NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/alt/comp/acadfre/talk/3341

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-08 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3341 comp.admin.policy:1477
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!tarpit!tous!wap!bdixon
From: [e-mail] (Bill Dixon)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 14:32:55 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: White Aluminum Products, Leesburg, FL
Lines: 61

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Richard Childers) wrote:
>>>[e-mail] (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>>
>>>>    "In Petaluma, Calif., eighth grader Tawnya Brawdy had to run a gant-
>>>>     let of boys gathered outside her school who would begin mooing
>>>>     as she approached. [...] The US Department of Education found, in a
>>>>     211-page report, that the schools had failed to protect her."
>>>>
>
>....
>
>I believe that since a student in this country is >required< to attend
>school until age 16, the school therefore has a responsibility to protect
>students against this kind (or any other kind) of harassment.
>
>....
>
>If you're going to require kids to attend a school, and force them to attend
>a particular school at that (ie: no "choice") then it is incumbent on the
>administration and staff of that school to maintain order.  Those who offend
>against that order should and must be removed.
>

At the risk of branching too far away from the original issue (sexual
harassment), I would like to say that you cannot say that a child is
required to attend a particular public school.  There are other options
available.  For instance, if you believe that attending the public school
in your area is detrimental to the well-being (physical / emotional /
educational) of your child(ren), you can always enroll them in a private
school.

My wife and I have taken this a step further.  We teach our children at
home.  Our primary reason for home schooling is religious (we feel an
obligation to raise our children in a manner pleasing to God, and feel
that this is the best way to fulfill this obligation), but this thread is
supporting one of our objections to public and private school.

One of the most common questions we are asked about home schooling is
"what about social interaction?".  Our standard reply is this:  Since our
children are associating more closely with adults (my wife and I) and
other children not their age (their brothers & sisters) than they are with
lots of other kids their own age, they learn to interact with the wide
range of ages they will come in contact with in the "real world".  It is
interesting to watch a group of 50 to 100 home schooled kids, compared
with 50 to 100 public schooled kids.  The public schooled kids tend to
group themselves in age groups, even if they do not all attend the same
school.  The home schoolers form more homogeneous, age-independent groups.

In addition to all of this, however, my children will not have to "run the
gauntlet" at school.  Granted, not everyone is in a position to home
school their children, since it does take a commitment to dedicate large
amounts of time and effort into it, but you cannot state categorically
that children are <required> to attend a particular school, whether it be
public or private.

(Shoot, I left my flame-retardant suit at home.)
--
Bill Dixon
[e-mail]