her parents.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality must be on an equal footing. If gays and lesbians want full civil rights (which we do), then we must expect full responsibilities and EQUAL treatment. The school would not have hesitated to discuss the fact of a girl kissing her BOYFRIEND. And there would have been no lawsuit. Hence, there should not be a lawsuit about this. Homosexuality is not some awful secret which, if disclosed, harms anyone. Letting this girl sue for disclosing her "secret" merely reinforces the fallacious stereotype of homosexuality as a deep, dark, bad thing which must be hidden. Well it isn't. It is a mundane fact of life. To say that she can sue for the school outing her, means there is something wrong with being gay, which there isn't.

She SHOULD be able to sue for the discrimination aspect of this.
If the school routinely let straight kids kiss in the hall, then she should be allowed to kiss her girlfriend.

[bammertheblue]

6. You have a great point

and in a perfect world, you'd be 100% right. Maybe I'm being led by emotion here, but I think of my gay friends who were kicked out of their homes and disowned, or beaten up, when their parents found out they were gay. She should have been able to tell them in her own way, in her own time.
It is a mundane fact of life. If only everyone understood that.

[ruggerson]

7. Everyone's not going to understand it

until we start living that way. We can't continue to treat it like it's got some special, bad attributes that heterosexuality doesn't have.

Allowing this only perpetuates this kind of double standard.

At some point, as a society, we have to start LIVING the reality that it is a mundane fact of life, and the old preconceptions will then die away.

We can't expect change until we start living the change.

[bammertheblue]

8. I see what you mean.

I have to think about this now.
Thank you!

[msongs]

18. sex in public has consequences, usually not such good ones

you put your business in the street you should not be surprised when people notice. I agree that there should be no difference in the rules for gays and not gays regarding behavior at the school. Since I do not know the rules at that school I cannot say if there is discrimination here.

However, if the rule says no kissing, and the parents are notified of violations, well, too bad if the object of affection was of the same gender. If heteros don't get parental notification, and lesbians do, that is a different issue and wrong IMO.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Robert Cooper]

11. Wait a minute...

..."To say that she can sue for the school outing her, means there is something wrong with being gay, which there isn't."

What about the concept of telling her parents that she's kissing a girl? That doesn't constitute an attempt to make her feel guilty or ashamed of being gay? What was the principal going to say: that she was kissing "someone" or "she's kissing a -girl-"? Two will get you five it was the latter, not the more discrete former.

If the principal thought there was nothing wrong with being gay why tell the parents anything?

Saying there's nothing wrong with being gay (true) does not mitigate the fact that a dependent child is put through the wringer when persecuted for their homosexuality by one or both parents. The principal was obviously trying to recruit one or both parents in his persecution of their child. Clearly the school is a hostile environment for a GLBT.

[KitSileya]

12. Exactly!

The principal could have just informed the mother that her daughter was disciplined in a matter concerning public displays of affection, and if she asked who the other student was, invoked confidentiality - "I can't tell you that to protect the privacy of the other student, but you could ask your daughter if she wants to tell you." Only, of course, if they discipline heterosexual students for the same offences - otherwise it's discrimination as well as violation of privacy. If they do not, the principal offended twice, and should be sued.

[ruggerson]

16. How do you know

that this guy doesn't call straight girls' parents as well and tell them that their children are engaging in public displays of affection in the hallways with boys?

If this is something he did ONLY to a gay student, then the complaint is discrimination. And if he harrassed this particular girl about public displays of affection, but ignored straight girls PDA, then it is multiple claims of discrimination. But, I don't see a right to privacy claim here, as the girl herself was engaging in the PDA repeatedly, therefore had no reasonable expectation that one of her friends or a teacher or a principal, etc wouldn't tell her parents, and, as I noted above, I think we tread on dangerous waters when we try to elevate homosexuality to some heightened level of protection, due to the "injury" caused by "outing."

That concept, in and of itself, is highly toxic and homophobic and only perpetuates the problem.

[Robert Cooper]

23. From the OP's link...

...
"The lawsuit also claims discrimination, contending Nguon was suspended several times for ignoring orders from the principal to stop hugging and kissing her girlfriend. Heterosexual couples engaging in similar behavior were not disciplined, the lawsuit contends."
-OP's link


"That concept, in and of itself, is highly toxic and homophobic and only perpetuates the problem."

I find that sad coming from a country yet to institute a law banning hate mongering based on gender-preference. We've passed such a law here in Canada because we recognize that, along with racism and sexism, it is wrong to attack people and encourage others to hate people for what they are.

I was unaware that legally confronting bigotry was "highly toxic" and "only perpetuates the problem". And if this young lady is kicked out of her parent's home for this, then we can conclude she should have kept her homosexuality 'in the closet'? Should we bow to the wisdom of the principal if this young lady (or another, in another case) is assaulted or murdered by a parent too ashamed to accept their child's homosexuality?

I'm beginning to wonder which "problem" you think is being perpetuated by a child demanding the right to come out to his or her parents at a time and place of his or her choosing, if ever.

Given that the principal's handling of this information was not likely the same as this young lady would have taken, we should applaud the principal taking the initiative and forcing this young lady to tell her parents she's gay?

(edit: trying to distinguish between the two quotes at the top of the page)

[ruggerson]

17. Furthermore, we don't know how the Principal phrased it

"What about the concept of telling her parents that she's kissing a girl? That doesn't constitute an attempt to make her feel guilty or ashamed of being gay?"


Not if he merely said "she's been repeatedly making out with her girlfriend in the halls and it's disruptive and we've asked her to stop."

Pretty neutral. No condemnation of her being gay, just condemnation of the PDA. That is, as long as he was doing the SAME THING to straight girls. And calling THEIR parents, too.

And, again, if not, then that would be discrimination. NOt right to privacy.

[Robert Cooper]

24. You forget this was a punitive measure...

...he outted her to punish her.

[Solon]

27. Doesn't matter...

If he mentioned "girlfriend" in the same sentence as "kissing, affectionate, whatever", there was a real possibility he put her life in danger by revealing such information to her parents.

[Robert Cooper]

10. So nice to see yet another example of the Public School system...

...helping to 'socialize' children.

Teacher: "Today, children, we're going to learn about homophobia, and here is our guest lecturer, the Principal"
Principal: "We got no room for faggots, closet queens or fairies and if you think you're going to be free to practice your sexual preference in public then think again..."

So when the PS system isn't failing up to a third of our children, the kids are traumatized when religious bigotry is rammed down their throats.

And we call this "socializing the children".

(edit: typo)

[LWolf]

13. Fighting Words:

:nuke:

While I can point out many problems with the public ed system, every last one of them political, public education is still a keystone of democracy, or a democratic republic.

I don't spend all day, and most of my life, working my ass off to make sure my students can read, think, and make informed choices, to hear my profession bashed like that.

Informing parents about what is going on at school isn't an effort to socialize anyone. It's an effort to comply with legal responsibilities. I don't really know where the legal line ends and the ethical line begins in this case. We don't call parents to inform them that their child seems to have changed boyfriends or girlfriends again; we would call them to inform them of "public demonstrations of affection" since those violate school rules.

Calling parents to "out" a gay student crosses the line, unless that student was having sex on campus. That doesn't mean that public ed, in any way, supports the practice or teaching of homophobia.

[countingbluecars]

15. Well said LWolf. n/t

[Robert Cooper]

20. Sacred cows

"...public education is still a keystone of democracy, or a democratic republic. I don't spend all day, and most of my life, working my ass off to make sure my students can read, think, and make informed choices, to hear my profession bashed like that."

Perhaps you will prefer the following instead:

When the Public School system fails, who suffers?

"WHEREAS, the employment rate for out-of-school youth in high-poverty areas is 46 percent; and

"WHEREAS, in many cities the drop-out rate for African-American and Hispanic youth is over 50 percent; and

"WHEREAS, the proportion of young African-American high school dropouts who are currently not employed exceeds 70 percent; and

"WHEREAS, the pervasive joblessness of minority males contributes fundamentally to various problems of inner cities--poverty, crime, welfare dependency, high proportion of female-headed families, and drug abuse;..."

Source: http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/resolutions/68th_conference/investing_edu.html


When the Public School system decides to act as parent, who suffers?

ACLU webpages:

http://72.3.233.244/lgbt/youth/11826res20010405.html
harassment of GLBT kids at school.

http://72.3.233.244/lgbt/youth/index.html
case profiles for GLBT students.

http://72.3.233.244/studentsrights/gen/21792prs20051122.html
new mexico HS anti-GLBT/anti-choice essay contest

http://72.3.233.244/studentsrights/discrim/index.html
list of discrimination lawsuits

http://72.3.233.244/studentsrights/dresscodes/index.html
list of dress code lawsuits

http://72.3.233.244/studentsrights/drugtesting/index.html
list of drug testing lawsuits

http://72.3.233.244/studentsrights/dueprocess/index.html
list of due process/zero tolerance lawsuits

http://72.3.233.244/studentsrights/expression/index.html
list of freedom of expression lawsuits

http://72.3.233.244/studentsrights/offcampus/index.html
list of off-campus behaviour lawsuits

http://72.3.233.244/studentsrights/privacy/index.html
list of privacy lawsuits

http://72.3.233.244/studentsrights/religion/index.html
list of religious freedom lawsuits

http://72.3.233.244/studentsrights/sexuality/index.html
list of sexuality-based lawsuits

"That doesn't mean that public ed, in any way, supports the practice or teaching of homophobia."

Right, and Abu Ghraib was a bunch of individuals acting on their own and that doesn't mean, in any way, that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld supports the practice of torture.

Obviously there is something about the PS system that encourages this kind of behaviour. Consider the VP in California who had to check that the girls entering a dance were wearing underwear, by having them lift their skirts for inspection. Even the police in attendance did not interfere with this practice. And then there is the principal who marched an 8-year-old girl from class to class calling her a "thief" and a "liar" only to discover, later, that the little girl was the innocent victim of a false accusation.

"While I can point out many problems with the public ed system, every last one of them political, public education is still a keystone of democracy, or a democratic republic." Explain this in light of the examples I've provided of official policy being challenged. Explain how -all- of these problems are "political". Explain how up to one-third of students dropping out (and more than 50% of blacks and hispanics in some cities), perpetuating crime and poverty, is "a keystone of democracy".

How do you justify a system that ruins the lives of one in three?

[LWolf]

42. I don't justify dysfunctions within the system.

If you'd spent any of the last 23 years by my side, working in public schools, you'd recognize me as the thorn in the side of all dysfunctional bureaucrats and their policies.

If the general public actually listened to us, instead of demonizing those of us on the front lines, we might be able to do something about the dysfunctions.

In 23 years, I have never once worked for a district or school site that would, for example, allow an essay contest at "that asked students to explain why preserving marriage between men and women is vital society and why unborn children merit respect and protection."

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen; it obviously does. I'm saying that it is not business as usual.

The large number of students dropping out is the result of top-down political policies that, in true orwellian fashion, set it up to happen on purpose. Political policies, not the policies of educators. It benefits TPTB to have a large pool of cheap labor and cannon fodder. It also benefits another agenda; privatization of education so that students can be safely indoctrinated without exposure to outside povs.

If you want to see changes, wrest control of public ed from politicians, and put it into the hands of families and educators. Then fully, liberally, and richly fund it.

[Robert Cooper]

43. Nice to see we're getting somewhere...

"If you want to see changes, wrest control of public ed from politicians, and put it into the hands of families and educators. Then fully, liberally, and richly fund it." - absolute agreement here.

"The large number of students dropping out is the result of top-down political policies that, in true orwellian fashion, set it up to happen on purpose. Political policies, not the policies of educators. It benefits TPTB to have a large pool of cheap labor and cannon fodder." - absolute agreement here too. However...

"It also benefits another agenda; privatization of education so that students can be safely indoctrinated without exposure to outside povs." - on this we disagree. While I admit it is possible to do as you've described, and no doubt there are those who do it. I disagree that this would actually work in the private field as well as it works in the PS system. Disparate private enterprises would have to be co-opted and the abundance and variety of them makes this plan rather unwieldly. Easier by far to use the existing PS system (as Kansas is doing): win the votes and ignore the opposition.

I think you are more likely to find private schools that mirror the POVs of parents (such as the religious schools are doing). What we need are more secular private schools, but as they'd run into direct competition with the state monopoly over secular education, this isn't going to happen without changes.

"I'm saying that it is not business as usual." - I respect that this has not been your experience, but clearly it is business as usual in a few places. Bear in mind the cases listed at ACLU are not exhaustive of all such cases. Not everyone goes so far fighting back.

"If the general public actually listened to us, instead of demonizing those of us on the front lines, we might be able to do something about the dysfunctions." In other discussions on the topic of PS systems I've acknowledged that there are many good teachers. Some are prepared to acknowledge the problems and discuss options.

And then there are others, teachers and administrators for whom the truth is less acceptable than a blind eye to the consequences of failure. There aren't many parents who would accept this kind of failure, I expect, and thus you end up with this conflict between teachers who accept failure and parents who reject it. Good teachers get caught in the cross-fire.

We need more teachers willing to admit the obvious and speak out against it. When you factor in the cost of law enforcement, prisons, damages and costs for victims of crime, etc, failing kids in school is a -very- expensive waste of society's resources. Fail a third of them and the problems are an epidemic in poverty and crime.

[countingbluecars]

14. Not all public schools,

not all principals. Constant negative generalizations about public schools really bug me. I have NEVER heard such words as you quoted spoken in a school, and I have been a teacher for a long time.

[Robert Cooper]

21. "Constant negative generalizations about public schools really bug me"

Curious, because I have the same feeling about constant -positive- generalizations.

"I have NEVER heard such words as you quoted spoken in a school, and I have been a teacher for a long time." I was unaware problems had to be -personally- witnessed before being validated.

Perhaps that explains the constant positive generalizations. If you don't witness it, it couldn't have happened. If you've been teaching for "a long time", perhaps you recall it was the Public School system that required all students to rise for the Lord's Prayer, the National Anthem, the Pledge of Allegiance, regardless of whether it reflects the student's beliefs or not.

I'm sure LWolf might consider political indoctrination into group-think at tender ages to be another "cornerstone of democracy". Considering how many people voted for Bush, supported the war in Iraq, and supported the Patriot Act, I'd say we had an excellent example of the results of a pervasive PS system.

You might benefit from the list of links I just posted in response to LWolf.

[countingbluecars]

29. You might benefit from visiting

a few American public schools before condemning all. As you noted, I have been teaching "a long time" in the PS system. I have never had to stand for the Lord's Prayer. I did have to go to mass every day as a Catholic school student. I suppose you would prefer tax payer dollars go there and to other religious schools?

Recently I attended a banquet honoring high school seniors who had maintained a 4.0 GPA for their first three years of high school. Each student invited a teacher who had inspired them. I was a guest of a former fourth grade student. She is from a working class family who values education. She plans to be a doctor. Over 160 students were honored at this event; some from single parent homes, some who had recently immigrated to America, one a young man with Downs Syndrome who had earned all A's in his Special Education program. As the students were introduced, their achievements and goals were listed on a big screen. I was impressed by a young lady who was president of the student gay-straight alliance. She listed her career goal as "media activist". This was applauded at a public school function.

I am not blind to the fact that the public school system has flaws, but I believe it can be fixed. Perhaps you should open your eyes to the good schools do.

[Robert Cooper]

30. "...open your eyes to the good schools do..."

You mean for all those kids who grew up and elected Bush, twice?
What about the one in three who don't fit the PS template and end up on the streets?

You all got together and clapped each other on the back because you had a token 160 kids to parade about. What about the millions of kids who weren't invited? If you can only find 160 kids who succeeded within the system, what about all the others the system failed?

There are many systems that do "good" for the few, but fail the masses. We call them "elitist".

The PS system in America has existed in its modern state for more than sixty years. As a monolithic melting pot it has contributed to the current state of affairs in America. What kind of people have 'graduated' school who flock to FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc?

If a drug company were to present a new drug, claiming that 1% who take it will end up rich, 65% will end up somewhere in the middle class and 33% would end up so stupid as to turn to a life of crime to make more than minimum wage, would you tell the FDA to approve it?

Would you make it mandatory that -everyone- consume it?

Would you insist we all pay taxes to subsidize consumption?

Would you end up blaming those who end up stupid?

Would you argue that the drug company bears no burden for the damage it does to those ending up stupid?

Sounds like something only the republicans could dream up.

[countingbluecars]

31. Do you realize that your

talking points ARE those espoused on "FOx News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc."? You grab onto any few words that suit your purpose to demean the public school system. You skip the main idea of the post and distort the message. Do you really believe that we "parade about" a "token 160 kids" and never celebrate the successes of the others? At that same event, kudos were given to the Votech students who printed the flyers and made the centerpieces. The Votech students also speak to elementary school students at career days. Our auto mechanics program wins state competitions. What about drama department productions, musicals, concerts, art shows, sports events, etc. held in public schools? Our school system has an alternative school for kids whose needs are not being met by the regular program. We should have more, but there is not enough funding.

You call the public schools elitist. Give me a break! Do you really think privatizing education would be better?

[Robert Cooper]

33. Back to the 'I don't see it so it can't exist' defense

It would appear you just can't bring yourself to justify the system ruining the lives of 1 in 3. Nor can you seem to justify the statistics provided in my response to LWolf, nor the listed lawsuits against the PS systems.

You list the accomplishments of 2 in 3, ignore the 1 in 3, and expect me to accept that's an effective system. No explanation of how the PS system could have led so many Americans to support Bush, Iraq, torture and the Patriot Act.

How on earth could anyone believe the public education system is in safe hands when so many teachers bury their heads in sand whenever criticism comes a knocking?

They're about to teach that science includes supernatural causes state-wide in the Kansas public school system. There are several states ready to follow their lead. Yet another demonstration of how the PS system fails kids. But we shouldn't criticize the PS system because there's 'nothing better'.

Funny, but I always thought 'something better' came about as a result of criticizing 'something not good enough'. Unfortunately job security won't allow for improvements. So yes, I support privatizing education. I support giving the poor a chance for their kids to break the cycle of poverty perpetuated by a flawed public education paradigm whose employees are so worried about their job security they'd rather go on ruining the lives of one in three than address their failure to educate. I support giving everyone the chance for a decent education rather than be at the mercy of school boards trying to sneak creationism in through the back door.

And I am all for retiring teachers who are determined to ignore the one in three lives they ruin.

[countingbluecars]

36. Your talking points are getting old and mean spirited.

Same old Fox News stuff designed to bring down the public schools.
Instead of working to improve a system that can be fixed, you want to abandon it and give vouchers to the fundies and others who resent funding the education of other people's children.

You say, "I support giving the poor a chance for their kids to break the cycle of poverty perpetuated by a flawed public education paradigm whose employees are so worried about their job security they'd rather go on ruining the lives of one in three than address their failure to educate." Didn't Armstrong Williams get paid big bucks by the Bush administration to push that same message.

You say I use the "I don't see it so it can't exist defense." I am there everyday. I see the good the system is capable of achieving. I see all children in my school being educated and nurtured, rich and poor alike. What makes you an expert? You read a few articles, listen to Fox news, and home school your child?

As to the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in school. Have you read any articles about public school teachers in support of that???

I ignore no child, and I don't plan on retiring any time soon.

[Robert Cooper]

38. I'm not the one who said "better to ruin one in three..."

...but that -is- the bottom line for the Public School system.

"Same old Fox News stuff designed to bring down the public schools." - I wouldn't know, as I've been without a TV for over five years and don't miss it one bit.

"Instead of working to improve a system that can be fixed, you want to abandon it and give vouchers to the fundies and others who resent funding the education of other people's children." - Right, and the fact that about a third of the kids who go to PS are failed, fed into the cycle of crime and poverty, has -nothing- to do with it?

"Didn't Armstrong Williams get paid big bucks by the Bush administration to push that same message." Is that supposed to be a reasoned rebuttal? Is -that- what you teach in school: when you can't deny the truth, use the politics of personal destruction? Bet it scores high on -your- tests.

"What makes you an expert?" - more elitism? Can't discuss education unless you're an expert? Can't notice a one-third drop out rate and wonder what the schools are doing to create it? Can't wonder what the consequences are for those kids? Can't wonder how it impacts the local/state/federal political arenas? Can't be concerned that my own child may fall into that one-third category and want to ensure he doesn't?

"Have you read any articles about public school teachers in support of that???" - Have you noticed how little difference it is making? It's still the Public School System. Regardless of whether teachers agree or disagree with policies, they are obliged to enforce them or resign. Kids are still obliged to go to these schools teaching supernatural causes. In Kansas, the PS system is being -run- by fundies. What alternatives are you proposing for PS kids in Kansas? How are the poor to afford the alternatives? Or would you prefer the kids go to PS and learn creationism rather than weaken the monopoly by offering tax-paid alternatives?

What does your History Teacher have to say about turning a monopoly into a sacred cow?

And please do not consider me "mean-spirited" because I don't bend knee to your sacred cow. Last I heard we enjoyed the freedom of expression -and- religion, and Public School monopolies are not my religion of choice.

Welcome to democracy, which I am sure you will find quite different from the authoritarianism of the PS system where the unelected staff are judge, jury and executioner and the penalty is a life of poverty and/or crime.

[countingbluecars]

39. Yes, I consider your posts mean-spirited,

but not because you don't "bend knee" to the "sacred cow". Rather, it is because you refuse to address ANY of the positives mentioned about the public school system or the teachers who work daily to improve the system. Instead, you twist people's words and demean the teaching profession. The majority of your posts on DU are attacks on the school system. You have the right to do that, and I have the right to question your motives. Are you as vehement in your criticism of other flawed systems? Should we just abandon them all-privatize them all?

Even if I were to accept your argument that the school system is solely responsible for a one third drop out rate, I would still see the glass as three thirds full. I am working to improve it. Have you tried to talk a kid out of believing the KKK propaganda his father was feeding him? Have you tutored or mentored kids after school? Have you encouraged children to embrace diversity and tolerance? Have you counseled students going through divorces and domestic abuse? Have you bought clothes and books for students? Have you cried with a group of 10 year olds after reading Sounder, the story of a poor sharecropper's son, or the story of Ruby Bridges? Have you inspired any children other than your own? I have, and so have many public school teachers.

[Robert Cooper]

40. As you wish...

...it's a free country to believe what you will.

So I take it this is degenerating to a "you won't admit the positives so I won't admit the negatives" play-ground argument.

More efforts to psycho-analyze an opponent than to address the issues raised. More of the politics of personal destruction taking the place of substantive debate.

Still no recommendation for the kids in Kansas, I see.

And I think you're little anecdotal statements about what a great teacher you are is of little value to the one-third of the children attending Public Schools who will 'graduate' to poverty and/or crime.

"Even if I were to accept your argument that the school system is solely responsible for a one third drop out rate, I would still see the glass as three thirds full." - I suppose that is some consolation for the parents of children whom the system ruined.

I give you the last word, as there is little I can discuss with a teacher who believes a one-third drop out rate is a "three thirds" success. I have to wonder how many parents would sacrifice one of their children so two others can thrive. Thank you for making my point so eloquently.

If there was a better argument for bringing an end to the PS system, I haven't heard it till now.

[countingbluecars]

41. There are MANY great teachers

in the public school system working to improve the lives of ALL students
and to improve the system itself.

Good Day Sir. END.

[Irreverend IX]

32. Take away the public schools...

And the only class inner city kids will be taking is Independent Study: Applied Methods of Crack Cocaine Distribution.

I can't believe what I'm reading. What do you propose be instituted in place of public schools? You do realize that PS is, for a great many people, their only shot at an education? I was educated in the public school system, and while it wasn't perfect, I think the teachers and admins did a damn good job with the resources they had.

If PS will produce Bush voters, how many more will be produced when private Christian prep schools are the only game in town? And then you complain about high dropout rates in the inner city? If there was no free public education, how many urban kids do you think would ever see the inside of a classroom? Inner city schools may be flawed, but if you take them away you'll take millions of kids' only hope at a job that doesn't pay under a table. Do you think a 30% graduation rate is preferable to nothing?

The loss of public education would destroy the progressive movement beyond what any Supreme Court justice could ever hope to do. American society would be divided into the prep-schooled .5% and a huge serf class forever after.

[Robert Cooper]

34. crawling into the hind-end of denial

Take away the public schools and the only class inner city kids will be taking is Independent Study: Applied Methods of Crack Cocaine Distribution."

This isn't an example of elitism? Did you bother reading the information provided in my response to LWolf under "sacred cows"?

"WHEREAS, the employment rate for out-of-school youth in high-poverty areas is 46 percent; and

"WHEREAS, in many cities the drop-out rate for African-American and Hispanic youth is over 50 percent; and

"WHEREAS, the proportion of young African-American high school dropouts who are currently not employed exceeds 70 percent; and

"WHEREAS, the pervasive joblessness of minority males contributes fundamentally to various problems of inner cities--poverty, crime, welfare dependency, high proportion of female-headed families, and drug abuse;..."

Source: http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/resolutions/68th_conferenc...

Go ahead and tell me how inner-city kids are thriving under the Public School system.

"I think the teachers and admins did a damn good job with the resources they had." And that proves what, exactly? That you weren't the one in three whom the same system failed? Lucky you. So it's okay if we ruin one life in three as long as you're not one of those whose lives were ruined, correct?

"If PS will produce Bush voters..." lol, who do you -think- elected Bush? A majority of Americans were private schooled, home schooled? Can't acknowledge the PS system's contribution to democracy? Must we crawl so far into the hind-end of denial to protect the jobs of Public School educators that we'd ruin a country's democracy?

"If there was no free public education..." where did you get the notion it's "free"? It's paid for with taxes, and those taxes are paid with no checks or balances, no guarantees or assurances, and a 1 in 3 failure rate (higher in the inner cities).

"Inner city schools may be flawed..." From the quotes above there is no "may be" about it. And hey, its not a problem as long as it isn't -your- kid whom the system fails. And as long as money is tied up in a failed Public School system, there isn't any money to fund alternatives, is there?

"Do you think a 30% graduation rate is preferable to nothing?" I think this, along with the fact that so many teachers refuse to acknowledge the problems, let alone discuss them without their desire for job security getting in the way, demonstrates just how flawed the system is.

How can you call a system that fails to encourage 70% of the children to learn a "success". How can you even consider it "better than nothing"? Young kids with bright minds and avid curiousities are turned into criminals by a system that fails to attract them and fails to address their needs.

You don't think we can do better than this? That we can't devise a better system? Better to continue to perpetuate crime and poverty than to acknowledge the problems and address them?

And you wonder why the voucher system gains popularity?

Maybe the parents of those one in three whom the system fails are just not willing to give up on their kids the way Public School teachers do. Maybe the choice is a matter of giving up on their kids or giving up on the public school system. And without cash to pay for appropriate alternatives, there are no appropriate alternatives.

Perhaps you'd like to answer the following:

If a drug company were to present a new drug, claiming that 1% who take it will end up rich, 65% will end up somewhere in the middle class and 33% would end up so stupid as to turn to a life of crime to make more than minimum wage, would you tell the FDA to approve it?

Would you make it mandatory that -everyone- consume it?

Would you insist we all pay taxes to subsidize consumption?

Would you end up blaming those who end up stupid?

Would you argue that the drug company bears no burden for the damage it does to those ending up stupid?

[Irreverend IX]

35. It's better to "ruin one life in three"...

Than utterly abandon 99 of every hundred kids in this country.

"'Do you think a 30% graduation rate is preferable to nothing?' I think this, along with the fact that so many teachers refuse to acknowledge the problems, let alone discuss them without their desire for job security getting in the way, demonstrates just how flawed the system is."

I think you've just demonstrated that your arguments are backed by emotion rather than reason. Some kids graduating is better than no one getting any education whatsoever. And than you have the nerve to say that I don't care about inner city kids who don't graduate? You're the one who wants to eliminate public education and leave them all twisting in the wind.

You want to devise a better system? Go ahead. I'm waiting to hear your proposed solution that a) will have a higher success rate than public education and b) serve the same number of students as public education currently does. So tell me, how will you ensure that every urban child gets a fair chance?

As for me, I think the best way would be to keep the public school system and pay teachers as much as doctors and lawyers; they're no less important, and quite possibly more important for society's well-being. If our government was sane enough to give the schools their due, you would see the graduation rate skyrocket and the crime numbers flatline.

And BTW, that drug of yours sounds like a good deal if the alternative to taking it is a lifetime of mindless minimum wage slavery, as is the case in the real world.

[Robert Cooper]

37. So you prefer state-run monopolies over private enterprise...

...the Soviet Union would like to know where your advice was when they were collapsing.

And hey, if monopolies are so good, why not have one state religion, one state political party, one car manufacturer, one source of electricity, ...?

Oh, that's right, competition sparks innovation and efficiency. In the real world, no company could inflict suffering on one-third of the population with impunity. And how would democrats handle a company known to perpetuate poverty and crime by it's callous disregard for the future of the children in its care?

And of course the fact that American educational systems score so low compared to western developed nations is no reason to think there might be a better system.

My solution for my child: one parent works while one parent Home-Schools. My solution for others: home school or education accounts where tax money paid for education is collected and dispersed as needed, x dollars for each student - adjusted depending upon the grade the student is in. Parents decide where to send their kids for their education and are free to switch suppliers whenever they feel they're child is not doing well with the current supplier.

Just like the real world where we have multiple suppliers of any other product.

I'd rather trust parents than someone who can say "better to "ruin one life in three"..."

And it's very obvious that the end of that statement is "...than to ruin the job security that comes with monopoly."

As long as Americans are willing to channel up to a third of the population into poverty and crime so as to maintain a monopoly then the American Dream is a cruel joke. One third of the population has no chance of achieving it. Instead you've ensured that any demagogue who tries to woo this under-class can expect about a third of the vote.

Oh, that's right. Bush did it, twice.

It's a bummer when those chickens come home to roost, isn't it?

[Irreverend IX]

44. If we gave teachers their due...

We wouldn't be "ruining one life in three." The poor state of public education is entirely due to the fact that GOP policies have starved educators of the money they need.

"And hey, if monopolies are so good, why not have one state religion, one state political party, one car manufacturer, one source of electricity, ...?"

The last one of those makes good sense. Electric power is a natural monopoly, since it makes no sense for competing companies to build redundant electrical grids. If you haven't been keeping track, power supply by a single public service company is the norm in this country.
Anyway, I don't think private schools should be done away with. If you have the money to send your kid to one, fine. But there should always be a free alternative for parents who don't have that choice.

"And of course the fact that American educational systems score so low compared to western developed nations is no reason to think there might be a better system."

Hmm, it seems that most of those other nations have public education with better pay and training for teachers... exactly what I'm suggesting. Can you list any western developed nations that use a charter school model?

And on the topic of charter schools, which is what you're proposing as a replacement to PS, such a model would be poisonous to democracy. In public schools, there's usually some degree of mixing between students of different ethnic, religious and political backgrounds. In my high school, we had rich white kids whose parents bought them SUVs, poor Hispanic kids and lots of socioeconomic classes in between.
Due to humans' insular nature, this kind of diversity is hard to come by in private institutions, especially small charter schools that are specific to a single community. And homeschooling is even worse in that regard. If charter schools were the norm, the majority of kids would never see the outside of their class, ethnic group and political ideology during their formative years.
And what makes you think charter schools in the inner city would be any better than what we have now? Such schools would be as impoverished as the areas in which they are established. I doubt that people would even bother to start schools in some urban areas. The advantage of public schools is that they can receive federal funds and can have better facilities than the areas they reside in might be able to afford. Of course, this isn't the reality now but with the right leaders and policies in place it could be.

[Robert Cooper]

45. "...entirely due to ... GOP..."

"The poor state of public education is entirely due to the fact that GOP policies have starved educators of the money they need." - No doubt the GOP are fiddling with the budgets, but the stats have never been good for the PS system. Crime stats involving students were higher during Clinton's two terms, though they were coming down (they've levelled out since Bush took office).

To my knowledge there has been no 'golden age of education'. If you have stats that suggest otherwise, provide links. As far as I know, and I've been following this on-and-off for over thirty years, drop-out rates are not the result of any political party but are an intrinsic fault due to the design of the system. And this is easily demonstrated by the fact we are not identical and any cookie-cutter methodology is going to fail a large percentage of individuals.

"If you have the money to send your kid to one, fine. But there should always be a free alternative for parents who don't have that choice." - in other words, if you're rich enough to buy your kid a better education, great. If not, be prepared to see your kid trapped in the same cycle of poverty and/or crime you're trapped in (see my link to the U.S. Mayors' quote, provided earlier).

Tell me again how education is supposed to bring about an end to poverty and crime by educating the masses?

As for electricity - you've obviously not heard of bottle-necks. A society can be brought down whenever anything is controlled by too few organizations. Look at what happened to America during the Arab Oil Embargo. Look at what is happening in Kansas. The monolithic monopoly was the failed plan of the Soviet Union. Diversity and innovation -was- the American virtue. Which serves unique individuals best?

"Hmm, it seems that most of those other nations have public education with better pay and training for teachers... exactly what I'm suggesting." - then you will be pleased to know that here in Ontario, Canada (the most populous and richest of provinces) the drop-out rate is one in three. It's gotten so embarassing that the provincial government has just passed a law requiring all kids to attend school till -18- or be jailed. Kids failed by the system no longer have any escape from it, unless their parents are rich. Only time will tell what kind of behavioural problems that will create, but I've little doubt it will involve placing law enforcement in our schools and turning them into little correction institutes.

Authoritarians should be pleased.

"And on the topic of charter schools, which is what you're proposing as a replacement to PS, such a model would be poisonous to democracy. In public schools, there's usually some degree of mixing between students of different ethnic, religious and political backgrounds. In my high school, we had rich white kids whose parents bought them SUVs, poor Hispanic kids and lots of socioeconomic classes in between. Due to humans' insular nature, this kind of diversity is hard to come by in private institutions, especially small charter schools that are specific to a single community. And homeschooling is even worse in that regard. If charter schools were the norm, the majority of kids would never see the outside of their class, ethnic group and political ideology during their formative years."

Let's see: the modern public school system has been in existence for about sixty years or more, republicans control house, senate and WH (all elected by majorities of Americans), the media spouts inconsequential news stories and passes on the investigative stuff, especially if it challenges the authorities, and the drop out rate in some inner cities is over 50%...what can I say:

"Well done, Brownie!"
:eyes:

"And what makes you think charter schools in the inner city would be any better than what we have now?

Know any parents who are happy their kid dropped out of school? Any that would be ecstatic that their kid is not being educated? What's missing is a choice? Give them one and see how many take it. Instead of being a sacred cow, a monolithic institution, these schools would be competing in the way all businesses compete: results. Businesses are answerable to their customers. Who does the Public School System answer to?

"Such schools would be as impoverished as the areas in which they are established. I doubt that people would even bother to start schools in some urban areas. The advantage of public schools is that they can receive federal funds and can have better facilities than the areas they reside in might be able to afford. Of course, this isn't the reality now but with the right leaders and policies in place it could be."

Let's see: form a state-controlled monopoly, take all the money and give it to the monopoly, and then ask "how are you going afford to pay for the competition?".

Let's see: break up the monopoly, collect education taxes, divy up the money according to the numbers of students and the grades they're in and voila, we've found the money to pay for the competition.

Federal monies can be dispensed through income tax deductions for parents of children in school.

As long as Public School systems accept failure as an option, there is going to be pressure from parents for new, more reliable options. And characterizing this effort on the part of parents to ensure their child's well-being as somehow RW (as another respondent did) is going to back-fire in a -big- way.

Parents don't give a -damn- about politics when people start messing with their kids.

In Kansas, parents are sending their kids to -Public- schools to learn a curriculum designed by fundies, one that includes supernatural explanations for scientific phenomena. Where are your arguments in support of the PS system as it is in Kansas? Is it still great that the rich can buy a -real- education for their kids while the poor are indoctrinated into Fundie principles every day in the guise of public education? And this can happen in -every- school board where the fundies hold a voting majority. Tell me that only the RW attack public education in places like Kansas.

[Irreverend IX]

46. On the topic of fundies...

You point out that the PS system in Kansas has been corrupted by fundies. Yes, they're teaching intelligent design in the classrooms. But what do you think those kids would be learning if only charter schools existed in the state? Most likely they'd be indoctrinated with 200-proof young earth creationism and a healthy dose of God Hates Fags on the side.
The more rational Kansans might be able to start a small operation for themselves, but how would they fare if the people around them abandon reality en masse?

"Parents don't give a -damn- about politics when people start messing with their kids."

Note that some parents think that "messing with their kids" means teaching them that the Earth was not created in seven days, dark-skinned people are not subhuman and that Clinton was not the incarnation of Satan on Earth.
Public schools are a democratic system, controlled by whoever the local parents want to put on the school board. And if the parents are rational and responsible, as they are in many well-performing school districts, then it's all good. If the parents are not rational or if they're too busy working three jobs to keep their kids fed to get involved in education (as is the case in many inner cities) then the federal educational policies are there to check the parents' lack of involvement.
With a charter school system, there are no checks and balances. Charter schooling in rural Alabama and Mississippi would lead to the three Rs of Reeding, Riting and Racial Holy War. And what do you suppose would happen to kids who didn't fit the mold in those communities? In the PS system, sad to say, kids like that are often shunned, bullied and sometimes fall through the cracks and drop out. But if you're a nonconformist in the Confederate Schools of America... you're gonna squeal like a pig, boy!

If you blame the PS system for producing Bush voters, you need to ask yourself: how many Bush voters would come out of a school system that offers kids no exposure to ideas outside their family's?

[Robert Cooper]

47. Without a secular alternative all that's left is the religious alternative

"You point out that the PS system in Kansas has been corrupted by fundies. Yes, they're teaching intelligent design in the classrooms. But what do you think those kids would be learning if only charter schools existed in the state? Most likely they'd be indoctrinated with 200-proof young earth creationism and a healthy dose of God Hates Fags on the side."

The state has created a monopoly over secular education and you're complaining that there are no secular alternatives. Exactly! And now that the monopoly has been taken over by the fundies, everyone who cannot afford any alternative have no choice but to continue sending their kids to the public system, no choice about it.

This is a flaw in the design of public education, that it loads all its eggs in one basket and when that basket gets high-jacked all the eggs go with it. If there was no monopoly over secular education, this couldn't happen. The Fundies would have to control -all- the boards, not just one at the state level. And since these boards are not elected, that's going to be rather difficult to accomplish.

"The more rational Kansans might be able to start a small operation for themselves, but how would they fare if the people around them abandon reality en masse?"

Care to clarify that statement? Which "reality" do you have in mind?

This issue is where the monopolists face the ultimate failure of their system. Not just one third of the kids will fail real science: -all- the kids will fail. All the kids in the public school system, that is. Those kids who listen to their teachers, teachers who uphold board policies to retain their jobs.

Monopolists have provided no way out for times when the PS system falls into the hands of radicals who have managed to get elected. It would be hilariously ironic if not for all the young victims.

"Public schools are a democratic system, controlled by whoever the local parents want to put on the school board."

Try again. From the student perspective, schools are autocratic, dictatorial, and often whimsical in the manner justice is dispensed.

From the parent's perspective, the schools are controlled by whomever the majority elects. Note the difference. If you are part of the minority who voted for the other guy, you've got an idiot sitting on the board instead of the person you wanted. Since these elections are decided by 50%+1 vote, that can leave a -lot- of people in the minority.

Not to mention that parents are not the only ones who vote for school board positions. The influence of parents over the outcome is diluted by all of those without kids, as well as those whose experiences with school date back to the middle of the previous century.

And if these parents could afford to home school, it wouldn't matter to them who got elected, because they could vote with their feet if they didn't like the results.

"And if the parents are rational and responsible, as they are in many well-performing school districts, then it's all good. If the parents are not rational or if they're too busy working three jobs to keep their kids fed to get involved in education (as is the case in many inner cities) then the federal educational policies are there to check the parents' lack of involvement."

You confuse inability to pay with disinterest. If you cannot afford to pay for any other option, your only involvement is to get your kid to school on time and -maybe- the PTA assuming it has any teeth at all.

Give parents the power to choose and they become more involved. It already happens at the college/university level. You telling me they can't do that at the high school/middle school/junior school level?

"With a charter school system, there are no checks and balances."

There are none at the PS system either. One third of kids drop out (or more in some areas) and how many heads roll?

"Charter schooling in rural Alabama and Mississippi would lead to the three Rs of Reeding, Riting and Racial Holy War. And what do you suppose would happen to kids who didn't fit the mold in those communities?"

First off I'd like to see something that supports that claim.

Second, the kids who don't fit the mold are screwed in a public school or a private school. You're dreaming if you think the PS system can make a dent in such rabid bigotry. Schools are going to hire locally. Boards are going to be elected locally. Who do you think is going to be running things in these schools, doling out punishment or simply 'failing' kids who don't go along with the program.

Again you demonstrate my point. Monopolists have left no secular alternatives to the public school system. The only alternatives they've allowed for are the religious alternatives, because the SCOTUS has forbidden state-enforce religious practice.

And when the fundies start messing with the PS system (democratically) there are no secular alternatives. Only religious ones.

"In the PS system, sad to say, kids like that are often shunned, bullied and sometimes fall through the cracks and drop out. But if you're a nonconformist in the Confederate Schools of America... you're gonna squeal like a pig, boy!"

See my previous point, above.

"If you blame the PS system for producing Bush voters, you need to ask yourself: how many Bush voters would come out of a school system that offers kids no exposure to ideas outside their family's?"

(sigh), it's like explaining "colour" to someone who only sees black and white.

First off, there is an implied condemnation for a family's ideas in your statement. I disagree with that assessment. One of my reasons for keeping my son out of the PS system is to ensure his spirit isn't crushed by the impersonal authoritarianism that rules there. I can afford to be more patient and tolerant and understanding with him because:
a) he's my son
b) I don't have 29+ other kids to take care of and educate.

I don't see anything wrong with the family idea that we should be confident and have the self-esteem to challenge authority when it is unjust, regardless of the circumstances. I don't see anything wrong with the idea of being assertive, refusing to be a victim of someone ego-tripping on their authority.

There are many people, and for many reasons, who have come to the conclusion that the PS system is not the panacea some education professionals would have us believe. In this discussion, I've been told the PS system can sacrifice one in three kids to a life of poverty and crime and still call it a success.

Do you really think you can categorize that one third as religious fanatics? Over 50% of inner city blacks and hispanics drop out. A lot of fundies in some of your inner cities? I don't think so.

And every parent of one of those children has reason to be motivated to expect another alternative to a system that failed their child. The monopolists have only left them the religious schools as alternatives. The monopolists refused to permit any competition for secular education suppliers, and look at how society suffers for that obsolete paradigm. A self-perpetuating cycle of poverty and crime on an enormous scale.

The schools hold the keys to breaking that cycle. The schools decide who will get out and who won't. The schools decide who will fail and who will succeed. If you've ever seen "Antz" I'm sure you'll recall the scene I'm thinking of at the moment.

We are adults and they are kids. If they fail, it is because we failed them. The monopolists have required everyone who wants a secular education to put all the eggs in one basket. If it fails, there is no recovery. There is no back-up except the religious schools.

And the fact is that it is failing and costing society far more in welfare and law enforcement than it would cost to end the monopoly and create a variety of secular alternatives.

[truthisfreedom]

22. sounds like she'll win... here's more.

The lawsuit also claims discrimination, contending Nguon was suspended several times for ignoring orders from the principal to stop hugging and kissing her girlfriend. Heterosexual couples engaging in similar behavior were not disciplined, the lawsuit contends.