- Jul 13, 2018
- 5,496
- 1,818
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
In loco parentis has specific limitations; teachers are not parents. Under tort principles of negligence, teachers owe the duty to protect students from foreseeable dangers. And in that way, teachers exercise supervision that a reasonable parent would exercise. Teachers merely have physical custody of the students during the school day, hence the crowd control requirement and the duty to teach academics, their sole function. In drug cases, teachers also function as an agent of the state.It's funny you say that. The phrase "in loco parentis" means that a person is acting in place of a parent. You will note, of course, that the school's literal and EXACT job is to act, in loco parentis.
As teacher's we were taught this on our FIRST day of our education degree. IT's what makes the role of teacher so, so important; we work in the place of a parent. We have legal responsibilities in acting that way.
You will likely find the phrase "in loco parentis" associated with education in your state's education department somewhere too.
So this idea that teachers are "in no way" substitute parents is an attitude that you have the freedom to believe but you will experience a great deal of frustration in holding onto the belief because it is factually inaccurate.
If you have been in a school, you will also note that the idea that teachers are only to teach "academics" is, well frankly, laughable. This suggests that if I see a kid absolutely beating the snot out of another kid, I'm supposed to turn a blind eye. That if, in my high Muslim population school, a group of boys accosts a christian and starts pushing him around, I'm supposed to ignore it because it's not my job. When I see a kid littering on school property, I should give him a worksheet on subtracting fractions instead of coaching him through why it's important not to littler in case his parents encourage him to litter.
Obviously, teachers must provide guidance, protection and cues to students not behaving in ways society deems as inappropriate. But every single time a teacher does that, it can be argued that they are "imposing and teaching values". There are values that are shared within society (Generally). I would say that schools' jobs are also to help parents teach those values. Values like littering ain't great; bully is bad; treat everyone with respect. I'm pretty sure that is Belk's argument.
Because parents teach lessons like that, often, in a vaccuum FAR away from a time or place when the child applies those values. Teachers are on the front line 6 hours a day. In fact, here's the CRAZY Irony:
Class of 25 students. I LA class every day (50 minutes). The amount of 1 to 1 time your child likely receives in a day is going to be MERE minutes. In terms of direct, 1 to 1 academic instruction, there is very little 1 to 1 time. Yes whole group and instruction in skills and guidance will be a whole class, but responding to needs of one student? That's different.
However, we see children's behaviour all day. All.Day. 330 minutes a day. Simply put, there's more opportunity for us to notice and correct behaviour than proper tense in story writing.
I'm not demeaning teachers, as you seem to think. I'm merely saying they have a very specific function and that function does not include teaching our children to embrace values outside of general values such as being kind and polite when responding, things like that. They do not have authority to contravene their parents' values.
Upvote
0