Schooling Amanda: who decides?

"It's about everyone rushing to preserve and protect their personal views of reality"

.. and rushing to make sure that you can't have your personal view of reality if it differs with their own.

It's not so much about winning these days as making sure the other side is losing.

Chris,
Interesting post. And a very perplexing dilemma. Thanks for getting me thinking so early in the morning. There, I'm going to sneak out of here without really offering an opinion. But I enjoyed reading this!

I also tried to convert my neighbor to Catholicism after being told in second grade CCD that non-Catholics were going to Hell. Not so much out of concern for her immortal soul but because I wanted someone to play with in Heaven. So I didn't even tell her about the Hell part - I appealed to her from a mercenary POV... "Hey, if you become Catholic, you can get your first communion next year and have a big party and lots of money and presents." "Mom, can I become Catholic?" "NO!"

The funny thing is ... she's Catholic now. I'm not.

This looks, to me, like a typical custody dispute in which Amanda is probably getting lost in the tug-of-war.

Thomas chooses to focus on the struggle over her schooling while overlooking another disturbing aspect of the dispute. That is the mother's contention that Amanda is being harmed by contact with her father and her assertion that Amanda is not showing her true feelings when she appears to enjoy being with her father because she only reveals her feelings to her mother. I am guessing that this had as much to do with the recommendations from the GAL and the counselor as did Mom's religious beliefs.

The brief that was linked indicates that Amanda's mother had previously requested modification of the custody agreement in order to limit Amanda's time with her father on grounds that he was causing her mental harm. She was seeing a counselor because of the mother's allegations against the father and not because of the dispute over her schooling. The fact that neither the GAL nor the counselor found evidence supporting Mom's allegations is significant. The conclusion that Amanda is doing just fine was related as much to her relationship with her father as it was to her schooling.

Thomas has seized on this as an example of the courts interfering with personal freedom. I think it's an example of the courts intervening to insure that Amanda has the tools to make her own choices and that her mother is not the only influence in her life. It sounds like Dad was making an effort to support the homeschooling mission, so this matter may not have come before the court if Mom hadn't tried to limit Amanda's already limited contact with her father. That got the counselor and the GAL into the act, both of whom disagreed with Mom's approach.

I have a very similar experience compared to ChrisOmeally. Just like any kids in public grade school, I was making lots of new friends in Kindergarden and 1st grade. I remember that quite a few of my 'new' friends were being forced to walk to the Catholic school a few times a week for part of the morning. I was scared that my new friends did something wrong, and I couldn't figure out what it was. I thought they were being punished by the adults who were forcing them to leave the classroom.

I grew up to be a rational, intelligent person, but my point is that at that young age, I, along with every one of my classmates was very impressionable since we really didn't know what was going on in the world aorund us. Our whole concept of the 'outside world' revolved around what was going on in that classroom (this was the days before soccer moms and soccer dads drove all their kids to tons of after school events). It's probably unreasonable to expect any teacher (private or public) to present both sides of any issue fairly and as a result, it's up to the parent(s) to indoctrinate their kids the way they want their kids to be indoctrinated.

I agree. Ertl's in a no-win situation with regards his decision in the Obama speech 'controversy', just like every school administrator. I think the BEST thing to have done was to show Obama's speech and then immediately show the GOP response and DO NOT follow that by any teacher-led discussion of either speech. After the 2 speeches, the kids would do their math just like any other day. That would have made everybody happy, right? Well, OK, maybe "happy" isn't the right word, but at least that would tend to make them less angry. Can't we all just get along? Apparently not.

"I think the BEST thing to have done was to show Obama's speech and then immediately show the GOP response"

And what would the content of this "response" be? Not trying hard in school?

Eyeroll.

I'm with beckkl. Why on earth would you want to politicize this speech? An opposition response to a policy proposal is VERY appropriate, though I'd be happier if we realized there's not just either official party line: there's a whole spectrum of ideas. I think a lot of people are being oppositional just to be oppositional. Obama Defiance Disorder: they just say "no" without thinking.

I agree with Christine. This issue is not about schooling choice or religious ideals. It is not about the government trying to control either of those things. (which I don't think it should) It's about a child who had the misfortune to be born into a house run by "children" who can't get along. It is about deciding what is best for her because neither of her parents can get it right. That is sad.

The GOP 'response' to President Obama's speech would likely be the exact same thing that President Obama spoke about. In other words, it would give all of the kids DOUBLE the amount of snooze time in class during those two speeches. I'm sure they'd all appreciate it.

Like Tine and Beckkl suggest, there's no reason at all to politicize this particular speech that President Obama gave to the kids. That's precisely why I recommended showing the speech but prohibiting any classroom discussion about it afterwards. Otherwise, the 'discussion' could deviate into a 'discussion' about how those who object to President Obama's policies are only doing it because EVERY one of us is a racist. Isn't that exactly what former President Jimmy Carter said earlier today on television?

I don't think you've been a teacher, Stubborn. Getting (and keeping) kids in a conversation is a very different thing from our interminable backs-and-forths here! I'd have been ecstatic if kids had wanted to have a serious discussion about. . . just about anything. What you imagine happening is so very far from what's likely to happen, not only in that but in the teachers' desire to indoctrinate--and the students' willingness to be indoctrinated.