Does the Parent have the Right to determine the education for their kids?

[danah]

Hello,
I just have a discussion with a friend whether the parents have the right to for example; disagree on some subject in schools like teaching sex, or choosing certain kind of school to let their kids there such as someone would choose a religious school? Do they have this right to choose/ prevent something in education?

[Charles Darnay]

legally, yes - until the kid is 18.

Ethically, I don't think a parent should ever deny their child education, regardless of what they wished to be educated in. If, for example, a child of Christian parents wanted to learn about Islam, I don't think the parents should stop him/her (although many would).

[cafolini]

legally, yes - until the kid is 18.

Ethically, I don't think a parent should ever deny their child education, regardless of what they wished to be educated in. If, for example, a child of Christian parents wanted to learn about Islam, I don't think the parents should stop him/her (although many would).

I agree absolutely. My life has been to argue for this position. Since I matured, I realized that children must mature with as much knowledge of different cultures as they could possibly wish, regardless of the culture and the dangers of the knowledge. And you are right. Many wouldn't let a child explore and discover many many ways and truths.

[danah]

Thank you both

but if the child is young (6-14) ethically, do the parents have the right to decide for them? to prevent them from learning about for example sex subjects in school?

[Delta40]

In a government school, my children were forced to colour in pictures of santa and the easter bunny and play dress up to celebrate them - while real life subjects and theories were excluded. Why does the education system deem it ethically correct to propagate myths and fairytales as part of its curriculum but shy away from topics that children will invariably need to address in their lives? That isn't the way to prepare or teach a child. If nothing else, promoting lies is a betrayal of their trust and we have the audacity to command their respect.

[Calidore]

Thank you both

but if the child is young (6-14) ethically, do the parents have the right to decide for them? to prevent them from learning about for example sex subjects in school?

Who else? Someone has to decide what the child will learn. Nobody other than the parent can have that right, and the parents have not just a right, but an obligation to be involved in their children's education.

[cafolini]

Thank you both

but if the child is young (6-14) ethically, do the parents have the right to decide for them? to prevent them from learning about for example sex subjects in school?

Of course, they must make them color in Santa and Bunny, etc., for they must learn those aspects of their culture. But they have no right to deprive them of a real, scientific, sex education. Although often they take that faked right and betray their children.

[papillondemai]

legally, yes - until the kid is 18.

Correct to a limited extent. But a parent can't prevent a child from obtaining the minimum educational requirements mandated by the State. If a parent tries to deny their child those minimal requirements by keeping them out of school, the Department of Children and Families will go knocking on their door. If the parents are adamant that their kid is not going to school, the state could consider it child abuse and try to take the child away from them.

[JuniperWoolf]

Kids who aren't educated about sex tend to do it wrong, and in most first world countries STDS, pregnancies, and the occasional comical erotic mishap are paid for by taxpayers. You could argue your point from that angle; state funded education is less expensive than state funded damage control.

[Delta40]

Of course, they must make them color in Santa and Bunny, etc., for they must learn those aspects of their culture.

Yes but it's rather sad when a child is reprimanded in the classroom for dispelling myths and speaking plain fact.

[cafolini]

Kids who aren't educated about sex tend to do it wrong, and in most first world countries STDS, pregnancies, and the occasional comical erotic mishap are paid for by taxpayers. You could argue your point from that angle; state funded education is less expensive than state funded damage control.

Correct. That's it. That's precisely what won Obama's campaign. Excellent point.


Yes but it's rather sad when a child is reprimanded in the classroom for dispelling myths and speaking plain fact.

Delta. What you are saying is true. But if you are sensical enough to teach your children to disregard BS, you should also be tolerant enough to put up with it.

There are plenty of stories that show children's gullibility in this regard. Take the case of a child who has a father who's somewhat medieval. I've seen this in Argentina, where January 6 is the day the magi come and live presents for children during the night. The father in this case bought a bicycle with 26" wheels for his 5-year-old. Too big for the kid, but manageable by placing his leg through the frame. However, the child woke up in the morning and was in an explosion of excitement because he thought the magi had brought a bicycle for his dad. So he ran into his parents bedroom and cried, "hey daddy, look a what the magi brought you."
There are lots of stories like this that actually happened. Many children are ruled by belief rather than sense. So, if you are fortunate enough to be otherwise, you need to be tolerant toward these situations. Why not? Nobody can take away what you are.

[amuse]

We had sex education in the 5th grade back in my small N. California town and again in the 8th grade. It had a population of only 100,000, but I honestly don't remember anyone in my particular high school getting pregnant. If they did--in a graduating class of over 400--it was a tiny percentage.

No child, (or any being for that matter) is going to be taught how to have sex by learning about it; they're going to be more educated re: its consequences and responsibilities.

Better to inform, I think, than to ban sex edu anywhere.

[The Atheist]

Thank you both

but if the child is young (6-14) ethically, do the parents have the right to decide for them? to prevent them from learning about for example sex subjects in school?

Not just the right, a responsibility. Certainly, a child's wishes should be taken into account, but the decision is made by parents.

I have a 14 yo asleep in the next room, and she is no more capable of making life choices than her 4 yo brother asleep in the room after that.



In a government school, my children were forced to colour in pictures of santa and the easter bunny and play dress up to celebrate them - while real life subjects and theories were excluded. Why does the education system deem it ethically correct to propagate myths and fairytales as part of its curriculum but shy away from topics that children will invariably need to address in their lives? That isn't the way to prepare or teach a child. If nothing else, promoting lies is a betrayal of their trust and we have the audacity to command their respect.

I disagree.

I'd much rather my kids were colouring in pictures than having their teachers try to address life skills in the classroom. Again, that is the parents' responsibility. The last thing I'd ever want is some clown in a classroom trying to give my kids lessons on morality, for instance. Study how morality works in the world by all means, but if you give teachers half a chance, they promote their own.

Within current curriculum, my kids get "values" lessons and all sorts of other baloney thrust at them, while our achievements in maths & English have been demonstrated to be falling. Teachers can STFU and teach, for my tax dollars. The three Rs and PE.

[mal4mac]

Who else? Someone has to decide what the child will learn. Nobody other than the parent can have that right...

Most parents don't bother deciding this, they just send them to the nearest school, the easiest option, and they get taught what they get taught. I quite like this, it leads to a free & easy & broad education.

Why should parents decide everything that the kids should learn? The kids live in society, so shouldn't the whole of society have a say?

[Sweetgirl]

Parents have a responsibility to provide their children with a good education, and if their children develop an interest in something, to support that interest and make sure they are able to explore it. It should in no way be forced upon them, but guidance is definitely needed for small children. Society is also a good teacher and will teach them life lessons too.

[cafolini]

Parents have a responsibility to provide their children with a good education, and if their children develop an interest in something, to support that interest and make sure they are able to explore it. It should in no way be forced upon them, but guidance is definitely needed for small children. Society is also a good teacher and will teach them life lessons too.

No doubt. The problem resides in isolating the child from exploration and discovery far more than in the parents insanity which also has a big effect but ultimately inconsequential in the long term.

[mal4mac]

Parents have a responsibility to provide their children with a good education, and if their children develop an interest in something, to support that interest and make sure they are able to explore it. It should in no way be forced upon them, but guidance is definitely needed for small children. Society is also a good teacher and will teach them life lessons too.

Who are they responsible to? 'Responsible' means 'liable to be called to account'. Who is going to call them to account if their kids get a bad education? There's a lot of bad education going on, but no one seems to be grabbing bad parents, or bad teachers, by the lapels and demanding that they provide a good education. Society demands that parents send their kids to school, and may put them in prison if their kids don't turn up. But if that school provides a bad education, and the parents know its bad, there's nothing that makes them responsible for providing a good education. They might grumble a bit, but most will not bother to seek change. I guess the kids could try and make them responsible, Kid: "Schools useless! Send me to a better one!" Dad: "Shaddup, I'm watching the football..."


No doubt. The problem resides in isolating the child from exploration and discovery far more than in the parents insanity which also has a big effect but ultimately inconsequential in the long term.

Good point... keep the libraries and museums well provisioned, and well stocked, and give kids free access, then at least some kids can educate themselves. But what if they are bad learners? What if they need help?

[headers]

Well there may be many answer regarding this but for me parents are only to determine this when they have seen and learned that what their child actually interested in. They should determine it by discussing it with the career consultant and after its advice they should do it. There shouldn't be any main stream education but interest and future preferences should be checked out while doing this.