My job as a parent is to protect my kids. At all costs. Riling the feathers of a self-important teacher is of no concern. This is my blood that we're talking about.
You're right. But also consider that the current economy does not support this level of professionalism in teachers. Any teacher who can do a fantastic job meeting all of the expectations of students, teachers and administrators is smart enough to make 2x, 3x or more money in another profession with less stress.
I actually enjoy teaching more than programming and it's a better fit for me. But I choose programming because I can make 3x the money with half the effort. I'm not stressed out and I can pay the bills.
So keep that in mind the next time you confront a teacher. Even though you may technically be right, if you make their job harder, you may push them away from teaching. Remember, they could be a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or some other type of professional. We want to encourage highly intelligent and highly educated people to remain teachers, and if you give teachers a hard time, the only ones that will stick around are those who aren't able to find other jobs. Which aren't the kind of teachers you want.
My point about the economy is that you want the market forces to encourage intelligent people to become teachers. Otherwise, you can get into a dangerous positive feedback loop of uneducated people teaching the next generation. If you make teaching a lousy job by underpaying teachers and treating them poorly, then why would intelligent people who have other career opportunities stick around?
I'm not in the habit of confronting people, teachers least of all. I don't think it's productive most of the time. My point was simply about priorities. My son is a gorgeous, brilliant, quick-witted, hard-headed and strong-willed story-teller, liar, teller of jokes and fan of Pokemon. He's 4 years old. I love him more than myself, and I will do what I can to make his childhood fantastic. That imperative eclipses any concerns about the authority and sentiments of the education professionals in whose case I entrust him.
I'm not saying teachers are infallible. Of course there are limits, but if you think you're "protecting" your kinds by shielding them from their consequences at all costs, I feel sorry for your children and I really hope that I don't have one of your kids in my class.
I wouldn't view my job as a parent being to protect my child. Rather, it's to make my child the best person I can.
Sometimes that might involve letting them try something and fail, and possibly get hurt... in which case it's my role to make sure they don't take on something which might seriously hurt them. Or punishing them when they've done something wrong.
Also, your job as a parent is only to protect your children from things they can not protect themselves against - and to eventually empower/teach/train them to be able to protect themselves. If you hover over them all the time they will, as the article said, end up 25 and still in your house. For instance, if the child got a 79 on an assignment...tough; it was within his power to get an A if he worked hard enough. If he is somehow being targeted by a malicious mean teacher and purposefully given a low grade...tough as well. In reality, it won't affect his chances at a happy and successfully life. Plus, life is not fair and he will meet people like that in real life that he will have to learn to deal with when you are dead and gone. It too is a learning lesson - and nothing you need to protect him against.
In almost all countries of the world, school attendance is compulsory for certain age ranges in default of government-approved alternatives. Perhaps the author of the grandparent comment acquiesces to children attending school more than being actively "willing" to have the children in school. In any event, the statement is correct that it is a parent's responsibility to protect minor children, and that includes protecting children from haughty teachers who are unwilling to allow parents to have the power to shop, the power to CHOOSE teachers as readily as parents choose grocers, physicians, community sports coaches, and other adults who influence children's lives.
AFTER EDIT: This addition to this comment was posted only after the back-and-forth below (to the "great-grandchild" comment level) about the unchanged original version of this comment above. Let me be clear: a lot of the zero-sum head-butting between teachers and parents would go away if only the system were changed so that parents of minor learners have greatly expanded choice in where their children go to school at public expense. Currently, the public policy position of most schoolteacher labor unions in most countries is that school attendance should be compulsory, that schooling should mostly be provided by government agencies, and that learners should be assigned to schools rather than have a wide choice of schools. All of those public policy positions entrench union leaders in political power, but none treat schoolteachers as professionals. Services that are CHOSEN by clients are largely appreciated by clients. Indeed, in the United States even a food stamp recipient doesn't tell off a grocer, because even shoppers who obtain a public subsidy for what they buy are still accorded the basic dignity of being able to choose where they take their business. Not all teachers are a good fit for all learners, no matter how fine the teacher (and no matter how dedicated the learner). It's best for everyone, and promotes more respect for teachers as professionals, to put learners at liberty to shop around for the learning situations that fit them best. The international examples I've read about (particularly the Netherlands) strongly suggest that teachers, learners, and taxpayers all benefit from having more rather than less choice.
http://www.amazon.com/Contrasting-Models-State-School-Compar...
Of course you are free to choose a school for your child. But don't tell me you know my job better than I do.
One of the neglected benefits of school choice for teachers is that parents who don't see eye-to-eye with a teacher, perhaps because of background the parents have gained in their own educations, can simply take their business elsewhere. Meanwhile, parents who are at liberty to shop for the best match for their children are all the more likely to appreciate the thoughtful work of the teachers who fit their children best.
Of course there are bad teachers, just like in any other profession. But I'd like to think that I'm not one, and on the off-chance that you'd have a kid on those rare occasions when I teach something, I'd hope that your presumption is that I'm a competent individual, unless confronted with evidence to the contrary. (And your child scoring low on a test is not.)
I think that teachers need some pushback but I think that the context and the subject are also important. I am not going to fight for grades, but if a teacher is unwilling/unequipped to handle the individual personalities/quirks of kids with professionalism and grace then I will fight back