When you send your kid to public school, the expectation is they they aren't providing instruction that advocates one political philosophy or religion over another. Basically they should be teaching math, science, English, and a "just the facts" version off history and civics.
When you start advocating for things like trannies (a contentious political issue) or badmouthing certain religions, you can expect parents to take issue and want control over the curriculum.
They're getting a sort of political philosophy regardless of the instruction, it might as well be one we agree with. This idea that education can just be unbiased and objective is a classical liberal pipedream.
Parental consent forms exist to be able to do things to/with children inside a school, and to leave said school for a field trip.
If that wasn't the case, you could load up the kids into a bus and take them for a week somewhere, right? But you can't, so let's not kid ourselves about other people's children.
You seem to think that these kids are chaff, that you can just mod and shape them however you want. You cannot.
In early 19th century England, life expectancy was poor, and parents worried what would happen to their children should they die. In 1855, the Cheadle Hulme School, originally named The Manchester Warehousemen and Clerks’ Orphan School, was established to care for children who had lost their fathers. Because fathers had sole responsibility for, and control of, their children, these children were considered to be orphans. The school adopted the motto in loco parentis to describe its dedication to caring for and educating the children in their custody.
The term in loco parentis became a legal precedent applied to wards of the court, gaining legal standing in the educational field. This concept was adopted in the U.S., where primary and secondary schools, as well as colleges and universities, were permitted to act in loco parentis for their students. As a result, schools were given broad discretionary power and authority in restricting and disciplining students, one court stating in 1866, “…we have no more authority to interfere [in what teachers do or say to students] than we have to control the domestic discipline of a father in his family.”
Roadblock to Students’ Rights
The doctrine of in loco parentis allowed schools to place restrictions on students’ behaviors, both in school and out, and allowed them to punish students in a parent’s stead. Such restrictions included sex-segregated dormitories, curfews imposed differently on women than men, and the expulsion of female students who were “morally undesirable.” Colleges and universities also sought to restrict students’ right to free speech, forbidding student organizations from demonstrating on campus.
In the 1960s and 1970s, in loco parentis met public opposition, especially where it applied to imposing the will of educators on adult students. Following a number of landmark rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, the application of in loco parentis disappeared from institutions of higher education in the U.S., though it still applies to some extent in primary and secondary schools.
If Jan6 taught us anything, its that these people are so protected and coddled that the rabble existing near them is enough to send them into panic and existential crisis.
That's a root cause to all this nonsense. They truly don't think that a single angry parent can just show up and end their entire "legacy" in half a second. Because if that happened just a few times, or even once, all those millions would hesitate a little more before acting. And that hesitation would unmake their whole system.
Jan6 reminded politicians that they are not untouchable. They were genuinely terrified in those photos where they cowered under chairs and while donning their NBC masks.
One of Sam Hyde's sketches amounted to "the Bank of America CEO jogs on this particular street every day. By the way, you can buy knives at the local convenience store for a couple dollars, and fatal stabbings can happen very quickly."
Completely true, but I don't even think you need to go that far. A random irate citizen that isn't claimed by any ideology would still be sufficient to put the "Fear of consequence" back into many in the government without any actual threat of civil war.
You don't get to use that word when you try to make all other options illegal.
Now there's a brilliant quote for every homeschooling advocate to have on hand.
Fucking hell they aren't even subtle about this shit.
Oh cool, so all taxes that go to schools must be optional then?
When you send your kid to public school, the expectation is they they aren't providing instruction that advocates one political philosophy or religion over another. Basically they should be teaching math, science, English, and a "just the facts" version off history and civics.
When you start advocating for things like trannies (a contentious political issue) or badmouthing certain religions, you can expect parents to take issue and want control over the curriculum.
They're getting a sort of political philosophy regardless of the instruction, it might as well be one we agree with. This idea that education can just be unbiased and objective is a classical liberal pipedream.
Uhh, hi, reality here. Just a quick note.
Parental consent forms exist to be able to do things to/with children inside a school, and to leave said school for a field trip.
If that wasn't the case, you could load up the kids into a bus and take them for a week somewhere, right? But you can't, so let's not kid ourselves about other people's children.
You seem to think that these kids are chaff, that you can just mod and shape them however you want. You cannot.
somebody needs a hard drive check
Remember this, folks, and stop sending your kids to government indoctrination centers.
History of In Loco Parentis in Education
In early 19th century England, life expectancy was poor, and parents worried what would happen to their children should they die. In 1855, the Cheadle Hulme School, originally named The Manchester Warehousemen and Clerks’ Orphan School, was established to care for children who had lost their fathers. Because fathers had sole responsibility for, and control of, their children, these children were considered to be orphans. The school adopted the motto in loco parentis to describe its dedication to caring for and educating the children in their custody.
The term in loco parentis became a legal precedent applied to wards of the court, gaining legal standing in the educational field. This concept was adopted in the U.S., where primary and secondary schools, as well as colleges and universities, were permitted to act in loco parentis for their students. As a result, schools were given broad discretionary power and authority in restricting and disciplining students, one court stating in 1866, “…we have no more authority to interfere [in what teachers do or say to students] than we have to control the domestic discipline of a father in his family.”
Roadblock to Students’ Rights
The doctrine of in loco parentis allowed schools to place restrictions on students’ behaviors, both in school and out, and allowed them to punish students in a parent’s stead. Such restrictions included sex-segregated dormitories, curfews imposed differently on women than men, and the expulsion of female students who were “morally undesirable.” Colleges and universities also sought to restrict students’ right to free speech, forbidding student organizations from demonstrating on campus.
In the 1960s and 1970s, in loco parentis met public opposition, especially where it applied to imposing the will of educators on adult students. Following a number of landmark rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, the application of in loco parentis disappeared from institutions of higher education in the U.S., though it still applies to some extent in primary and secondary schools.
If Jan6 taught us anything, its that these people are so protected and coddled that the rabble existing near them is enough to send them into panic and existential crisis.
That's a root cause to all this nonsense. They truly don't think that a single angry parent can just show up and end their entire "legacy" in half a second. Because if that happened just a few times, or even once, all those millions would hesitate a little more before acting. And that hesitation would unmake their whole system.
Jan6 reminded politicians that they are not untouchable. They were genuinely terrified in those photos where they cowered under chairs and while donning their NBC masks.
One of Sam Hyde's sketches amounted to "the Bank of America CEO jogs on this particular street every day. By the way, you can buy knives at the local convenience store for a couple dollars, and fatal stabbings can happen very quickly."
I cannot explicitly connect those two ideas here.
Completely true, but I don't even think you need to go that far. A random irate citizen that isn't claimed by any ideology would still be sufficient to put the "Fear of consequence" back into many in the government without any actual threat of civil war.