New York: Senator Robert Jackson Introduces Bill to Protect Students and Parents Who Opt Out


In recent years, the New York State Education Department and many school districts have threatened and tried to intimidate parents and students who wanted to opt out of state testing. The historic U.S. Supreme Court decision Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) protects the right of parents to make decisions about their own children. This decision is apt in the current environment, where the state has decided that every child must sit for a pointless standardized test, without regard to their parent's wishes.

That decision protected the right of Catholic schools to exist at a time when they were under threat of closure. The Court affirmed that parents could choose the school their child attended, though it did not say that the public was bound to pay for private choices. The key point in the decision was that " The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

Now Senator Robert Jackson, himself a historic figure in the fight for fair funding for public schools, has introduced legislation to protect students and parents and to prevent school officials from bullying them if they wish to opt out of state testing. Students are not the mere creatures of the state; their parents "have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare them for additional obligations," including the obligation to resist injustice and official stupidity. As Senator Jackson affirms, schools should inform parents of their right to opt out and should not use pressure, threats or rewards to compel them to take state tests if they choose to not take them in protest against their meaninglessness and possible harm to the student's education.

dianeravitch | 3 مايو، 2019 عند 9:00 ص | التصنيفات:Accountability, Education Industry, Education Reform, New York, Opt Out, Parents, Students,Testing |
الرابط: https://wp.me/p2odLa-mdX

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Conditionals

Image
Mixed conditionals We use mixed conditionals if we want to mix talking about the present and the past in the same sentence. The mixed conditional is a combination of the second and the third conditional: ➪ We can use past simple or continuous in the if-clause (to refer to the present or future), and would/should/might have + past participle in the main clause (to refer to the past). ➪ We can also use past perfect in the if-clause (to refer to the past), and would/should/might + infinitive (to refer to the present). If I didn’t have (second conditional) so much work, I would have gone (third conditional) to the party last night. If I spoke (second conditional) German, I would have understood (third conditional) them. If I had won (third conditional) the lottery, I would be (second conditional) rich. If I hadn’t dropped (third conditional) school, I could have (second conditional) a better job now. Alternatives to if in conditional sentences As long as / provided (that) / p...
Read more