This report from a few months ago prompts (not begs!!) several questions, and once again I am glad I am not a judge. Put simply, a group of people decided to oversimplify a number of complex issues and then pass once-size-all legislation. So what are these issues?
In no particular order, the first is deciding what is appropriate for a given age or grade-level. Here, my view is that the school decode on the program and thus its contents and the teacher makes the professional decisions in terms of when and how these contents are addressed. As a result, the school can say cover x in Grade y or don't cover x until Grade y and within that structure, the teacher does or doesn't cover them.
This of course assumes the second issue, that the school, or in the public system the district or state, is competent to make that election, consults the relevant experts, considers stakeholders and specifically the effects of any such resolution and so on.
A third is that the overarching governing body such as state or federal government is similarly competent, informed, genuine and so on.
A fourth concerns a teacher's "right" to "free speech" and as I have said before, I do not think a teacher has this, or at least in the sense so often asserted, or that a teacher can transgress a school's policies and directives. S/he is not self-employed, and s/he is charged with furthering the school's Mission. This is, I infer, the thrust of the ruling in this case.
A fifth concerns the parents' "right" to determine what happens in a classroom. Again, as I have said before, parents belong in the school but not in the classroom and if a parent wants to be in the classroom, we have a helicpoter issue and/or a lack-of-trust issue and this latter is the real concern in these discussions. I am assuming that the school's Mission is clear and available, as its program and program decisions. If either, or both, of these is not applicable, then no parent or child should be in that school.
A sixth issue, specific to this case, is the term "sexuality". I am unsure as to what it means in this event, and this term, to what it applies and for whom and why it should be included in a program clearly defined. If it means "sex ed", then we have two points to consider. The first is that research clearly shows that while some form of sex ed should be taught from K, it also clearly indicates that not all sex ed should be taught from K.
I think the law in question is a bad law, not because of its substance but because of its implications. Education, especially K - 12 and particularly K - 5, is complex and this asinine legislation ignores that for political and not educational reasons.
Further reading
https://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-declines-block-indiana-225742179.html
No comments :
Post a Comment