That's a pretty strong sentiment to some folks, I'm sure. True, I'm painting public ed. with a broad brush, but here in my home state of Texas it's not unreasonable to suggest that indeed public schools are hazardous territory.
Recently, the Houston ISD has racked up a whopping 15 arrests of district employees for drugs. Most of those nailed for possession were TEACHERS.
And Texas does not require pre-employment drug testing of school employees -- teachers, principals, custodians, cafeteria workers, aides -- because, guess what, IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE.
Oh, so we'd rather take a chance that in this day and age of glamourized drug use none of our teacher applicants are going to be users? Is that really smart?
Seems like less and less of public education policy is these days, to whit there is actually debate going on about whether the state should pony up the money to test before hiring.
Seriously.
And if that's not scary enough, Calvina Fay, exec. director of the Drug-Free America Foundation is quoted in the Houston Chronicle as saying, "School teachers — next to parents, and in some cases, above parents — are the strongest role model in a child's life."
Wonderful, isn't it? But who's surprised since so many parents willingly turn over their greatest treasures to a system that's really under no obligation to do its best by them. If a child fails, the school can always blame the victim so as to keep mediocre teachers teaching and top-heavy administrations at the public feed trough.
We have let the schools usurp our authority and influence over our children and now we are reaping the whirlwind.
And then there's this quote from Steve Werner, a professor of management at the University of Houston: "Certainly you could make the argument, especially if you find there's a problem, that drug testing would be warranted," he said. "On the other hand, it is a professional occupation, and the drug testing itself — the most common method is a urinalysis — is invasive; it's embarrassing."
Yeah, we don't want to go around embarrassing teachers and other school district personnel, right? C'mon, it's just the safety of children at stake. What's the big deal?
Is anyone else feeling a little queasy at this point besides me?
Another public school misstep to report and it's not much better:
An elementary up in Massachusetts is considering allowing its pupils to receive training in how to thwart a gunman should one get past security and into classrooms.
Naturally, some parents are up in arms -- no pun intended -- that their children must be confronted with such information at a time when they're supposed to be able to remain children and to be taught as such.
I can imagine how this will go: "Okay, kids, today after we finish up our math and work on our history project, we're going to learn how to keep ourselves from being blown to bits by a crazed gunman. Won't that be fun, boys and girls?"
What does it say about the caliber of people running our schools when someone actually thinks this information should be part of a child's academic day?
What does it say about us as a people when crazed gunmen in schools are no longer thought of as an aberration but as a realistic possibility that must be addressed preventatively?
It's grim either way.
And finally, World Net Daily features a story from the Miami Herald that reports three seventh graders have been suspended from a Florida school for engaging in "inappropriate sex activity" in the classroom. Is there such a thing as appropriate sexual activity when we're talking about SEVENTH graders? Is there???
Two teachers have been reassigned pending the outcome of an investigation, the Herald reports, because they were responsible for maintaining a "certain decorum" in their classrooms.
Sheesh.
No comments:
Post a Comment