Thursday, February 16, 2012

Why we're home schooling, part II

I will not have my children's lunches tampered with.  The imp adores peanut butter sandwiches (no jelly, just Peter Pan Honey Peanut Butter), and they'd likely be sent home without letting him eat them.  The pixie loves chicken nuggets and crackers.  Maybe veggie straws would count with the food police, but I doubt it, since fruit and juice didn't, in this little girl's case.

I will not let teachers pimp my children to pedophiles

I will not let schools turn sex education over to those who will use the program to gin up business.  My son (3 years old) is already looking down waitress' blouses, when he can get away with it.  I doubt he's going to need any help with that attitude when he's older.

I will not let someone heap verbal abuse on my kids in the name of "coaching."  Yelling is one thing.  Calling girls--some of whom will likely develop eating disorders after this--"heifers,*" that's something else entirely.

If allusions to and practices of Christianity are barred in public schools, I'm not going to let my kids be brainwashed in a public school into following a different religion, or into thinking their religion is bad or wrong, or that they're bad or wrong for not following someone else's god.

And anyone who thinks they know better than someone who sees the end result of public education what my children need from an education has their head firmly planted somewhere dark, damp, and...fragrant.

*I assume all who read this blog know what a heifer is, but I'll define it for the occupidiot that's been trolling lately: a heifer is a young female cow that hasn't calved, yet--when applied to young girls, it implies that they're fat and clumsy.

6 comments:

  1. That story about the little girl's lunch makes me rage-y every time I think of it.

    I was a picky eater as a child; my brother was even worse than I was. Trying to get me to eat was a trick, let along forcing me to eat the Government-Approved Foods. (Luckily, in those days, the government didn't intrude).

    Had I wound up in that little girl's place? I would have cried inconsolably for the rest of the day - because I broke what was apparently a rule, a rule I wasn't told about, and I didn't know how to make things better. And I probably would have begged my parents never to send me back to school.

    I really feel for that poor kid. I guess bullying is OK when it's someone from the government doing it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ricki: Believe me--I speak from long experience--according to public education and the federal government, bullying is always okay when they do it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As an aside.......Colorado is cracking down on schools who bust kids for "bringing things to school''.

    With the exception of bringing a gun to school, other incidents will be resolved by the school.

    MY point, an "innocent' young man was busted for bringing a butter knife to school--his Mom put it there to help spread his peanut butter sandwich!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Zero tolerance policies are another thing that set me steaming. Did you know that a kid that does anything other than curl into a ball on the ground and scream for help gets suspended with the bully that beats the crap out of them?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Zero tolerance = the administration has to exercise zero thought, zero discretion, and can take zero responsibility when they screw up.

    And usually the people who wind up getting hurt are people who are not intending to harm anyone.

    (Honestly, I think kids should be ENCOURAGED to fight back against (physical) bullies. Peace through strength and all that.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree--my two will be taught to. To do otherwise is to encourage dependance upon "authorities" that won't do anything to protect them, but don't want them to protect themselves.

    Zero tolerance policies are designed to support the "work" of those who have zero intelligence, and disguise the fact that they can not not will not think.

    ReplyDelete