news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

OPINION

Parents need to step up for students

Thursday, November 19, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

Counterpoint:

By Trudy Davis
 

When will people start to take responsibility for the children that they bear? At what point does the role of the parent in the student’s learning situation begin to kick in? We want to put all the responsibility on the teacher, but that teacher only has the children a few hours a day. Not one child — but children  — who must be taught.

How can the teacher give a lot of individual attention to any one child and be fair to all of the other children in that class? When will the parents begin to step up and support the teachers and support the school systems?

There may be children who learn easily, who absorb everything the teacher gives them, but the majority of children have to study. This begins with the parent taking time to work with the child on his homework each day— listening to them read and helping them comprehend what they are reading; helping them with arithmetic problems; calling out spelling words. I am just talking about the elementary school, where learning begins.

When we put all the responsibility for learning on the teacher, we are being totally unfair. Let’s start to put the responsibility for the children back onto the parents.

I have relatives and friends who are teachers and I hear what they are saying about no support from the parents: children coming to school who have not completed homework; children who are on medication for ADD or ADHD who have not taken their medication; children who are disrespectful and disruptive. The teacher cannot do it all. The parents have to accept their responsibilities in the learning process.

Perhaps if the parents were involved in the education and behavior of their children in the schools, there would be no need for police to patrol the schools, to have to use Tasers to subdue students, to have to come to schools and search or remove students for illegal behavior.

It all begins at home. Let’s expect more from the parents when it comes to education.

The writer lives in Greensboro.
 

Comments

View Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments are accepted on select letters to the editor between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM, EDT, Monday through Friday.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Lakeshia

November 19, 2009 - 3:35 am EST

If you can't feed 'em don't breed 'em -
We'd have far fewer problem youths and young adults if irresponsible women refrained from conceiving children whom they know they cannot support physically, emotionally, and financially. Wonder just how much our welfare system encourages, not only this specific problem, but all types of irresponsible behavior -

J D R

November 19, 2009 - 4:00 am EST

An older Welfare Babies report that seems well documented:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/7Welfare.htm

Yvonne

November 19, 2009 - 12:55 pm EST

Good article, James. Of course, you know it will not be believed by those who have an agenda. I think even if Fox News were to broadcast those statistics, some on here would deny it.

Amen, Interested.

Interested

November 19, 2009 - 6:43 am EST

We'd have far fewer problem youth and young adults if irresponsible men refrained from unzipping their trousers when in the presence of women they have no intention of marrying.

J.M.W.

November 19, 2009 - 3:22 pm EST

If less women dressed and acted like sluts, fewer zippers would come down.

Interested

November 19, 2009 - 3:55 pm EST

So men are too weak to exercise a little self control? Guess that would explain the nation's obesity problem as well.

J.M.W.

November 19, 2009 - 4:00 pm EST

Your logic is impeccable. All women are slim? Hmmm.

Interested

November 19, 2009 - 4:14 pm EST

Something we can agree on - my logic is impeccable.

J.M.W.

November 19, 2009 - 4:28 pm EST

... and that all women are unconscionable penis receptacles and would be very unnecessary if men's spines were more flexible.

Interested

November 19, 2009 - 4:48 pm EST

No, but that some people who choose to comment have no qualms about behaving like four year olds, tossing out comments to see if they can get a rise out of someone.

J.M.W.

November 19, 2009 - 5:48 pm EST

... or disguising man-hatred as verbal aplomb.

Interested

November 19, 2009 - 6:01 pm EST

Perhaps, JMW, the problem is that the first post just hit too close to home for your comfort. As usual, few, if any, of your posts has anything to do with the original letter. I'm certain I'm not the only one looking forward to the day when you have something meaningful to add to the conversation. Needless to say, I won't hold my breath waiting for that day to come.

J.M.W.

November 19, 2009 - 6:04 pm EST

And so you'd tell a portrait painter, "you can't use that color?"

Yvonne

November 20, 2009 - 7:42 am EST

Your comments, JMW, are disrespectful of women, thus you must be a woman-hater (using your own logic). But when someone points out your disrespect and broad stroke picture, you respond in an infantile manner. Interested is right. Why not grow up and add something of value to the topic?

JGALT

November 19, 2009 - 6:48 pm EST

"All cats are grey in the dark" .. Ben Franklin (referencing old versus young women)

J.M.W.

November 19, 2009 - 3:44 am EST

Have their cell phones surgically removed and turn off the damn television.

truth

November 19, 2009 - 12:42 pm EST

True that. Any recipient of welfare found with a cellphone or cable television should have all such benefits immediately revoked.

J D R

November 19, 2009 - 1:10 pm EST

... Good idea. That way they can recieve any calls offering portential work.

J.M.W.

November 19, 2009 - 3:01 pm EST

THE weakest comment EVER from the Almighty J D R.

danagain

November 19, 2009 - 6:30 am EST

But, but Ms. Wade......you are suggesting that parents actually spend time with their kids and help them with their homework? Sounds like the days of Ward & June Cleaver. This is an age where a parent will prostitute her five year old daughter.

Yvonne

November 19, 2009 - 1:03 pm EST

Dan,

Prostituting one's child, incest, brutality and abuse did not just appear on the scene. It has been around since the beginning of time. It is only because the media has exposed the vultures that we know about it now. It used to be taboo to discuss such things. I know several women who were sexually abused by their fathers while their mothers knew about it. They were to "ashamed" to intervene on their child's behalf.

But Trudy speaks the truth. Parents need to take responsibility and accountability for their children. Once a child has reached the age of accountability themselves, their behavior is their own responsibility.

danagain

November 19, 2009 - 7:38 pm EST

I agree this stuff has been around since human history Yvonne. However when I was a child, and I assume when you were a child, we would roam the neighborhood with the instructions to be home by dinnertime. Running into creeps, perverts and pedophiles was never a concern, nothing we were ever warned about or knew about.

Perhaps the media have exposed the vultures more now than then as you state, and perhaps I'm being over guarding, but my wife and I do not let the kids play outside unattended, even though we live in a decent neighborhood.

Reading and hearing about what happened to that beautiful innocent little girl made my stomach churn in disgust and my brain sear in anger for what the mother likely did to her daughter, her own flesh and blood. I have a 7 year old daughter and the concept of prostituting her just doesn't register.......period. Some people are beyond sick, they are just plain evil.

Yvonne

November 20, 2009 - 7:55 am EST

Agreed. If that child had been my grandchild, she would NEVER have been in that situation to begin with. But should the situation have slipped by me (as in living in another state, etc), I can assure you those people responsible for her death would not have to worry about standing trial.

The crime of child abuse is intolerable and unforgivable, imho. The fate of the abusers should be the same treatment, by other adults, as what they have done to the children they abuse. It makes me lose all reason and I just want child abusers to suffer physically, be they man or woman.

danagain

November 20, 2009 - 9:55 pm EST

Cool, another subject on which we agree Yvonne!!

TomShuford

November 19, 2009 - 7:14 am EST

Let us not neglect the concerted and very successful efforts of the governments --- at all levels --- to incapacitate parents by stripping them of authority over their children. Quoting John E. Coons, Berkeley Law School professor emeritus:

There are a lot of benign effects of school choice but, for me, choice is family policy. It is one of the most important things we could possibly do as therapy for the institution of the family, for which we have no substitute. The relationship between the parent and child is very damaged if the parent loses all authority over the child for six hours a day, five days a week, and over the content that is put into the child's mind.

What must it be like for people who have raised their children until they're five years old, and suddenly, in this most important decision about their education, they have no say at all? They're stripped of their sovereignty over their child.

And what must it be like for the child who finds that his parents don't have any power to help him out if he doesn't like the school? We are always complaining about the lack of responsibility in low-income families. But, the truth is, we have taken the authority away from them in this most important aspect of their child's life....

It's a shame that there are no social science studies on the effect of choicelessness on the family. If you are stripped of power—kept out of the decision-making loop—you are likely to experience degeneration of your own capacity to be effective, because you have nothing to do. If you don't have any responsibilities, you get flabby. And what we have are flabby families at the bottom end of the income scale.

J D R

November 19, 2009 - 7:59 am EST

.. no disagreement, Tom .. but much of the loss of parental authority has to do with the change post WWI to a June Cleaver goes to work society - no longer available for on-call class-assistance and not being there after-school and less available to attend evening PTA meetings.

Why did that happen? Should we blame The Women's Rights Movement? Surely there were more stay-ay-home moms when women were not allowed to vote.

Perhaps it was the push-down of wages and benefits as a cause. Since the early 60’s and in real dollars (inflation adjusted), the average salary of non-exempt workers has risen a nickel an hour; that is a sobering statistic.

Maybe we blame T.V. We were perhaps less materialistic before we were bombarded with commercials. Is that the fault of Motorola for inventing the Transistor and making television “affordable for all”; perhaps it was Madison Avenue. We could blame integration [but I can't come up with a cause & effect].

I have heard The Pill cited as a cause for family disintegration because suddenly sex was "safer" .. hence the Sexual Revolution .. probably not more babies but certainly an explosion in d_i_v_o_r_c_e. That puts the blame on Big Pharm … or your parents (or their parents, depending on age) for not teaching their children to resist temptation.

Maybe it was the Catholic for not enforcing their crazed celibacy rules [for the record added in the middle ages by a horn-toad turned erectile dysfunctional high priest]. Wait .. little boys don’t have babies; strike that suggestion. Perhaps it was Row-v-Wade? Prior to that one of every three or four women had a back-alley experience .. but you can't use that to point towards too-many-more babies.

What's your take? Who or what stripped individuals of The Power? Did a young Nancy Pelosi force choicelessness on the family. Was Bristol Palin kept out of the decision-making loop? Are flabby families exclusive to bottom end of the income scale?

Personally I blame the loss of women as chattel.

?

mamaboilermaker

November 19, 2009 - 8:12 am EST

I would propose studying a few things to see what really gets the blame:
1. The rise of "experts" telling parents they needed professionals to tell them how to raise their children
2. Prosperity--people who have to grow their own food and work 18-hour days don't have much time to behave like idiots, and need their children to contribute to the home, not play video games or roam the streets.
3. Taxes forcing more family members into the work force just to maintain a standard of living.
4. Women deciding fathers were optional--and men willing to be optional.
5. The "don't judge" culture that says we can't frown at people who are living like idiots, because that would be "judgmental" and there is no objective right or wrong (even though the bad consequences of certain behaviors are patently obvious.)

There are bad parents at all income levels, although I would bet that there are concentrations at the extremes of poverty and affluence.

Voice of Reason

November 19, 2009 - 8:40 am EST

I like your style. You hit on all the right points so I don't have to. And for everybody else, I see nothing wrong with a woman, mother or not, having a job. The way I see it, its in the homes where neither the mother or father has a job, and isn't looking for one, where you have the most problems. After all, there are plenty of unemployed moms in the hood, but they're so lazy they don't even bother to clean. Why would they take the time to assist in the education of their children? Its probably just as well, since most of them passed by on an education themselves. They loathed school, teachers, and authority themselves, so they won't stand for someone telling them their "babies" aren't measuring up and causing a problem. When children started being parents and parents started being children, and when people started waiting for a check on the 1st and 15th they didn't earn, that's when the problems really began.

J D R

November 19, 2009 - 11:51 am EST

I was looking for root cause, Momma.

1. The rise of "experts" ...

Maybe that's 60's style social workers ..

2. & 3. seem in conflict.

Too much Prosperity yet more family members forced into the work force .. ?? Something's funky, Ms. Steam.

ALSO .. Taxes for the lower middle & middle class have gone up somewhat .. but not ridiculously .. Taxes for the upper class have gone down dramatically.

I suggest you look again at that nickle an hour over 60 year statistic.

4. Women deciding fathers were optional ..

Root Cause?

5. The "don't judge" culture ..

Is this a rehash of #1?

=

"There are bad parents at all income levels, although I would bet that there are concentrations at the extremes of poverty and affluence."

I will not take you up on that! .. but will suggest it reinforces my entire political focus: We middle-classers are getting screwed .. yet all we hear about is Taxes (see above) and Political Correctness (btw, do you support the right to smoke? the right to call black folk niggers? the right to fornicate with appropriate protections?)

mamaboilermaker

November 19, 2009 - 12:36 pm EST

#2 by prosperity, I mean non-poverty. How many of us are now subsistence farmers? That's a good thing, but it does give people time to engage in leisure activities that might get them in trouble.

Also, not all my points apply to the same populations. Rich people have different excuses for badly-behaved children than poor folks.

By taxes, do you mean all taxes--sales, property, and such? Not to mention the hidden tax increases as more middle class people find out they are actually "rich" according to the tax code, e.g. that nasty alternative minimum tax.

"Experts" like Dr. Spock gave us the self-esteem culture in which people teach their kids to esteem themselves and don't teach them much of anything else. "Experts" also told us not to judge bad behavior. Calling people n**s is bad behavior. So is making babies and not caring about feeding them or housing them.

As for the root cause of mothers deciding men were optional--the government enabling them to have their own apartment and a monthly check just for giving birth to babies with no identifiable father.

12next ›last »

eMail Updates

Learn More
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search