You knew it was coming...free condoms provided for elementary kids at school...

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Thank you -- I appreciate that. I suspect this is one school board that may not be re-elected next time around.

 

And that, folks, is what representative government means. For the people who seem (rather recently, I suspect?) to believe that The State or The Government is some kind of outside agency aside and apart from the American people, one over which we have no control, "representative government" means that if an elected official (such as a school board member or entire school board) ignores the wishes of the majority of her or his constituents, that person will find her- or himself jobless next election.

 

As far as I can tell -- and perhaps others can correct me? -- this condom distribution decision was not even a mandate from The State or The Federal Gubmint. This was a local Provincetown, MA decision made by the Provincetown school board, yes? More small potatoes than Big Brother, I think -- and I also think that American democracy is pretty good at handing folks their walking papers when their wishes are ignored by elected representatives.

 

:iagree::iagree: Also those who work for the government are fellow Americans and are someone's brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, friends, etc. I am tired of hearing of how evil our government is to be honest. It is not perfect, but neither is private industry. I honestly believe that the flaws found in government can also be found in business as well. Plus if someone does not like it then they can vote or run for office;)

[Charles Wallace]

Issues about overstepping appropriate authority go far outside of state or federal "gubmint" (?) agencies. The tendency to limit the freedom of others is very widespread in our current culture, and perhaps the overuse of power by school boards is where its effects are the worst if this is the type of thought process they produce.

 

 

I apologize if I have failed to communicate my point effectively. I will try again in the sincere hope that my point is made more clearly.

 

Because we can vote, the power of government -- including the power of a local school board -- is limited. Here are some things you and I could do if we were parents in that school system:

 

1. Protest -- a right given us by the First Amendment

2. Withdraw our children -- a legal choice in fifty states

3. Vote the school board out

 

Let me also add that this is precisely what happened. In fact, if you wish an outstanding demonstration of why our government works -- and works well -- to express the will of the majority of the people in it at all levels from local school to federal, I actually think this is an outstanding test case. I would like to quote the Fox News article, because I think they said it best:

 

"At 1:42 the AP ran the story.

At 3 p.m., according to Singer's secretary, the school board were facing “shell shock” from the number of people who had called.

At 4 p.m. the school board cracked."

 

So in short -- unless my math is wrong -- it took less than three hours for the people to express (and get) their will. Rather than being an example of oppressive government, I find it an example of quite the opposite.

 

I hope I've been more clear this time. Please do let me know.

 

As I stated in my other post, this type of assessment is no less frustrating than one that says people who agree with this policy also "like" the policy. There is no need to characterize people as "foolish" or "paranoid" about the "gubmint" if they question or doubt a particular policy's efficacy or the authority to create such a policy. And while some people seem to think that "slippery slope" concerns are not worthy of taking seriously, I have never understood that as they are often the only ones to worry about.

 

Tea Time, I'm sure you are aware that putting words in the mouths of others is a dishonorable and deceptive tactic, so perhaps you were not referring to me when you made your bolded statement above and put the words "foolish" or "paranoid" in quotation marks? I have not exhaustively read all posts, so perhaps I missed when another poster did so?

 

Thank you, and I hope my post has helped our mutual understanding.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Charles Wallace

[Tea Time]

I apologize if I have failed to communicate my point effectively. I will try again in the sincere hope that my point is made more clearly.

 

Because we can vote, the power of government -- including the power of a local school board -- is limited. Here are some things you and I could do if we were parents in that school system:

 

1. Protest -- a right given us by the First Amendment

2. Withdraw our children -- a legal choice in fifty states

3. Vote the school board out

 

Let me also add that this is precisely what happened. In fact, if you wish an outstanding demonstration of why our government works -- and works well -- to express the will of the majority of the people in it at all levels from local school to federal, I actually think this is an outstanding test case. I would like to quote the Fox News article, because I think they said it best:

 

"At 1:42 the AP ran the story.

At 3 p.m., according to Singer's secretary, the school board were facing “shell shock” from the number of people who had called.

At 4 p.m. the school board cracked."

 

So in short -- unless my math is wrong -- it took less than three hours for the people to express (and get) their will. Rather than being an example of oppressive government, I find it an example of quite the opposite.

 

I hope I've been more clear this time. Please do let me know.

Yes, thank you, this is more clear with less innuendo. My point would be that it happened this way exactly because people will not tolerate this type of encroaching control. It is the disapproval expressed on this board that checked this overreach not the lukewarm agreement that stopped it.

 

Tea Time, I'm sure you are aware that putting words in the mouths of others is a dishonorable and deceptive tactic, so perhaps you were not referring to me when you made your bolded statement above and put the words "foolish" or "paranoid" in quotation marks? I have not exhaustively read all posts, so perhaps I missed when another poster did so?

 

Thank you, and I hope my post has helped our mutual understanding.

Now wait a minute, I did not put words in anyone's mouth, I pointed out that certain ways of expressing things insinuate certain attitudes. When you suggest that people on this board do not understand representative government that insinuates a mild kind of "foolishness." When you invoke the words "big brother" you call on a measure of "paranoia." When you use the word "gubmint" you bring up a subtle stereotype. These are subtle ways to undermine someone's position rather than look at the specific issues people brought up about this particular policy. My quote marks are not quotes from you but a way to show the connection between the words you wrote and the ideas they suggest.

 

The arguments against this policy made in this thread are exactly why this policy has been crushed. And rightfully so.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Tea Time
clarification

[Charles Wallace]

My quote marks are not quotes from you but a way to show the connection between the words you wrote and the ideas they suggest.

 

 

Thank you for your clarification.

The arguments against this policy made in this thread are exactly why this policy has been crushed. And rightfully so.

 

I am grateful -- as, I'm sure, are you -- that the government we have established allows our views to be heard and (if they are in the majority) responded to.

[Leav97]

 

"At 1:42 the AP ran the story.

At 3 p.m., according to Singer's secretary, the school board were facing “shell shock†from the number of people who had called.

At 4 p.m. the school board cracked."

 

So in short -- unless my math is wrong -- it took less than three hours for the people to express (and get) their will. Rather than being an example of oppressive government, I find it an example of quite the opposite.

 

 

I'm all in favor of the local policy being overturned by the locals. I do wonder how many of the calls were from the locals and how many were from the rest of the country. I don't think the rest of the country should get a say in the policy.

 

From what little I've seen (I only watched the CNN video) my impression is that they created a policy to have condoms available for anyone who requests it and didn't put an age limit. I think the whole "handing condoms to 1st graders" is an example of how the media intentionally influences opinions. My bet, based on very limited knowledge is the school board created the policy without considering how the media would report. I doubt they were intending K-4's to be receiving condoms and didn't think the people would declare "free condoms provided for elementary kids".

[happyWImom]

 

Certainly not. That is why I said (and I've included my original quote for your reference above) that "I'm sure you're not [an unscrupulous arguer]," which is why I advised against using a "tainted tactic" often employed by those who are.

 

 

The issue was not whether you were expressing your fears and concerns. The issue was whether the fears and concerns you were expressing were a) relevant to the discussion at hand or b) being used as an inflammatory and unethical argumentative tactic. Though I granted you right away that "b" was not the case, I do continue to believe that "a" is also not the case. I am afraid of cockroaches (or I find them repellent to a point that approaches fear). That, however, is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

 

 

Please pardon me if I misrepresent your statement, which I certainly do not mean to, but your previous statement was (if I recall) a blanket statement that students weren't allowed to pray in school, even to themselves. Yes, of course you were talking about "the whole issue of prayer in school." I assumed you were, and although it was not needed, I do appreciate your clarification on this point. However, you were, as far as I understand you, not factually correct in your statement.

 

 

 

The problem is, you were not credible -- and of course, I speak for myself. However, I would certainly be willing to believe you if you were able to provide evidence for your in-credible statements. For example, people directly quoted the original article about the school board not accepting parents' refusals or protests, something I was initially skeptical about. They were kind enough to back up their statements, and I am thankful to them that they did so. I absolutely believe that statement now; it has been proven.

 

This being a free country, you are welcome to state anything you wish. I can exclaim that golden unicorns live in my ears. Without proof of my ear-inhabiting golden unicorns, though, I should not expect to be taken quite seriously.

 

Okay, Mr. Wallace, I think this is getting to be a little bit out of hand here. I am willing to make comments and have discussions on this board, and feel many of the posters here are friends, even if we haven't met. And, I don't have the same views as many of them, but that's okay. I still like them, and I still welcome their opinions, even if they differ from mine. I also believe that the majority of them get into many of the discussions, (even if they become heated) because they genuinely care. I don't know you, but just based on your posts on this thread, I am not getting a feeling that you are posting out of genuine concern or caring. Your methods seem almost attacking-in a semi disguised way. If I am mistaken, I apologize. However, I am not going to continue to "engage" you, or try and defend my opinions. And to compare my comments on the state trying to take control to saying that you have unicorns in yours ears is not only ridiculous, but completely condescending.

[Diana B]

I haven't read all 26 pages of comments about this - and from what I see the comments have turned slightly away from the original topic. But my only question - are there 'child size' condoms? Because if you give my 6 yr old (who doesn't have a clue what they are, what they would be used for, or even what sex is) a condom, it certainly wouldn't FIT him if he actually wanted to use it.

 

I would imagine that until maybe age 10? 12? A boy wouldn't be able to actually use a condom effectively if they wanted to....

[Charles Wallace]

Okay, Mr. Wallace, I think this is getting to be a little bit out of hand here. I am willing to make comments and have discussions on this board, and feel many of the posters here are friends, even if we haven't met. And, I don't have the same views as many of them, but that's okay. I still like them, and I still welcome their opinions, even if they differ from mine. I also believe that the majority of them get into many of the discussions, (even if they become heated) because they genuinely care. I don't know you, but just based on your posts on this thread, I am not getting a feeling that you are posting out of genuine concern or caring. Your methods seem almost attacking-in a semi disguised way. If I am mistaken, I apologize. However, I am not going to continue to "engage" you, or try and defend my opinions. And to compare my comments on the state trying to take control to saying that you have unicorns in yours ears is not only ridiculous, but completely condescending.

 

I would prefer to have comments that add little to the understanding of the issue to be directed via PMs, which I think is probably the board policy. I regret that you find my example (which was intended to be humorous) to be condescending, but please be aware that in any responsible discussion, each speaker is responsible for the validity of his or her words. State something with limited foundation in fact, and it is a natural consequence that credibility will be lost.

 

To reiterate, I am grateful to those who took the time to clarify my understanding of the school board's disregard of parental opinions. I believe that this was not only an ethically wrong choice on the school board's part, but a stupid one -- so stupid, in fact, that I was skeptical that this was the case. I was mistaken, and I am glad that others pointed me in the right direction.

[Ester Maria]

Sure. Here's a link to the National School Lunch Program.

 

I also wonder about your opinion on things such as guidance counsellors talking to children about things other than academics. Do you think that also crosses the line? (My school guidance counselor was instrumental to my wellbeing as a teen... but I don't think we ever discussed academics at one of our dozens of meetings.)

 

I think an argument could be made that having a healthy meal or access to a guidance counselor is helpful to insuring solid academic performance. But then, that same argument could be made against teen pregnancy and STDs, as it's pretty hard to do well in school when you're dealing with a newborn or wondering if you're about to die from AIDS.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative, btw. As I said previously, I mostly agree with your assessment of the ideal school environment, were the reality of such a thing possible. I just don't see how it could possibly fly in our society, unless we were willing to ignore the basic needs of a whole lot of little people.

I hear what you saying and it is indeed very challenging for my position. :)

 

Generally, when we talk about children, I *DO* really believe that one is not to be "first formalists, and then care". I don't think a child should be negated help with regards to something because we blindly stick to a "principle" that that's not done at school. On the other hand, I see a problem with institutionalizing those types of activities in school (psychological help, etc.) since they don't essentially belong there. I would be more favorable of the approach of turning children who express the need for something like that to other relevant institutions, and for the whole process to happen outside of school and unrelated to school.

 

That's more or less how it functioned by us when I went to school. You either had informal talks with an adult you trusted, or were referred by him/her to an institution that might help you and that deals with your problems - public health offices, social service, depending on the type of the problem. We actually didn't formally have a counselor of that type at all at school, I heard about the concept in the States. We had a psychologist, but her function was more the one of a mediator between "institutions" and the school, there was no such thing as regularly going to talk to her or something of the kind.

 

I don't know what's my stance on free lunch, though. I can see it being problematic as well (the choice of food; what about religious minorities which cannot eat all of the food; what about people who want their children to eat a specific diet; macrobiotics etc.) and as a sort of unnecessary interfering (one may opt out, though), but I'm not sure it's quite the same thing as the topic discussed here.

Yes. I'd love for Planned Parenthood or other health/social agencies to deal with this, but how would a kid that age access them? As well, there are those who are critical of these agencies.

 

How would you like to see it handled outside of simply saying it's a family matter? I appreciate your viewpoint and the polite discussion.

I'd like it to be dealt with outside of the school setting, and with those agencies "advertising" themselves in the public sphere and both children and parents being made aware of their existence and purpose, it could help with the older children. With the younger ones, I really don't know, but I would assume that they would be admitted as well. In any case I still don't think schools should interfere as I still hold the school's function to be something completely different, though I'm fully aware of the "side effects" of my position.

[Charles Wallace]

I hear what you saying and it is indeed very challenging for my position. :)

 

Generally, when we talk about children, I *DO* really believe that one is not to be "first formalists, and then care". I don't think a child should be negated help with regards to something because we blindly stick to a "principle" that that's not done at school. On the other hand, I see a problem with institutionalizing those types of activities in school (psychological help, etc.) since they don't essentially belong there. I would be more favorable of the approach of turning children who express the need for something like that to other relevant institutions, and for the whole process to happen outside of school and unrelated to school.

 

I think you're bringing up an extraordinarily important idea, one that I think gets to the heart of a central issue with schools: What is the primary purpose of school?

 

As classical educationists (Is that a word?), my guess is that we believe the primary purpose of school is (or should be) to teach the fundamental grammar, language, mathematical concepts, science, and literature most relevant to this culture.

 

I think we're all familiar with people who disagree, who believe the primary purpose of school is to "socialize" students, to teach them how to function in society -- an ideology I personally find dubious at best, invasive at worst.

 

Perhaps we as a society need to decide what school is for -- education or socialization -- and to do what you're suggesting, Ester Maria, and essentially "outsource" those non-educational issues which invariably crop up when you're dealing with children: emotional issues, poverty, psychological trauma, and so on. I've often been skeptical that school guidance counselors, for example, have sufficient professional training to deal in the best manner possible with (for instance) a suicidal student. Perhaps this is unfair, and I'm sure this varies from counselor to counselor, of course, but on the whole, I would be more comfortable if my child were to talk with a fully licensed psychologist or a comparable professional.

[TravelingChris]

I have a lot of problems with the program starting with keeping all the information from the parents. But the main point I want to make is that it is almost exclusively only some girls in elementary school who would be having sex unless the school had kids that were way older than 12 ( the normal ending age for 6th grade). Even in studies of teen girls up to 16, most of the ones who had sex had it with adult males or at least uch older teenagers. We are taking crimes here. This is not simply underage consentual behavior. An 11 year old having sex with an 18 or 20 year old is a predatory act. That 11 yo cannot legally nor psychologically give consent because she does not have the mental maturity to do so particularly with the much older man. Not only does a young child like this have a very big chance of being abused by her partner (or perpetrator) but if she is having sex with a only slightly older male at that young age, there is a very big chance that she had or is still being abused sexually by someone else.

I think that those of us who have had 10-12 year old children can think how they weren't ready on any level for this kind of activity. Get a sports program going, have fun afterschool activities, get a mentoring program going if the school has this kind of problem. BUt handing out condoms to clearly very underaged children only contributes to the victimization of children.

 

With regards to bc pill prescriptions, there are serious side effects possible from them and it is essential to get proper medical history including parents and hopefully grandparents. You don't want to be prescribing these to people who have a early heart history or early stroke issue or even those like my family- very strong migraine problems which were exacerbated with BC pills.

 

Oh, and I agree with Esther Maria about the role of the schools. I think way to much time is spent on non academic frivolities. Like a school I knew where the Spanish the kids learned was how to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and that's it. What the purpose of this was is baffling to me. I don't have issues with learning Spanish but there are plenty of more useful things to do instead of memorizing the Pledge in it.

[Tea Time]

I'm all in favor of the local policy being overturned by the locals. I do wonder how many of the calls were from the locals and how many were from the rest of the country. I don't think the rest of the country should get a say in the policy.

This is a good question, and I tend to agree with the bolded part at a certain level, but you do have to remember that no place lives in a vacuum. Policies in one area can create a president that other areas will refer to when doing the same thing. I think if an area wants to deal with an issue, they will also need to deal with the impact of their method.

 

From what little I've seen (I only watched the CNN video) my impression is that they created a policy to have condoms available for anyone who requests it and didn't put an age limit. I think the whole "handing condoms to 1st graders" is an example of how the media intentionally influences opinions. My bet, based on very limited knowledge is the school board created the policy without considering how the media would report. I doubt they were intending K-4's to be receiving condoms and didn't think the people would declare "free condoms provided for elementary kids".

It is the purpose of the media to bring up things that are extreme. It is the extreme portion of this policy that makes it obviously absurd, but giving condoms to children without parent involvement is a hot issue even at older ages. The actual arguments against this policy hold up even with older children and teens, so while the media may have been a sort of "tattle tale" that is kind of a good thing in this instance, and that is exactly what it is supposed to do.

[mommaduck]

Going off of the whole medical history thing are also issues of allergies (latex, spermicide...there are those that are allergic to one or both)