4 ms·

For parents not to interfere. School teaches children to be less dependent on parents, to interact with a system. Interfering parent can make it impossible for

by ordu 7y ago

For parents not to interfere. School teaches children to be less dependent on parents, to interact with a system. Interfering parent can make it impossible for a child to learn these important skills. Parents protecting their child is a good thing, but only to a point. A child needs to learn how to live without protection from parents. How to interact with a boss (a teacher plays similar role in a school), how to do what a boss have asked, how to ask a boss for a favor, how to learn rules of a new boss and to adapt to them? How a person supposedly could learn all of it, if every time when happened something that is not convenient for a child, parents would interfere, come to talk with a teacher, and insist on changing her rules on behalf of their child?

qwerty456127 7y ago
Keeping parents (or whoever) from interfering by keeping them uninformed sounds like a dirty hack rather than a good design. Whoever should not interfere but does not know they should not should better be taught just this.
- ordu 7y ago
  Parents are uninformed just because there is a price of getting information which they do not want to pay. Parents needs to ask their kid about her day and to talk with a teacher sometimes. Parents could know everything, but they need to make an actual effort for that and to keep making efforts. This efforts is a good thing against parental anxiety. When parents did something they might feel that they fulfilled their role of parents and stop there. When they got information for free, they didn't do anything yet as a parents, they may feel obliged to do something. There is a good chance that they would be unable to find a constructive thing they could do, so they might do a random thing.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Acting independently is different to being unmonitored. Parents should monitor their children, not doing that is called abandonment or dereliction. You can monitor a child and have them act independently, there's no dependency between these things. Yes, the level of monitoring is a tricky issue. If I had reports of "toilet in class time", and it suddenly increased one month, then I could investigate why - bullying, UTI, boredom? Which helps me to care for my child. Now, the likelihood is that I'll notice these things earlier than that, but as children grow they usually become experts at hiding things, like being bullied. As parents aren't in school, and teachers can't see everything, and it's not always possible to have a chat with the teacher, then some monitoring can be useful to aid parenting. For example, we get an absence record each month, that's useful monitoring that infringes on a child's independence. But it's also vital data for safety, and to ensure a child is getting educated. If my older kid missed an afternoon without my permission, that's no biggy (we all have bad days), but if they miss time often then there are problems; if a younger kid is out of school by themselves that might be a serious safety issue.

by ordu 7y ago

qwerty456127 7y ago

Keeping parents (or whoever) from interfering by keeping them uninformed sounds like a dirty hack rather than a good design. Whoever should not interfere but does not know they should not should better be taught just this.

ordu 7y ago
Parents are uninformed just because there is a price of getting information which they do not want to pay. Parents needs to ask their kid about her day and to talk with a teacher sometimes. Parents could know everything, but they need to make an actual effort for that and to keep making efforts. This efforts is a good thing against parental anxiety. When parents did something they might feel that they fulfilled their role of parents and stop there. When they got information for free, they didn't do anything yet as a parents, they may feel obliged to do something. There is a good chance that they would be unable to find a constructive thing they could do, so they might do a random thing.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

Acting independently is different to being unmonitored. Parents should monitor their children, not doing that is called abandonment or dereliction. You can monitor a child and have them act independently, there's no dependency between these things. Yes, the level of monitoring is a tricky issue. If I had reports of "toilet in class time", and it suddenly increased one month, then I could investigate why - bullying, UTI, boredom? Which helps me to care for my child. Now, the likelihood is that I'll notice these things earlier than that, but as children grow they usually become experts at hiding things, like being bullied. As parents aren't in school, and teachers can't see everything, and it's not always possible to have a chat with the teacher, then some monitoring can be useful to aid parenting. For example, we get an absence record each month, that's useful monitoring that infringes on a child's independence. But it's also vital data for safety, and to ensure a child is getting educated. If my older kid missed an afternoon without my permission, that's no biggy (we all have bad days), but if they miss time often then there are problems; if a younger kid is out of school by themselves that might be a serious safety issue.