Several people have sent me reports and commentaries on a clash between parents and an Ohio non-public school. Given the nature of the reporting (and the commentaries), it is clear that this is being seen as a political issue rather than in terms of the underlying issues which are much more important.
Firstly, non-public schools exist in a competitive, capitalistic marketplace and consumers, or parents, have choices. If they don't like School A, they can go to School B or even to a public school. No-one is forced to go to a non-public school.
Secondly, public schools are regulated because they function on behalf of and are funded by society, which means they lose various freedoms such as promoting a particular religion or adopting a philosophical position. Non-public schools can largely do what they want, subject of course to health and safety, labor and welfare legislation. At the same time, they should also be open in saying what they do and they should not say they do one thing while actually doing something else so that consumers know what they are getting.
Thirdly, whether for profit or not-for-profit, non-public schools are free to set whatever service agreements or contracts they choose. If the customer agrees to the agreement, they sign up and if not, they go to another school.
In the Columbus Academy caae, it appears that two parents objected to something and then persuaded other parents to join with them in varying degrees of support. This is fine and happens at all schools all the time. However two subsequent things happened. One was that they did not accept the school's response to their lobbying. The other was that their rejection was disruptive to the school.
If a parent at a non-private school does not like something about that school, then s/he should accept that thing because on balance things are still what s/he wants, or s/he should counter it at home and teach his/her children that alternative or opposing views exist in a society, or s/he should leave.
S/he should not undermine the school or act destructively.
In this case, the two parents took a dislike to something in the curriculum and wanted it changed or dropped and when the school said no, they effectively took the nuclear option. This is why the families are no longer at the school. They did not accept the school's position, they acted to harm the school, they did so publically and they broke the enrollment agreement.
The issue here is not the politics of the curriculum or the teachers or the activities. The issue is that the parents involved tried to harm the school when they did not get what they wanted, and they broke the contract they signed when enrolling their children. For the health and safety of the administration, the teachers, the students and the other parents, the school acted properly in ending this relationship.
- One final point. The students affected were not "expelled"; they completed the school year on good standing. They were not offered places for the following year, or alternatively were not permitted to re-enroll. This is not the same as expulsion and any journalist or media outlet which chooses this term should be viewed with suspicion as to their neutrality.
**Please leave your comments or questions below.**
Further Reading
No comments :
Post a Comment