Comment by acabal | Hacker News Reader

Comment by acabal | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

What stood out for me from this article wasn't the homework load, which only seems slightly more than what I remember from my own youth, but rather that:

1) a teacher can accuse a parent of "cyberbullying" for an email sent in purported confidentiality to others, and that the claim can be taken seriously. Obviously I didn't read the email, but the author seems well-read and reasonable, so I'm inclined to conjecture that whatever he sent wasn't outrageous. If I as a parent were "called in to the vice principal's office" and accused of cyberbullying a teacher, I'd laugh in their face. Is this teacher teaching middle school, or in middle school?

2) that the parent is having constant meetings with school officials, and seemingly-frequent interaction with other parents via email. Granted in my days (mid-90's or so) email wasn't a big thing, but my parents typically took the hands-off stand of "did the teacher say so? then do it", plus the occasional PTA meeting. (They did help when asked, but I can probably count all the face-to-face meetings they had with school faculty on one hand). And that's a stance I can very much appreciate. I don't know what parent-teacher relationships are like today, but it sure sounds like the teachers are hearing almost as much from the parents as they are from the students.

Which isn't to say the system can't be improved. But honestly I remember nearly as much homework from my days, and those points stuck out more to me as a sign of the times.

Oh gosh, I would have been absolutely ropeable if the principal had accused me of "cyber-bullying" in that manner. That is entirely, utterly, disgustingly bullshit.

And it doesn't surprise me. Surely it's the bias that is put forward by news media, but the stories that I hear of the American education system scares the shit out of me -- and I went to school in Queensland (which is terrible in and of itself)!

Zero-tolerance, "5 hours of homework a night isn't doing any harm"... what the hell. Who comes up with this shit :/

I had the benefit of attending the British, German, and American school systems.

Schooling in America has little to do with education, and much to do with indoctrination.

Pretty much the only thing I learned was the pledge of allegiance - over which I repeatedly got suspended, as I refused to recite it along with the rest of the class, every morning.

Everything else they "taught" was years behind what I'd been learning elsewhere, and none of it was teaching - it was all just OBEY. I used to kick like a mule whenever they tried to teach us something factually incorrect by rote - and got in trouble for it.

THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!

You cannot be suspended for not saying the Pledge. You cannot be compelled to say the Pledge. Your rights were violated. The Supreme Court of the United State has ruled that it is well within your right to not say it. See West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Ed...

Writing for the majority, Justice Jackson stated: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

"Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest," wrote Black and Douglas in a concurring opinion. "Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions."

In high school I repeatedly got in trouble for not participating in the pledge. I acquired a copy of this case. My government teacher told me I was reading it wrong, and actually the verdict was the pledge is required. It mostly ended one day in the principal's office when I politely threatened to contact the aclu.

Interesting that so many free speech cases were pioneered by the Jehovas Witnesses.

Not really. Pure self interest can explain this. As far as I know they were (and still are) underdogs. Free speech is one of the things that favours underdogs, and is not easily openly attacked.

The thing a lot of people don't understand about free speech is the kind of speech that needs to be protected is the unpopular kind; the kind that very few people agree with. Popular speech needs no defending.

I don't understand a lot of Americans who run around talking about "America the free" and then try to pass laws to limit the expression of anyone who doesn't live exactly like they do. Freedom means some people aren't going to agree with you, and you're going to have to accept it, and allow them to express themselves too.

This is right, but there are many religious minorities who engage in unpopular speech. I was raised as a Quaker for example. I just think it is interesting that Jehovah's Witnesses have been a group which has laid so much of the groundwork of this sort of thing.

It also makes me wonder how much cross-pollenation there has been between Anabaptist movements, Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses and other similarly non-mainstream groups. That however is a question for another time.

Spot on.

This only applies to public (state run) schools. Maybe he got suspended from a private school.

Yup. Uptight preppy hole near Chicago.

Whoops, you're right. I didn't consider that the poster went to a private school, in which case all bets are off.

Worth noting that there isn't a "British" education system - Scotland has it's own school courses, exams and university level course structure (e.g. it is possible to go to university after 5 years in high school so first degree courses are 4 years rather than 3 as in England).

You had to recite a pledge of allegiance? Wow. Sounds like North Korea.

The Pledge of Allegiance is recited every morning at almost every school in the United States. It is taught to children much too young to understand what it means. Here are the current words:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

It is said facing the flag, with your right hand over your heart. Originally it was said while saluting the flag, however, it was replaced with the hand over heart gesture during WWII, as it was similar to the Nazi salute.

Congressional sessions also open with the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance.

By the way, the words "under God" where only added on June 14, 1954.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

It wasn't similar to the nazi salute - it was the same. Bellamy salute. The NSDAP thought it was such a great bit of nationalistic fervor they adopted it.

A Supreme Court decision from during World War II[1] requires schools to allow pupils to opt out of the pledge of allegiance. Most states in the United States still make the pledge a default school activity every day of the school year except for pupils who individually opt out.

[1] West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_591

I found this to be really regional. I did when I was a kid, then I questioned our teacher why she did not after the first week or so. She felt the whole standing, gazing and hand over the heart was a bit too military for an elementary school.

I've had a few "super patriotic" teachers threaten me with detention for not towing the line. But these tended to be in urban and ex-urban, lower socioeconomic schools. The type of places that wanted to make you into factory workers rather than college students.

Where I grew up the Pledge was absolutely a mandatory part of every school day, and was said before morning announcements through the loudspeaker. Every room had a flag in it, so students in that room could Pledge to it. I grew up in an urban area, so my experiences are skewed urban. I couldn't imagine an individual teacher having a choice in the matter.

Of course, as I posted in the parent, the Supreme Court allows for individual students to stay seated and not salute the flag if they choose.

The role of public school in the United States, especially when it first started, explicitly was to churn out factory workers[1]. The fact that non-industrial knowledge is also taught is a side effect of later developments.

[1] http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html

Some public schools were started right after the American Revolution, before anything was very industrialized. Horace Mann and Booker T. Washington led a massive expansion that followed through the mid-1800's. I'm quite sure Mann and Washington were not looking to produce unthinking factory workers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Mann#Education_reform

I am pretty sure schools were started shortly after the early settlements were made in the US, i.e., 1650 or so. I don't think factories as we know them existed then.

Industrial schooling only started in the industrial era. That's more of what I meant even though I certainly botched what I meant to say. I'll blame it on the lack of coffee!

Oh right, I was reading an article on "Education in the United States" which started its story post-revolution.

Especially funny is criterion that makes it cyberbullying:

> the teacher felt threatened

Am I supposed not to sneeze if the person is afraid of loud noises? Am I supposed to say he's doing great job (if he's not) just because he feels insecure there and feels threatened by any critique?

They only reason they were able to pull this of with straight face is because "cyber" becomes to mean "sinister"

"Reasonable person" standard.

Doesn't seem to be applied here.

Totally agree, especially with your second point. Both my parents are career educators (teachers, counselors and now professors). They personally tell me about how "helicopter parenting" has increased in the time since they've gotten their degrees up to now.

Parents are getting more and more involved (read: obsessive) about their childrens' education, sometimes to the detriment of the school process. Very often they'll blame teachers when their kids don't do well in class (not necessarily incorrect). My mother works in the inner city - parents there tend to be ambivalent about their childrens' progress unless they are relatively affluent, from what I've seen.

On the other hand, my father works in a suburban private school, and the parents there push back much more often, especially when they aren't right.

I can't say whether or not it's good or bad, but the climate of education in America has shifted from one of parents surrendering their kids and trusting the teachers to one of parents questioning the teachers when kids don't do well. Very curious.

As a teacher, I far prefer to have parents who are involved in their kids' education, than the parents who are not involved.

There's a correlation between affluence and parent involvement, yes, but there's a stronger correlation between parent involvement and pupil engagement/learning.

Edited to add: Helicopter parenting is often a symptom of poor communication between the school and the parent - better and happier personal communication tends to resolve tension.

    > Very often they'll blame teachers when their kids don't do well in class 
    > (not necessarily incorrect)

That's not a new phenomenon, imo, but it's still a pertinent one.

Parents being involved in their kids schooling isn't inherently bad, but it can be taken too far. Just like the kids have limited time to be able to handle 5 hours of homework a night (!), teachers have limited time to handle every parent.

That said, the fact it was done a lot through email is kinda neat, and would possibly make parent-teacher interactions scale better?

The "cyber-bullying" thing seemed janky when I read it. We don't know exactly what he wrote to the other parents, or the tone of the conversation they had. We know that one parent was alarmed enough by the conversation to (apparently) forward it to the school administration. It may have been nastier than the author is crediting it for.

This is the same teacher who gave his child a C on an assignment because they didn't put their answers in a separate column. Granted, we only have one side of the conversations, but I wouldn't rule out the chance of the teacher being petty & vindictive.

"We know that one parent was alarmed enough by the conversation to (apparently) forward it to the school administration.'

There is no evidence that the parent who forwarded the e-mail to the teacher (not the school administration; apparently the teacher did that) was "alarmed" by it. They merely disagreed with it. Here's the quote from the article:

"Back in California, when I raised the issue of too much homework on that e‑mail chain, about half the parents were pleased that someone had brought this up, and many had already spoken to the math teacher about it. Others were eager to approach school officials. But at least one parent didn’t agree, and forwarded the whole exchange to the teacher in question."

I suspect from the context that the journalist's email(s) was/were fine but that replies from other parents may have been less appropriate.

Times have changed. Every kid today is special. :-)

My observation is in a hyper-competitive city like NY, the parents do bad together against the teachers of administration if they feel slighted. There's a lot of jostling for position amongst parents, who each want someone else to air their concerns, because they don't want to seem like the problem parent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com