5 ms·

My son had his very first day of school today, and this article irks me. Everyone who works for a living could write a similar article about how great it would

by phugoid 15y ago

My son had his very first day of school today, and this article irks me. Everyone who works for a living could write a similar article about how great it would be to have unbounded trust, power and authority to carry out one's job. But that's not the way it works. My job as a parent is to protect my kids. At all costs. Riling the feathers of a self-important teacher is of no concern. This is my blood that we're talking about.

dhyasama 15y ago
I'm a father and yesterday was my daughter's first day of school. I don't think my job is to protect her at all costs. My job is to prepare her to be a healthy, happy, and responsible adult. Protecting her is part of that, but so is letting her fall down so she can learn to get back up. Also, she will never learn personal responsibility if I defend her at all times regardless of fault. Sometimes she is the one in the wrong and she needs to learn from that.
kemayo 15y ago
I don't think you should blindly defend your children, though. Be predisposed to defend them, sure, but be open to the possibility that they were in the wrong and have a lesson to learn from it. I wouldn't view my job as a parent being to protect my child. Rather, it's to make my child the best person I can. Sometimes that might involve letting them try something and fail, and possibly get hurt... in which case it's my role to make sure they don't take on something which might seriously hurt them. Or punishing them when they've done something wrong.
DifE-Q 15y ago
This does not make sense. You are willing to send your child away for more hours per day than you spend with him and place him with adults you don't trust? If you are not going to divest your authority and trust these teachers with it, which you must if you send your child to a public or private school, then you should home school your children. Also, your job as a parent is only to protect your children from things they can not protect themselves against - and to eventually empower/teach/train them to be able to protect themselves. If you hover over them all the time they will, as the article said, end up 25 and still in your house. For instance, if the child got a 79 on an assignment...tough; it was within his power to get an A if he worked hard enough. If he is somehow being targeted by a malicious mean teacher and purposefully given a low grade...tough as well. In reality, it won't affect his chances at a happy and successfully life. Plus, life is not fair and he will meet people like that in real life that he will have to learn to deal with when you are dead and gone. It too is a learning lesson - and nothing you need to protect him against.
- tokenadult 15y ago
  You are willing to send your child away for more hours per day than you spend with him and place him with adults you don't trust? In almost all countries of the world, school attendance is compulsory for certain age ranges in default of government-approved alternatives. Perhaps the author of the grandparent comment acquiesces to children attending school more than being actively "willing" to have the children in school. In any event, the statement is correct that it is a parent's responsibility to protect minor children, and that includes protecting children from haughty teachers who are unwilling to allow parents to have the power to shop, the power to CHOOSE teachers as readily as parents choose grocers, physicians, community sports coaches, and other adults who influence children's lives. AFTER EDIT: This addition to this comment was posted only after the back-and-forth below (to the "great-grandchild" comment level) about the unchanged original version of this comment above. Let me be clear: a lot of the zero-sum head-butting between teachers and parents would go away if only the system were changed so that parents of minor learners have greatly expanded choice in where their children go to school at public expense. Currently, the public policy position of most schoolteacher labor unions in most countries is that school attendance should be compulsory, that schooling should mostly be provided by government agencies, and that learners should be assigned to schools rather than have a wide choice of schools. All of those public policy positions entrench union leaders in political power, but none treat schoolteachers as professionals. Services that are CHOSEN by clients are largely appreciated by clients. Indeed, in the United States even a food stamp recipient doesn't tell off a grocer, because even shoppers who obtain a public subsidy for what they buy are still accorded the basic dignity of being able to choose where they take their business. Not all teachers are a good fit for all learners, no matter how fine the teacher (and no matter how dedicated the learner). It's best for everyone, and promotes more respect for teachers as professionals, to put learners at liberty to shop around for the learning situations that fit them best. The international examples I've read about (particularly the Netherlands) strongly suggest that teachers, learners, and taxpayers all benefit from having more rather than less choice. http://www.amazon.com/Contrasting-Models-State-School-Comparative/dp/1441145621 http://www.amazon.com/Contrasting-Models-State-School-Compar...
  - lutorm 15y ago
silverbax88 15y ago
As much as I respect what teachers do, and I also understand that parents can be incredibly difficult, I also have learned in dealing with teachers in my child's education that many teachers have a culture that doesn't mesh well with the harsh realities of corporate life that parents must deal with.
lutorm 15y ago
Here on HN, hackers are fond of bitching about non-hackers (like managers) who get on their case about things they don't know anything about. In this case, the teacher is the hacker and you (and your child) are the non-hackers. I'd like to think that your presumption would be that if it comes to disagreeing between a trained educator and your child, you assume that the educator knows what they're talking about. I'm not saying teachers are infallible. Of course there are limits, but if you think you're "protecting" your kinds by shielding them from their consequences at all costs, I feel sorry for your children and I really hope that I don't have one of your kids in my class.
techiferous 15y ago
Hi, former teacher here. You're right. But also consider that the current economy does not support this level of professionalism in teachers. Any teacher who can do a fantastic job meeting all of the expectations of students, teachers and administrators is smart enough to make 2x, 3x or more money in another profession with less stress. I actually enjoy teaching more than programming and it's a better fit for me. But I choose programming because I can make 3x the money with half the effort. I'm not stressed out and I can pay the bills. So keep that in mind the next time you confront a teacher. Even though you may technically be right, if you make their job harder, you may push them away from teaching. Remember, they could be a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or some other type of professional. We want to encourage highly intelligent and highly educated people to remain teachers, and if you give teachers a hard time, the only ones that will stick around are those who aren't able to find other jobs. Which aren't the kind of teachers you want.
- swasheck 15y ago
  So the economy is an excuse? If that's the case then, once again, everyone has the same excuse for a lack of professionalism.
  - techiferous 15y ago
    Not really. Teachers aren't paid well enough compared to other professions, so the opportunity cost is high. My point about the economy is that you want the market forces to encourage intelligent people to become teachers. Otherwise, you can get into a dangerous positive feedback loop of uneducated people teaching the next generation. If you make teaching a lousy job by underpaying teachers and treating them poorly, then why would intelligent people who have other career opportunities stick around?
  - AlexandrB 15y ago
    The economic value we place on teaching as a profession is too low to attract and retain (in the face of job stress) the kind of talent we might want. As a result schools, as institutions, suffer from a variety of the dead sea effect (http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-dead-sea-effect/ http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-d...). The most qualified teachers can get other jobs that pay better. If their lives are made miserable by dealing with irate parents, school bureaucracy and lawsuits, why would they stay?
swasheck 15y ago
Yeah, I think that there is a balance between the two perspectives: helicopter and carte blanche. I think that teachers need some pushback but I think that the context and the subject are also important. I am not going to fight for grades, but if a teacher is unwilling/unequipped to handle the individual personalities/quirks of kids with professionalism and grace then I will fight back

by phugoid 15y ago

dhyasama 15y ago

I'm a father and yesterday was my daughter's first day of school. I don't think my job is to protect her at all costs. My job is to prepare her to be a healthy, happy, and responsible adult. Protecting her is part of that, but so is letting her fall down so she can learn to get back up. Also, she will never learn personal responsibility if I defend her at all times regardless of fault. Sometimes she is the one in the wrong and she needs to learn from that.

kemayo 15y ago

I don't think you should blindly defend your children, though. Be predisposed to defend them, sure, but be open to the possibility that they were in the wrong and have a lesson to learn from it. I wouldn't view my job as a parent being to protect my child. Rather, it's to make my child the best person I can. Sometimes that might involve letting them try something and fail, and possibly get hurt... in which case it's my role to make sure they don't take on something which might seriously hurt them. Or punishing them when they've done something wrong.

DifE-Q 15y ago

This does not make sense. You are willing to send your child away for more hours per day than you spend with him and place him with adults you don't trust? If you are not going to divest your authority and trust these teachers with it, which you must if you send your child to a public or private school, then you should home school your children. Also, your job as a parent is only to protect your children from things they can not protect themselves against - and to eventually empower/teach/train them to be able to protect themselves. If you hover over them all the time they will, as the article said, end up 25 and still in your house. For instance, if the child got a 79 on an assignment...tough; it was within his power to get an A if he worked hard enough. If he is somehow being targeted by a malicious mean teacher and purposefully given a low grade...tough as well. In reality, it won't affect his chances at a happy and successfully life. Plus, life is not fair and he will meet people like that in real life that he will have to learn to deal with when you are dead and gone. It too is a learning lesson - and nothing you need to protect him against.

tokenadult 15y ago
You are willing to send your child away for more hours per day than you spend with him and place him with adults you don't trust? In almost all countries of the world, school attendance is compulsory for certain age ranges in default of government-approved alternatives. Perhaps the author of the grandparent comment acquiesces to children attending school more than being actively "willing" to have the children in school. In any event, the statement is correct that it is a parent's responsibility to protect minor children, and that includes protecting children from haughty teachers who are unwilling to allow parents to have the power to shop, the power to CHOOSE teachers as readily as parents choose grocers, physicians, community sports coaches, and other adults who influence children's lives. AFTER EDIT: This addition to this comment was posted only after the back-and-forth below (to the "great-grandchild" comment level) about the unchanged original version of this comment above. Let me be clear: a lot of the zero-sum head-butting between teachers and parents would go away if only the system were changed so that parents of minor learners have greatly expanded choice in where their children go to school at public expense. Currently, the public policy position of most schoolteacher labor unions in most countries is that school attendance should be compulsory, that schooling should mostly be provided by government agencies, and that learners should be assigned to schools rather than have a wide choice of schools. All of those public policy positions entrench union leaders in political power, but none treat schoolteachers as professionals. Services that are CHOSEN by clients are largely appreciated by clients. Indeed, in the United States even a food stamp recipient doesn't tell off a grocer, because even shoppers who obtain a public subsidy for what they buy are still accorded the basic dignity of being able to choose where they take their business. Not all teachers are a good fit for all learners, no matter how fine the teacher (and no matter how dedicated the learner). It's best for everyone, and promotes more respect for teachers as professionals, to put learners at liberty to shop around for the learning situations that fit them best. The international examples I've read about (particularly the Netherlands) strongly suggest that teachers, learners, and taxpayers all benefit from having more rather than less choice. http://www.amazon.com/Contrasting-Models-State-School-Comparative/dp/1441145621 http://www.amazon.com/Contrasting-Models-State-School-Compar...
- lutorm 15y ago

silverbax88 15y ago

As much as I respect what teachers do, and I also understand that parents can be incredibly difficult, I also have learned in dealing with teachers in my child's education that many teachers have a culture that doesn't mesh well with the harsh realities of corporate life that parents must deal with.

lutorm 15y ago

Here on HN, hackers are fond of bitching about non-hackers (like managers) who get on their case about things they don't know anything about. In this case, the teacher is the hacker and you (and your child) are the non-hackers. I'd like to think that your presumption would be that if it comes to disagreeing between a trained educator and your child, you assume that the educator knows what they're talking about. I'm not saying teachers are infallible. Of course there are limits, but if you think you're "protecting" your kinds by shielding them from their consequences at all costs, I feel sorry for your children and I really hope that I don't have one of your kids in my class.

techiferous 15y ago

Hi, former teacher here. You're right. But also consider that the current economy does not support this level of professionalism in teachers. Any teacher who can do a fantastic job meeting all of the expectations of students, teachers and administrators is smart enough to make 2x, 3x or more money in another profession with less stress. I actually enjoy teaching more than programming and it's a better fit for me. But I choose programming because I can make 3x the money with half the effort. I'm not stressed out and I can pay the bills. So keep that in mind the next time you confront a teacher. Even though you may technically be right, if you make their job harder, you may push them away from teaching. Remember, they could be a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or some other type of professional. We want to encourage highly intelligent and highly educated people to remain teachers, and if you give teachers a hard time, the only ones that will stick around are those who aren't able to find other jobs. Which aren't the kind of teachers you want.

swasheck 15y ago
So the economy is an excuse? If that's the case then, once again, everyone has the same excuse for a lack of professionalism.
- techiferous 15y ago
  Not really. Teachers aren't paid well enough compared to other professions, so the opportunity cost is high. My point about the economy is that you want the market forces to encourage intelligent people to become teachers. Otherwise, you can get into a dangerous positive feedback loop of uneducated people teaching the next generation. If you make teaching a lousy job by underpaying teachers and treating them poorly, then why would intelligent people who have other career opportunities stick around?
- AlexandrB 15y ago
  The economic value we place on teaching as a profession is too low to attract and retain (in the face of job stress) the kind of talent we might want. As a result schools, as institutions, suffer from a variety of the dead sea effect (http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-dead-sea-effect/ http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-d...). The most qualified teachers can get other jobs that pay better. If their lives are made miserable by dealing with irate parents, school bureaucracy and lawsuits, why would they stay?

swasheck 15y ago

Yeah, I think that there is a balance between the two perspectives: helicopter and carte blanche. I think that teachers need some pushback but I think that the context and the subject are also important. I am not going to fight for grades, but if a teacher is unwilling/unequipped to handle the individual personalities/quirks of kids with professionalism and grace then I will fight back