Chicago School Bans Home Lunches

• Ty Webb

  

  Writerbuckeye;739711 wrote:The Chicago Way at work, right Mr. President?

  
  Cruiser_96....right there my friend
• jhay78

  

  O-Trap;741276 wrote:I'm neither here nor there when it concerns sex education.
  
  #1. I am actually supportive of introducing kids to it as a concept when they're that young, much in the same way we do alcohol. Teaching kids to wait until they are older to engage in sex for the purpose of their safety and well-being isn't really much different from teaching kids to wait until they're older before consuming alcohol (legality of it notwithstanding). There are boys and girls beginning to engage in it at very early ages (a girl at the local youth center just learned she was pregnant about a month ago -- she's 11 and just finishing 4th grade).
  
  #2. I do agree that sexual education, from the standpoint of being taught by the schools, should indeed be exclusively biological and scientific. Teach the physiology of it, and teach what contraceptives are available (and what is NOT safe as a contraceptive), and what they do. I would STRONGLY emphasize the FACT that no contraceptive is 100% effective, and I would also emphasize that it IS possible to get pregnant in any coital position and at any point in the woman's cycle. Those are all factual, and should be taught.
  
  Teaching the ethics and emotional element of sex, however, is the responsibility of the parent, and should not be within the scope of what the school has the authority to teach.

  
  You're probably right on those, but parents should be notified when their children are about to be taught a loaded topic like sex, or anything else that carries some extra sensitivies, and outside of the realm of the usual reading, riting, and rithmetic. Especially when that's about to be taught to Elementary schoolers. Parents should have the option to opt out, and say "No thanks, I'll decide when and where Jimmy learns about sex". And if a parent feels comfortable leaving that up to the school, then that's fine too.
  
  And while the 9th Circuit was probably right that parents can't dictate what is and isn't taught in the schools, to say that "“In sum, we affirm that the Meyer-Pierce right [of parents to direct the upbringing of their children] does not exist beyond the threshold of the school door” is beyond ridiculous. That mentality reeks of statism (and whatever other -ism you want to call it). Of course, there are parents who gladly go along with this and willingly give up their right to raise/educate their children to the government, and it's why crap like this can occur.
• I Wear Pants

  "Especially when that's about to be taught to Elementary schoolers. Parents should have the option to opt out, and say "No thanks, I'll decide when and where Jimmy learns about sex". "
  
  Why? It just isn't practical and would cause problems if parents were able to do that. What is the teacher supposed to do, make the kid sit out in the hall while the subject is being taught? And then do you think that kid isn't going to talk to his friends that were in the class or feel weird that he has to be separated from the rest of class?
  
  I don't understand why our country is so afraid of sex and so unafraid of violence.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I Wear Pants;741589 wrote:"Especially when that's about to be taught to Elementary schoolers. Parents should have the option to opt out, and say "No thanks, I'll decide when and where Jimmy learns about sex". "
  
  Why? It just isn't practical and would cause problems if parents were able to do that. What is the teacher supposed to do, make the kid sit out in the hall while the subject is being taught? And then do you think that kid isn't going to talk to his friends that were in the class or feel weird that he has to be separated from the rest of class?
  
  I don't understand why our country is so afraid of sex and so unafraid of violence.

  
  Well, if the parents are thinking about it to the point where they come to the conclusion that it is their job, and not a teacher(s) job to explain sex-ed to their kids, then that's a good thing. Right? Why is that such an offensive thing?
  I just don't agree with certain aspects of parenting being taken away from the parent. From what their kids eat to what they learn about sex. Parents should have at least a modicum of input in those things that happen in schools.... right?
  For the most part, I would think that almost all parents don't say anything and let schools teach what or how they want. But there are parents out there that think that they can best do that (insofar as sexed and what their kids eat, what we're talking about here). I don't have a problem with that, personally or educationally. I might not personally agree or think that's the best route to take, but parents should have a voice in the matter. If the school does what it wants anyway, at least the parents gave input, which I cannot imagine being necessarily a bad thing. All too often we complain about non-interactive parents and we don't seem to like that. But when parents do try to have a little bit of controll over their own kids, we don't seem to like that either.
  Who is better qualified to teach my kids math, science, history, etc.? Certainly teachers are, in my personal opinion.
  Who is better qualified to decide what my kids eat or how much sexual knowledge they learn? Certainly I am.
  
  It's a fine line, I know. Personally, I don't have a problem with kids going to school and learning what is basically bodily functions; I don't have a problem with going further in depth insofar as explaining preventative measures and the possible damages of having sex too early.
  
  But where is the line that is drawn (or should be drawn) in determining where the school trumps the parent concerning sex-ed and even what the kids eat? THAT is ultimately the question, regardless of personal feelings.
  Where is the line, who determines it?
  (obviously, I think it is a parental issue)
• O-Trap

  

  Honestly, I have no qualms with the schools teaching the biology of it without parental consent. What makes that element of it so different from any other study in biology?
• jhay78

  

  O-Trap;741927 wrote:Honestly, I have no qualms with the schools teaching the biology of it without parental consent. What makes that element of it so different from any other study in biology?

  
  That would be the social and emotional consequences of handling the issue prematurely or irresponsibly. The topics of classification, astronomy, earth science, etc., don't carry the same "baggage".
• Con_Alma

  We rely to much on formalized education to educate our children.
  
  It's my responsibility to educate my children. I use the education system to augment my efforts not to be the effort itself. The timing is important to be aware of if a school system teaches sex education so that it can be intermingled with the efforts We are making at home with the children.
• O-Trap

  

  jhay78;742043 wrote:That would be the social and emotional consequences of handling the issue prematurely or irresponsibly. The topics of classification, astronomy, earth science, etc., don't carry the same "baggage".

  That's why I suggest that the emotional, social, and responsibility issues are not touched. Those are the responsibility of the parent.
  
  However, I agree that it would be a good courtesy to inform parents of upcoming sexual education, and even maybe give them an outline of the material that is actually being covered. It just seems wise.
• QuakerOats

  The twisted mind of the liberal elite establishment is nearing us to the point of no return.
  
  Liberty is at stake.
  
  Change we can believe in ........
• O-Trap

  

  QuakerOats;742124 wrote:The twisted mind of the liberal elite establishment is nearing us to the point of no return.
  
  Liberty is at stake.
  
  Change we can believe in ........

  You're welcome to homeschool your child (and should always be).
• Con_Alma

  I hope that every parent is homeschooling their child and then using the formalized education system to augment that education.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;742133 wrote:I hope that every parent is homeschooling their child and then using the formalized education system to augment that education.

  
  This. I don't use that language because of the stigma of homeschooling, but I get your point, and I agree with it.
• OSH

  

  Con_Alma;742047 wrote:We rely to much on formalized education to educate our children.
  
  It's my responsibility to educate my children. I use the education system to augment my efforts not to be the effort itself. The timing is important to be aware of if a school system teaches sex education so that it can be intermingled with the efforts We are making at home with the children.

  I think everyone on here can agree with the statement, "It's the parent's responsibility to educate their children."
  
  The reason why we get into all these other discussions of sex education, school food, and other "hot topics" is because there are SO many kids out there who do not get the "parental education." The public school system is stuck between a rock and a hard place with their education topics. With those kids that do not have the "parental education," who is educating them? Who is responsible for them? I believe, the public school system is picking up where so many parents have failed. Do I blame the public schools for that? Absolutely not, it's noble. The problems then come when the public schools step on the toes of those who are "parental educators." They don't want their kids learning these "hot topics" at school because they can do it at home and they can do it better.
  
  The public school system isn't a babysitting service -- but it has become that. The public school system isn't a parenting service -- but it has become that. The public school system is require to educate the youth of America -- their education has shifted because there are so many that have failed in educating at home.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Good points, OSH!
• I Wear Pants

  OSH;742504 wrote:I think everyone on here can agree with the statement, "It's the parent's responsibility to educate their children."
  
  The reason why we get into all these other discussions of sex education, school food, and other "hot topics" is because there are SO many kids out there who do not get the "parental education." The public school system is stuck between a rock and a hard place with their education topics. With those kids that do not have the "parental education," who is educating them? Who is responsible for them? I believe, the public school system is picking up where so many parents have failed. Do I blame the public schools for that? Absolutely not, it's noble. The problems then come when the public schools step on the toes of those who are "parental educators." They don't want their kids learning these "hot topics" at school because they can do it at home and they can do it better.
  
  The public school system isn't a babysitting service -- but it has become that. The public school system isn't a parenting service -- but it has become that. The public school system is require to educate the youth of America -- their education has shifted because there are so many that have failed in educating at home.

  Public school system: Good at educating kids (most schools).
  Public school system: Bad at instilling qualities like morals, work ethic, respect, etc.
  
  At least that's how I see it.
• jhay78

  

  OSH;742504 wrote:I think everyone on here can agree with the statement, "It's the parent's responsibility to educate their children."
  
  The reason why we get into all these other discussions of sex education, school food, and other "hot topics" is because there are SO many kids out there who do not get the "parental education." The public school system is stuck between a rock and a hard place with their education topics. With those kids that do not have the "parental education," who is educating them? Who is responsible for them? I believe, the public school system is picking up where so many parents have failed. Do I blame the public schools for that? Absolutely not, it's noble. The problems then come when the public schools step on the toes of those who are "parental educators." They don't want their kids learning these "hot topics" at school because they can do it at home and they can do it better.
  
  The public school system isn't a babysitting service -- but it has become that. The public school system isn't a parenting service -- but it has become that. The public school system is require to educate the youth of America -- their education has shifted because there are so many that have failed in educating at home.

  
  All great points. I can't fault the public school system entirely for filling in the gaps where parents have been negligent. My complaint is when school take advantage of those gaps, override the good parents, and use the school system to go beyond actually educating children. Not only that, but statistically speaking, they haven't performed well in the "educating" department either.
• OSH

  

  jhay78;742602 wrote:All great points. I can't fault the public school system entirely for filling in the gaps where parents have been negligent. My complaint is when school take advantage of those gaps, override the good parents, and use the school system to go beyond actually educating children. Not only that, but statistically speaking, they haven't performed well in the "educating" department either.

  
  I completely understand the bolded statement. Not to excuse the schools [again], but administrators do not look at how many "parental educated" students are there, they just are looking at what they can do for those NCLB and troubled kids. It happens to be that those students who have "parent educators" are the ones that are punished from where the schools are filling the "parental education" voids (I hope that makes sense). It would be nice if some students were able to opt out of certain educational efforts from the district.
  
  Now for the underlined statement...I do not agree. The American public school system has its faults and failures -- I have my issues with it as well. But, there are very few countries that provide the education that we provide in the United States. If the American public school system wasn't educating well, why do we see many people traveling to the US for an education? We are one of the only countries that provide an education for all people groups, socioeconomic classes, and whoever else decides they want to learn. Could we do it more efficiently? Maybe. Could we use a bit of educational reform? Probably. But there are very few countries that provide an education that we do. Could we get better in educating? Only if we wanted to neglect other children of an education.
  
  Again, I have my issues with the way that we operate our public school system, but providing an education to EVERYONE is something that is necessary. Schools need reformed. They could operate a little more efficiently.
• jhay78

  

  OSH;742629 wrote:I completely understand the bolded statement. Not to excuse the schools [again], but administrators do not look at how many "parental educated" students are there, they just are looking at what they can do for those NCLB and troubled kids. It happens to be that those students who have "parent educators" are the ones that are punished from where the schools are filling the "parental education" voids (I hope that makes sense). It would be nice if some students were able to opt out of certain educational efforts from the district.
  
  Now for the underlined statement...I do not agree. The American public school system has its faults and failures -- I have my issues with it as well. But, there are very few countries that provide the education that we provide in the United States. If the American public school system wasn't educating well, why do we see many people traveling to the US for an education? We are one of the only countries that provide an education for all people groups, socioeconomic classes, and whoever else decides they want to learn. Could we do it more efficiently? Maybe. Could we use a bit of educational reform? Probably. But there are very few countries that provide an education that we do. Could we get better in educating? Only if we wanted to neglect other children of an education.
  
  Again, I have my issues with the way that we operate our public school system, but providing an education to EVERYONE is something that is necessary. Schools need reformed. They could operate a little more efficiently.

  
  Yeah I guess that's what I was trying to say. Not that schools are a complete joke and a failure . . .
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;742559 wrote:Public school system: Good at educating kids (most schools).
  Public school system: Bad at instilling qualities like morals, work ethic, respect, etc.
  
  At least that's how I see it.

  
  Ideally, this is how it should be.