Oof:
> From the 1920s until the 1970s, the Swiss government had a semi-official policy of institutionalizing Yenish parents and having their children adopted by members of the sedentary Swiss population.
> From the 1920s until the 1970s, the Swiss government had a semi-official policy of institutionalizing Yenish parents and having their children adopted by members of the sedentary Swiss population.
I think however it would be beneficial for the children if their parents adapted their lifestyle to fit the modern society and better integrate into society. 150 years ago their lifestyle might have made sense, but less so today where they could get better jobs if they had a better education and they could also get support from society if needed. It's sad to see these parents taking away so many opportunities for their children.
Today, there are expats and mobile internet. Doesn't the world change? With automated production processes, workers won't be needed locally. Like many pensioners today, society could change and the majority could travel depending on seasons.
In other words, isn't the sedentary population missing out on receiving advice from hundreds of years of traveling? If the traveling children lack opportunities, shouldn't we find a way to offer those opportunities because sooner or later, many children will be traveling?
Unless, of course, they do. Working without proper visas is illegal and tax fraud, for example. But those a white collar crimes, so obviously it is less bad. /s
I think that a child primarily belongs to itself and not to the parents. A child has rights that limit what the parents can do with their child.
Society should take care that children’s rights and freedoms are respected.
Going to school is such a right.
There are ways to live on the move and still send your kids to school. If a child doesn’t go to school, I think society is responsible for making sure it does.
Me supporting that form of publoc education flies in the face of the "public schools bad fpr reasons home schooling better" crowd. Funny so, that a lot that crowd seem to have a harder time allowing minority groups to home school their children. Either way, whatever parents and their children can do and decide is usually very well defined in various laws. As long as those laws are not discriminatory in nature, whatever is allowed is not anybodies business when it comes to other families. How society sees those things, well, the only way to codify that is througj laws. And those have to got through the normal, democratic, legislative process. Everything else is just an opinion. And those become dangerous sometimes if acted upon, especially if backed by well meaning, knowing better than you, convictions. Because those convivtions give moral high ground, and that allows tp cope with all kinds of attrocities in the name of the higher good.
Examples: Every single church run orphanage, home for single mothers in Ireland, boarding schools (including those for minorities) in Canada, the US, Australia, the various adoption programs (including the one Switzerland)...
I hope you see the problem.
Laws should be indiscriminate and should be evenly enforced.
They should not be driven by moral outrage about what other people do with their lives.
They should focus on what is best for the child, while still considering the needs of the parents.
Going to school is important, it provides personal formation, liberty and opportunities.
That being said, a lot of school systems are really bad and underfunded - that is a problem, too!
That being said, a lot of school systems are really bad and underfunded - that is a problem, too!
Have you ever worked at a poorly-managed startup? If someone had given that startup a ton more money, without any accountability, would that have made things better or worse?
Adding money to a poorly managed organization (whether a school system or a private company) allows the root causes to thrive.
I don't know where you live, but if you imagine that you need about 2 teachers to teach a class of 20 pupils at a salary of 100K, this alone is 10K per student, per year.
Plus there is maintenance staff, the buildings, materials, canteen staff...
Imagine I were to offer you $100k to teach for 36 weeks, but you also had to organize everything for the year, including deciding how to use another $200k to procure everything you will need. How would you spend that $200k over the 36 weeks?
For me, it might be something like:
$1.5k/week for a teaching assistant
$1.5k/week to rent a space
$1.0k/week for catering
$0.5k/week to rent furniture
$0.5k/week for materials
If your teaching assistant gets 54K from you (in SF!!) and then has to work odds jobs during the summer, you're going to get the rare idealist and a bunch of ppl who are bad at making decisions.
Even if it were solely to do with the teachers, this doesn't mean that all (or even the majority) of teachers are bad.
Even if we're the case that all teachers in SF are bad, this would be more likely to do with the hiring standards (e.g. you have to have gone to teaching college) and firing standards (LIFO), than to do with salaries offered to newly-hired teachers.