"There is no valid comparison, and you cheapen the lives of those who died at Mengele's hand by trying to make one."

Whip pointing out political correctness. Cold day in hell huh.

Gee thanks.

LW POSTS:

Parents must give permission for their children to receive health services from the school clinic BUT ONCE THE CHILD IS IN THE CLINIC, parents will not be notified if their child REQUESTS AND RECEIVES prescription birth control drugs there.

LW, try to understand this is what has a majority of parents up in arms in a campaign to remove the school committee. It's a complete usurption of parental authority. It's the state overstepping its bounds.

And beyond not telling parents, the state is not telling lawful authorities when they discover these children are sexually active...something by state law that must be reported.

What I don't get is why people seem to insist they HAVE to have their children raised in government schools in the first place!

and what do you do with the kids who already had permission. just forget about them.

not everyone on the planet is as smart as you.

Two things: about the process

1---School started at the beginning of September right after Labor Day. Most schools send a slew of papers, notifications, including permission slips to be read and signed and returned a couple of weeks before school even begins. Others get these slips signed within a very few days of the beginning of school.

This outragious, repugnant school board ruling wasn't in effect then.

2---When parents of 11, 12 and 13 year olds sign the permission slip for their child to go to the health room or clinic, it's usually with the understanding their child will be given a tylenol, their meds as needed, or a bandage for their skinned knee....not prescription birth control pills.

Parents need transparency, not secrecy, when dealing with schools.

Daniel,

Keep it on your own thread!

What I don't get is why people aren't clamouring from the roof tops for vouchers or tax credits for those who want to have their their children educated any where OTHER than government schools!

Because I don't want the government in my home, lula. And if they're paying for our homeschool materials, they will dictate to us what we may teach, rather than allowing us the choice.

you state the above meaning you dont understand why not everyone is as smart as you and home school. then you take what i said as a personal attack that had nothing to do with this thread.

Oh, for sure, I know what you're saying. You fear that with the voucher or tax credit will come with certain government tentacles.

It's similiar to Catholic schools given certain government grants. In order to get the grant, the school had to implement x, y, and z of government education. There's been many a Catholic school that have lost their way with this Faustian deal.



But, Gid, wouldn't that depend on the way the voucher or tax credit was defined and implemented?

For example, people get tax exemptions for owning their home, so why couldn't those people who don't use the government schools get a tax exemption? That would eliminate the government providing parts of the curriculum, wouldn't it?

No, Lula, you don't get it. I don't believe in government money for these programs at all. This is not the responsibility of the government, and it's certainly not their responsibility to pay for the private education of my children.

I'd rather see people homeschool and remove the money from the tax base altogether. We're becoming far too dependent on big brother.



No, that wasn't what I said at all.

Daniel, you have a personal problem with me. Please confine that personal problem to your own thread. I will not pollute KFC's blog with it, and I have let Karma know you're following me through the forums doing this.

I will not explain my answer because I'm not going to continue this fight with you on someone else's thread. Nobody else seemed to have the comprehension problem that you did!

No, Daniel, with all due respect, I think you misunderstood Gid's comment. Read it again carefully and you'll see that Gid, like so many of us, is more frustrated over the monoply that public schools have and with seemingly no easy way for those parents who can't or won't do anything about it for whatever reason.

This is what I'm saying, Gid. This is how it could work without complication or difficulty. If our children aren't participating in the public system, taking up a desk, etc., then a portion of our tax dollars that goes toward public education should be exempted.

no i got that meaning. but it was the way he said it





i don't have any kids but if i did they would have gone to public school and i would have corrected anything that i thought needed to be corrected.

I see it small word time:

People no have to have kids in public school.

People no complainey when public school not be what they want it to be.

People have other choices.

Do I need to make it a PICTURE blog?

Like I said, leave it alone. Your PERSONAL differences with me don't belong here!

Little Whip, yes, parental consent is required to use the clinic, but once that permission is given, the clinic won't release any information to them.

Yes, I do consider any government official who systemicatically keeps parents out of the education and medical decisions of their kids "Mengeles". The difference between that and the "Little Eichman" statement is, the people in the World Trade Center weren't doing anything that would qualify them as "Little Eichmans" The fascist, anti parent, Marxists that run the Portland Maine School Board did!

Very interesting ParaTed.

The reality is that some parents don't give a hoot about turning their kids over to the State. Drop em off at the doorstep, no questions asked. If the Dems get their way, they'll lower the age of mandatory public education to 4, then after a while it'll be 3.

This is something just short of Communisism...where kids from the age of 5 are physically given over to the state to be indoctrinated into Godless Communism. It's happening in Cuba, N. Vietnam, China, and N. Korea.

Very retarded combination of words. Fascist and Marxist go together about as well as sardines and peanut butter. Best go read up on your political philosophy before you start throwing those loaded words into nonsensical statements . . .

Ok, I'll just say Totalitarianists.

Well I certainly don't want the Whip to keep whipping her head against the wall so maybe she should consider this:

Even if you DON'T give your child permission, what is going to stop another child from sharing or getting the pills for your daughter against your permission?

Also, what if you want your child to use the clinic to take her meds or inhaler etc in the clinic but are now afraid to have your child use the clinic at all?

I find this whole thing very interesting given the fact that up until now we coaches/teachers are NOT even allowed to give a child an advil for a headache.

A child with permissive parents doesn't NEED a school clinic to provide BC. So this really changes nothing.

Well I think it does. The school handing out BC pills is going to step up the accessibility percentage a whole lot higher than before. Before all this, an appointment with a doctor would have to be made by the parents and these parents would have to shell out the money for both the appt and the meds usually done when the parents suspect their girl is engaging in sex.

So if she's got a boyfriend...no way is she going to share her pills. And if her parents are paying? Little Tammy's out of luck. Poor girl. She gets pregnant.

Now all that has to be done is sign the permission slip and away she goes. Don't worry about payment. The taxpayers got that covered.

I didn't ignore your point. It just isn't relevant or correct. There are always mix ups and misinterpretations by parents who are deluged with lots of things to sign at work and for kids. Certainly you don't want there to even be the possibility of a mix up here. The point maybe be silly but recall just how many bureaucratic mix ups there are in modern education.

Not signing permission slips does not guarantee that BC won't be disseminated by some other means, "with the best interests of the children at heart" or by sharing by friends.

The overall point, educators and educational institutions should be providing students with an education. Where certain students need to have access to controlled substances, (medications) and lots do, the schools need to ensure the student who is has a prescription takes it, and not someone else.

When it comes to birth control, there is no need for students to take it at school, nor is there a need for it to be disseminated to an age group of children. It doesn't make sense to offer to children birth control for any reason. To do so will only encourage younger and younger sexual experimentation. Which is not the direction public schools should be encouraging students to go. Duh.

The point I made which you have yet to counter, is that parents probably don't want to be sending their children to school where birth control is available at the 11,12,13 year old level, or even under 18. It is not legal for students to be engaging in the behavior.

It's akin to offering cigarettes to fourth graders because eventually they will start to smoke. WTF?

I don't want my kids and I'm quite sure that other parents don't want their's going to a school that offers cigarettes to students or birth control, both activities of which are illegal. Smoking, though stupid, and hazardous long term, and radically addictive with the first pack, will not screwup a 13 year olds life instantly and irreparibly.

Having birth control dispensed to another student, even with parental consent, and having that student coerce an illicit sexual encounter with my child, possibly having the birth control method fail, resulting in my 13 old being pregnant is a screwup that will instantly and irreparably harm my minor child. This is not a scenario I want to entertain or have to work to prevent with a child. Nobody else wants to deal with that either.

As children mature, and become more and more interested in dating or the opposite sex, highschool, the role of a parent and educators may change. I can see clearly how the role of a parent changes from protector to guider. Children at ages 10,11,12,13 are not prepared or able to make their own life decisions and should not be equipped or encouraged to be making them before they are ready, by the government or educators.

Educators job is to teach, the more they stick to that the better.

If you even ask an 11 or 12 year old, do they even prefer to concentrate on the opposite sex? Doubt it, so why should educators be pushing unnatural and unethical choices on students.

Do you want to be come sexually active before it's legal and you are emotionally and physically ready?
Do you want to introduce the possibility of acquiring a life long STD?
Do you want to be stigmatized for the rest of you public school career if you do get pregnant?

I mean come on, we should be encouraging our kids to enjoy their kid life. This decision is wrong and clearly nobody is better served by children having access to birth control.

Bingo!