Yesterday, a young friend of mine learned that because she had joined the ranks of public school teachers in a certain, nationally prominent county, she could no longer maintain her profiles on two popular social networking sites. This due to the fact that students would not only be able to potentially access her personal information, but also would be able to communicate with her outside the classroom. Should she fail to comply with the order to unsubscribe from these networks, she could lose her job. This decision was made due to a series of events resulting in some curious students investigating their instructors online and finding some less than flattering, down right embarrassing information. Now, all teachers in the county must pay the price for the indiscretion of a few trusting souls who never dreamed their students cared so much or that their parents cared so little about where their child's net searches carried them!
This world is full of evil men, and women. This has been so since I last walked this earth, was so before I was born, and unless we are proverbially bitch-slapped by Venusians, will continue to be until God returns or we fall into the sun. Our duty as conscientious adults is to protect children from said evil-doers, but do we, should we draw the line when children seek out trouble? Do we, should we, hold parents accountable for leaving their children uninformed about said evils in order to "preserve their innocence"? Who is responsible when a parent abdicates responsibility for the protection of said "innocence" or leaves that responsibility to others? When a child finds a gun left in an accessible location and shoots another child because no one has told them of the weapon's dangers in order to "preserve their innocence," who do we blame? Children need to be protected from reading certain books (such as mine) before they reach a certain level of maturity but do we burn the books?
Children need, most definitely, to be protected from those who would hurt and abuse them. That said, does it give them the right, when unmolested by a teacher, to solicit said teacher's attention when they are not in the classroom? Does that give children the right to make an online search, prying into an instructor's private life? And who will teach these children what is appropriate and inappropriate contact with an instructor? My natural assumption - it is a parent's responsibility to prepare their child to deal with this evil world. I might further state that the idea of "innocence" strikes me as somewhat ludicrous in the current information saturated environ. By nineteenth century standards there are no "innocent" children in America. Media has seen to it that most children know far more than my era would deem appropriate by age twelve or younger. Therefore, rather than protect "innocence", a wiser move on the part of all concerned with the raising and education of children, would be to inform them about potential online predators, teach them about personal and professional boundaries, about appropriate behavior and language.
Alas, Aurora has noticed that many parents seem to think this is just too much work and should be left to the school system, the church, the army, navy, marines, police force, Dr. Phil, President Bush, Oprah, - anyone but themselves, by heavens! After all, these forces are already monitoring our phone calls, our borders, securing our homeland against unwanted terrorist invaders and Martians, paying off our foreclosed properties, making sure there is enough bread and oil for the entire world, telling us how to keep our families happy and healthy while giving us whiter teeth and fresher breath. So baby-sitting our children should be no problem.
But there is a problem when government oversight of teachers inhibits the teachers' personal freedom of self expression when not in the classroom. Classroom teachers are among the most overworked, underpaid demographic in America. They are left cleaning up the mess left by "concerned" but seemingly never "involved" parents. Yet, counties constantly recruit instructors with a number of incentives, none of which, to my mind, are worth the price they pay in stress, and now loss of their freedom of expression. Were the government equally stringent on the behavior of parents there might be hope for the situation. After all, no matter how effective or ineffective an educator may be, their time with children is limited and their influence does not supersede that of a parent, no matter how ineffectual that parent may be. If we are so careful to save children from the inappropriate conduct of educators, doesn't this situation demand that we be equally vigilant regarding the behavior of parents? Most of the phenomena resulting in the present educational crisis has been bred within the home, not the classroom. Furthermore, I find it profoundly ironic that parents who see the school system as a government funded baby sitting service usually complain about there being too much government in their business lives. Can we have it both ways? I think not.
In the late 1960's a certain Catholic school in Florida required students to repeat each day after reciting the Pledge: "There is no liberty without responsibility. With the help of God, I take personal responsibility for my actions this day in order to preserve my freedom." The teacher also communicated to these students that Lady Liberty united all as a family, that peace involved compromise not conquest, and that brothers and sisters had to learn the art of compromise in order to survive. Somehow the Boomers have either missed entirely or failed to pass on this philosophy to the current child rearing Gen Xers, a collective who seem to believe that they and their spawn are entitled to everything while being responsible for nothing, and if you don't like someone or something, just beat it to death. They consistently advocate politics and policies that abdicate them from all forms of personal responsibility except those concerning making money. An appreciation of education as a factor that ensures liberty means nothing to them. Teachers, in the meantime, fall from any position of respect to one of servitude not seen since Roman times or the mid-Victorian British Empire, as anyone can see in the rising employment of Nannies, Au Pairs and the like.
Servitude, censorship, baby-sitting, wonderful reasons to become an educator! All you lose is your liberty, perhaps even your freedom to Blog in your own name because someone's child may see it and the parent will object to your opinion! As for the average Americans' concept of Liberty, well isn't that what the Armed Forces are there for? Radio pundits tell us to keep that war in Iraq and Afghanistan going-just don't ask any of the entitled to fight it or fund it. And while the current political climate states the Right is mighty and will prevail, the unseen price looms in the words of Ben Franklin: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both."
In the meantime, my friend searches for an alias and another job.
Aurora
No comments:
Post a Comment