Michigan Votes Forum

 Or...the schools could focus on teaching a basic education, perhaps even teaching students how to read.

This bill is ridiculous, especially in an era when public school operating revenues are declining, both because of declining student populations and legislated allocations.  Schools are struggling to cover basic curricula; there is no need, call or justification for further unfunded instructional mandates.

This is a matter for parents to handle.

This bill doesn't mandate new courses, the way I read it, but incorporates educating pupils about dating violence into their health courses. It also sets up a mechanism for students to report dating violence, and educates teachers in how to handle it.

I think this is an important part of young people's health education, a part many children will not get at home, and I don't see a big expense at all to the taxpayers.

No matter how you cut it, this bill mandates incorporating additional material into the curriculum, and new policy, monitoring-reporting program responsibilities for public schools.  None of this will be implemented without costs to local school districts, which already are struggling financially.

Making that observation is not to pooh-pooh the seriousness of "dating violence."

Back when my own daughter was a high schooler, one evening I walked into our family room where she was entertaining her current boyfriend, and interrupted what you might call a "slap-and-tickle" session, with heavy emphasis on the slapping.  I called a quick halt to the activity, in no uncertain terms.  Then we three had a very serious talk about how and why that kind of behavior is a real no-no, regardless of how innocent it may seem.  

Some years later, the young man came to visit my daughter when she was visiting home, and that little episode came up in our conversation.  Both young people, who had grown into fine adults had known others who found themselves in physically abusive relationships, and were appreciative of the lecture that set things straight for them.  

This is a parenting issue.  Good parenting entails supervision, involvement, and respectful engagement of matters like this.  It is not something to be left to our schools.   

 And what would you recommend not teaching in order to cover dating violence? This is a matter best left to parents.

Teen Dating Statistics

• About one in three high school students have been or will be involved in an abusive relationship.
• Forty percent of teenage girls ages 14 to 17 say they know someone their age who has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend.
• In one study, from 30 to 50 percent of female high school students reported having already experienced teen dating violence.
• Teen dating violence most often takes place in the home of one of the partners.
• In 1995, 7 percent of all murder victims were young women who were killed by their boyfriends.
• One in five or 20 percent of dating couples report some type of violence in their relationship.
• One of five college females will experience some form of dating violence.
• A survey of 500 young women, ages 15 to 24, found that 60 percent were currently involved in an ongoing abusive relationship and all participants had experienced violence in a dating relationship.
• One study found that 38 percent of date rape victims were young women from 14 to 17 years of age.
• A survey of adolescent and college students revealed that date rape accounted for 67 percent of sexual assaults.
• More than half young women raped (68 percent) knew their rapist either as a boyfriend, friend or casual acquaintance.
• Six out of 10 rapes of young women occur in their own home or a friend or relative's home, not in a dark alley.
• More than 4 in every 10 incidents of domestic violence involves non-married persons (Bureau of Justice Special Report: Intimate Partner Violence, May 2000)

If all parents were as dilligent as some, this would not be as big of a problem as it is.

MichL1:

And what would you recommend not teaching in order to cover dating violence?

This bill suggest this issue can be incorporated into health courses.

gypsy:

If all parents were as dilligent as some, this would not be as big of a problem as it is.

This bill suggest this issue can be incorporated into health courses.

Two points.

First, where do we draw the line on turning "parenting" over to schools by law?  I suggest the rejection of this bill is a good starting point.

Second, health courses also teach sex education, which has not been successful in curtailing teenage sexual activity and pregnancy, and so on ...

gypsy:

Teen Dating Statistics

• About one in three high school students have been or will be involved in an abusive relationship.
• Forty percent of teenage girls ages 14 to 17 say they know someone their age who has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend.
• In one study, from 30 to 50 percent of female high school students reported having already experienced teen dating violence.
• Teen dating violence most often takes place in the home of one of the partners.
• In 1995, 7 percent of all murder victims were young women who were killed by their boyfriends.
• One in five or 20 percent of dating couples report some type of violence in their relationship.
• One of five college females will experience some form of dating violence.
• A survey of 500 young women, ages 15 to 24, found that 60 percent were currently involved in an ongoing abusive relationship and all participants had experienced violence in a dating relationship.
• One study found that 38 percent of date rape victims were young women from 14 to 17 years of age.
• A survey of adolescent and college students revealed that date rape accounted for 67 percent of sexual assaults.
• More than half young women raped (68 percent) knew their rapist either as a boyfriend, friend or casual acquaintance.
• Six out of 10 rapes of young women occur in their own home or a friend or relative's home, not in a dark alley.
• More than 4 in every 10 incidents of domestic violence involves non-married persons (Bureau of Justice Special Report: Intimate Partner Violence, May 2000)

 

 

If all parents were as dilligent as some, this would not be as big of a problem as it is.

MichL1:

And what would you recommend not teaching in order to cover dating violence?

This bill suggest this issue can be incorporated into health courses.

 You still fail to grasp the point of my question. What material in health class will not be covered in order to cover dating violence? The more topics that are added to a subject lessens the amount of time that can be spent on other topics. This is also the same mind set that introduced sex ed into the schools when it is most appropriately the responsibility of the home. "If all parents were as dilligent..." is exactly what led legislators into determing that the schools should teach sex ed. The schools should not be made to take over duties that are the responsiblity of the parents.

FreeSpeaker:

First, where do we draw the line on turning "parenting" over to schools by law?  I suggest the rejection of this bill is a good starting point.

As a former parent, now grand parent and great grand parent, we need all the help we can get.

FreeSpeaker:

Second, health courses also teach sex education, which has not been successful in curtailing teenage sexual activity and pregnancy, and so on ...

How are you measuring success and failure? If we did not teach sex education in schools, would there be more, less, or about the same rates of STD's and pregnancy in children? Is teaching sex education helping at all to prevent these conditions? I offer this from Wikipedia:

Proponents of comprehensive sex education, which include the American Psychological Association,^[35] the American Medical Association,^[36] the National Association of School Psychologists,^[37] the American Academy of Pediatrics,^[38] the American Public Health Association,^[39] the Society for Adolescent Medicine^[40] and the American College Health Association,^[40] argue that sexual behavior after puberty is a given, and it is therefore crucial to provide information about the risks and how they can be minimized; they also claim that denying teens such factual information leads to unwanted pregnancies and STIs.

On the other hand, proponents of abstinence-only sex education object to curricula that fail to teach their standard of moral behavior; they maintain that a morality based on sex only within the bounds of marriage is "healthy and constructive" and that value-free knowledge of the body may lead to immoral, unhealthy, and harmful practices. Within the last decade, the federal government has encouraged abstinence-only education by steering over a billion dollars to such programs.^[41] Some 25 states now decline the funding so that they can continue to teach comprehensive sex education.^{[42][43][44][45]} Funding for one of the federal government's two main abstinency-only funding programs, Title V, was extended only until December 31, 2007; Congress is debating whether to continue it past that date.^[46]

The impact of the rise in abstinence-only education remains a question. To date, no published studies of abstinence-only programs have found consistent and significant program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse.^[31] In 2007, a study ordered by the U.S. Congress found that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were just as likely to have sex (and use contraception) in their teenage years as those who did not.^[47] Abstinence-only advocates claimed that the study was flawed because it was too narrow and began when abstinence-only curricula were in their infancy, and that other studies have demonstrated positive effects.^[48]

It is estimated that more than half of all new HIV infections occur before the age of 25 and most are acquired through unprotected sex. According to the experts on AIDS, many of these new cases come about because young people don’t have the knowledge or skills to protect themselves. To try and resolve this problem the American Psychological Association (APA) is recommending that comprehensive sex education and HIV prevention programs become more available to the youth. The young people need this to help protect them from HIV/AIDS and other STDs they might get if they decide to have sex. Willenz, Pam.

MichL1:

 You still fail to grasp the point of my question. What material in health class will not be covered in order to cover dating violence?

I grasp your point. You are asking me to tell you how a teacher will organize her subject matter to include all the areas of importance. Sorry, can't do.

What isn't the "responsibility" of the government (local, state, federal) today?   "Man", is not a gentleman.  "Gentleness" is of God; but we can't learn about Him.

gypsy:

MichL1:

 You still fail to grasp the point of my question. What material in health class will not be covered in order to cover dating violence?

I grasp your point. You are asking me to tell you how a teacher will organize her subject matter to include all the areas of importance. Sorry, can't do.

 

 

Well, I guess you have acknowledged that in order to maintain status quo fiscally and operationally (virtually the same thing -- program expansion does not occur without cost), something has to give.  Surely you have in mind some aspect of program that can be discarded in order to shoehorn this new mandated topic into the curriculum.

At some point it seems to me we have to recognize limitations on what we can expect our schools to do and accomplish.  As has been noted above, incorporating sex education into health curricula has created political controversy.  Do we need to embroil our schools further in that kind of thing, and another social problem, when the real solution here lies in more effective parenting?  My answer is, "no." 

I really don't think we are asking too much of our teachers to include dating violence in their sex education program. Seems like a pretty good fit to me. Too much is being made of the time and cost this would entail.

As for recognizing limitations on what we can expect from our schools, I see the problem differently. We don't expect enough for what we pay, and are not getting enough. Statistics bear me out on this.

If we'd shirked in our responsibilities to educate our children because we fear political controversy, we would still be teaching them the world was flat, and the Sun revolved around the Earth. Should our schools help parents in teaching and raising our children? My answer is an emphatic "yes".

gypsy:

I really don't think we are asking too much of our teachers to include dating violence in their sex education program. Seems like a pretty good fit to me. Too much is being made of the time and cost this would entail.

As for recognizing limitations on what we can expect from our schools, I see the problem differently. We don't expect enough for what we pay, and are not getting enough. Statistics bear me out on this.

If we'd shirked in our responsibilities to educate our children because we fear political controversy, we would still be teaching them the world was flat, and the Sun revolved around the Earth. Should our schools help parents in teaching and raising our children? My answer is an emphatic "yes".

 Our curriculum is already a mile wide and an inch deep because legislators and the general public "don't think we are asking too much of our teachers to include..." more and more and more and more. At some point, the curriculum cup overflows because the legislature is always adding and never taking away. There is only so much that can be covered in any given course. Teaching children about dating violence is a parental responsibility and not a teacher responsibility.

gypsy:

If we'd shirked in our responsibilities to educate our children because we fear political controversy, we would still be teaching them the world was flat, and the Sun revolved around the Earth. Should our schools help parents in teaching and raising our children? My answer is an emphatic "yes".

I'll go all the way resisting attempts to force our schools to take us back to a "flat earth" version of science.  Likewise on any legitimate academic issue. Our schools should teach children academic skills and knowledge in reading, writing, math, science, and social studies (geography, history, government and economics), which can get us into enough conflict.  I think it ridiculous to spend energy and angst defending non-academic stuff such as "dating violence" instruction in health classes, if it becomes controversial.

That is not shirking responsibility.  It is choosing what fights are worth fighting. 

To the extent that we are looking after their academic needs, I say, "yes," our schools should help parents in teaching and raising their children.  That is what schools are for.  

I certainly draw the line of school responsibility at providing instruction in how to properly engage in a dating relationship.  That is something parents should attend to.  If they are going to produce children, they should take responsibility for rearing them to become decent human beings in their social relationships.

FreeSpeaker:

I certainly draw the line of school responsibility at providing instruction in how to properly engage in a dating relationship.  That is something parents should attend to.  If they are going to produce children, they should take responsibility for rearing them to become decent human beings in their social relationships.

I agree. They should attend to and take responsibility. The sad fact is, many don't. Should we throw these unfortunate children into the world without basic knowledge because their parents were either negligent or unable to supply them with the information they need? This bill isn't about providing instruction on how to engage in a dating relationship, it's about how to recognize inappropriate behaviour, whether on the giving or receiving end, and what to do about it if encountered. Those children who have parents who have explained this to them will not be harmed by hearing it again at school. Those children who have negligent or incapable parents will be informed. To cower from this issue is to cower from our responsibilities to not only our children, but all children.

FreeSpeaker:

 I think it ridiculous to spend energy and angst defending non-academic stuff such as "dating violence" instruction in health classes, if it becomes controversial.

I think it ridiculous to spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours on sports, a non-academic stuff.

 It is interesting to observe how often people are concerned about how other people are not raising their kids properly.

When did the country decay into the position that children should be raised by government experts as opposed to the children's parents?

Do you call your kid's teachers to ask when they think your kids should go to bed?  When you should let them date?  At what age you should have them engage in pre-marital sex, so that they will fit in and not be outcasts? 

Stick to the basics. Schools need to focus on what kids will really need to know to survive in the real world:

1. How to physically defend oneself from attack.  Self-defense classes, and the responsible use of firearms.
2. How to read.
3. How to add, multiply, subtract and divide.

In other years, it may have been useful to understand something of employment law and contracts, like a rental agreement or mortgage.  Today, it is be more useful to understand how to apply for food stamps & unemployment, and how to manipulate the politcal process to live off the labor of others. 

Oh, and maybe learn to speak chinese. 

Ironic that you should list self defense as the first basic skill schools should teach children. That's exactly what this bill would do. Teach children to recognize and defend themselves from dating violence, and give the school a policy to address it. We'll put you in the yes column for this bill.

 When schools are mandated to teach things like this that are properly the role of the parents, it takes time away from teaching things that are the proper role of the schools (reading, writing, math, science, social studies). Stop mandating the schools to do more and more. It is time for the parents to step up.

And if they don't?

gypsy:

And if they don't?

 This is the exact question that leads legislators to pile more and more on the schools. Enough already! If the parents don't step up then the kids will have to learn some of life's lessons the hard way. Unfortunately, that is life. It is not the school's responsibility to parent the children. Sometimes you have to learn in the school of hard knocks.

As long as it's someone else's kid learning the hard way; getting raped, beaten or abused, or doing the raping, beating or abusing.

No man, (or woman, or child), is an island. Like it or not, we share this Earth with each other.

 And, like it or not, the schools can not be responsible for teaching everything. Some things are the territory of the parents. If you notice that they aren't doing the job, then how about you, as a concerned community member, step up? How about you hold classes on dating violence if it is so important to you? It is too easy to push parental responsibilities off on the schools.

How about you, and me, paying taxes to support our schools, so they can teach children what they need to know to become adults and contribute in a constructive way to society.

I really don't think this is asking too much of our schools. I don't think we ask enough of them.

gypsy:

How about you, and me, paying taxes to support our schools, so they can teach children what they need to know to become adults and contribute in a constructive way to society.

I really don't think this is asking too much of our schools. I don't think we ask enough of them.

 The issue is not one of finances, it is one of time and responsibility. Our curriculum is already a mile wide and an inch deep. Because so much has been pushed off on the schools, more and more topics have been added to the curriculum. There is no time to teach each concept to mastery or to teach each concept to the depth that it should be covered. In terms of responsibility, it is not the job of the teachers to raise your child. That is your job.

It can't be a matter of time, children get 3 months out of school every year.

It is the resposibility of us all to teach the children. We all have to live with the adults they become.

 Obviously you have never taught if you think it can't be a matter of time. I work with elementary aged kids K-5. My curriculum binder (in case you don't know, a curriculum binder outlines all topics that must be covered in a subject for the year) in Language Arts alone contains approximately 600 pages. Each page is double sided with 3 columns of text on each side. Just think of how many different topics and benchmarks that covers for one subject. Add to that math, science and social studies. Yet, you and people like you want to add more and more to the curriculum. Enough already! School is not and should never be turned into a substitute for parents. Teaching children about dating violence is the proper role of the parents not the schools.

I have never taught. But I have raised children, and I have lived a long live. What I have learned is not all children are lucky enough to have responsible parents. These children eventually grow into adults without the proper training or skills to function in society. Our prisons are full of them. Schools must be, to a certain degree, a substitute for unresponsible or incapable parents. I sympathize with your workload as a teacher, but I support adequate teacher pay, and bills like this. It is much more productive to spend the money on the children in school than on the criminals in prison.

Your right in saying people like me want to add more and more to the curriculum. The more children learn in school, the better prepared they will be for life. Good parents will still be good, and bad parents will still be bad, but maybe children of bad parents will turn out good. It's worth the effort. Thanks for yours.