Jump to content

Menu

"I have ownership of your children".


Recommended Posts

Said by the elementary school principal at a meeting I attended last night. I don't know what the other parents thought or if they noticed but I wasn't happy about that. Dh wasn't either. To put it mildly.

 

I would not have been happy either but while the school does not have "ownership" of your children they are considered in loco parentis. Poor wording on the part of the principal for sure, but that is essentially the legal case when your child is in ps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not have been happy either but while the school does not have "ownership" of your children they are considered in loco parentis. Poor wording on the part of the principal for sure, but that is essentially the legal case when your child is in ps.

 

In Loco Parentis is what I would have said too. Temporary responsibility for ('in the place of the parent') rather than ownership of.

 

Laura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a poor choice of words for sure, but it would depend on the context whether or not it bothered me. If it was "I have ownership of your children during school hours and I will do everything in my power to ensure that they get a good education and keep them safe" it wouldn't bother me in the least. If it was a more arrogant context then . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not down with anyone, including me and my husband, thinking they "own" my sons. That's just hubris, no matter how you dice it. Being in charge of during the day does not imply ownership. I would hope that the principal was trying, and failing, to say that he or she takes ownership/accepts responsibility for his or her students' educations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a poor choice of words for sure, but it would depend on the context whether or not it bothered me. If it was "I have ownership of your children during school hours and I will do everything in my power to ensure that they get a good education and keep them safe" it wouldn't bother me in the least. If it was a more arrogant context then . .

 

Honestly, I would probably end up giggling and wondering if the principal would be willing to pick up the grocery tab for our son, since he owned him and all.

 

Poor choice of words though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like a buzzword that get bandied about in professional meetings all the time. The word choice is not appropriate for parent-school interactions, but I can see district administrators nattering on about "taking ownership of the children's education" or "we need to own our efforts to press forward the new paradigm of teaching organically." Blech.

 

What he probably meant: your kids are my responsibility when they are at school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of those public school mentality things that bugs the carp out of me. It's up there with having to jump thru hoops to see my daughter during the school day. I can't just go to the classroom and get her; they have to have a note, and she has to come to the office, and I have to sign in as a visitor and have to sign her in and out, like a freakin' prison, and blahblahblah.

 

Whew. Sorry for the vent.

 

I get what he was trying to say, I just don't like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Loco Parentis is what I would have said too. Temporary responsibility for ('in the place of the parent') rather than ownership of.

 

Laura

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

I have a question for the OP too: is this school 100% white? Because I know minorities who would have a really, really hard time with someone in a position of authority claiming "ownership" of their children.

 

I get what he was saying. Heck as far as I am concerned, that attitude is yet another reason to homeschool. But since slavery had such a devestating impact upon our entire society and since it still occurs in many parts of the world even now, I think that "pride of ownership" is a very dangerous display and I'd personally question the judgment of any official who stated it.

 

What I'm trying to say is, perhaps this person couldn't think of the correct Latin term. Or perhaps he really does feel like he "owns" people. And children are people. They are smaller and often dirtier but they still ARE people. One means he had a brain fart or he just is an idiot. Idiots happen.

 

But the latter? Whew. Not around my kids! At least not without me calling you out on it.

 

We live in the age of cell phone cameras. We need to face that and speak much more consciously in our public lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In our former school, it would have been a less benign meaning. They said outright, and told the kids that now that they were in school, the teachers and principal had more say over rules and their lives than families and parents, both in and out of school, and that in case of a conflict (in or out of school) to follow school rules, not parents. They were very particular about guns (we are in an upper class suburban area, not a gang area or violent area); they were not to even say, 'gun' or use their fingers to play guns at home, and Mom and Dad didn't have the authority, apparently, to say differently.

 

Needless to say, since my kids are Nerf armed to the teeth and DS the elder owns a BB gun, but hates violating rules this presented a conflict, resolved when I met with principal and teachers and explained that primary rule-making, at home or school, resided with ME. If they wanted easy compliance with homework, dress codes, and behavioral policies, they had better respect ME because my children behaved at school with MY support from home, which they would not have if they undermined the family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In our former school, it would have been a less benign meaning. They said outright, and told the kids that now that they were in school, the teachers and principal had more say over rules and their lives than families and parents, both in and out of school, and that in case of a conflict (in or out of school) to follow school rules, not parents. They were very particular about guns (we are in an upper class suburban area, not a gang area or violent area); they were not to even say, 'gun' or use their fingers to play guns at home, and Mom and Dad didn't have the authority, apparently, to say differently.

 

Needless to say, since my kids are Nerf armed to the teeth and DS the elder owns a BB gun, but hates violating rules this presented a conflict, resolved when I met with principal and teachers and explained that primary rule-making, at home or school, resided with ME. If they wanted easy compliance with homework, dress codes, and behavioral policies, they had better respect ME because my children behaved at school with MY support from home, which they would not have if they undermined the family.

 

I would have absolutely flipped my lid. Holy crappoly, Batman! (or as my two year old likes to say with dramatic effect, "Daaaaang!"). We would have had a meeting he would never forget.

 

:boxing_smiley:

 

Of course, I live in a rural area where everyone likes guns and if you don't it's usually best to keep it to yourself because you'll be seen as a "special" person. When I went to school half the guys came to school with guns on racks in their trucks and no one thought anything of it. They also carried knives on their belts and no one thought anything of it. A lot of them (the 11th-12th graders) belonged to the fire department and carried a pager, and would need to leave during the school day, and no one thought anything of it. Huh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parents and children don't like decision but were told it didn't matter. We told younger dd she can come back to hsing if she wants but it is her choice. The term was used in context of it being the principal's decision. And yes,the school is 99.5%white. Rural,upper to lower middle class mostly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oooh, it's like that quote from a Texas federal judge who said something (in court) like, "parents give up their rights when they drop children off at public school." Whatever the intention, it's not ok with me (particularly when I read what that case was actually over but even just in general it is still not ok with me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor choice of wording, I think. Granted, I wasn't there and don't have a clue what the tone/implied meaning was.

 

Here's how I would have taken it. I have heard similar phraseology used while at work (I'm a nurse.) While I do not have "ownership" of you while you are a patient under my care, I do have a stewardship - a rather hefty, legally binding responsibility for you at that point. In a sense, I take "ownership" of your care. That's how I would have understood it. Again, very poor choice of words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone stand up and challenge him? He needs to be put in his place and be reminded that (1) nobody owns the children ... they are not property and (2) He has stewardship, which, of course, implies that he is answerable to you, the parents. People like that need to be pushed of their lofty pedestals of their own making. They need people to not be sheep, but rams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a poor choice of words for sure, but it would depend on the context whether or not it bothered me. If it was "I have ownership of your children during school hours and I will do everything in my power to ensure that they get a good education and keep them safe" it wouldn't bother me in the least. If it was a more arrogant context then . .

 

:iagree:

 

I "take ownership" of the work I do for clients. That means I care as much as they do that it gets done right. It doesn't take anything away from their rights etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bold. So does that statement change anything for you?

 

 

I'm curious too.

 

Let's be truthful here... He was just stating the truth rather than putting it in politically correct terms. He does. He will control what your children will be introduced to, what they will be taught, much of what values they will learn and absorb. He has them for 8-12 hours a day depending on their hobbies. You have them for 2-4. The public school does "own" them. It is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(2) He has stewardship, which, of course, implies that he is answerable to you, the parents.

 

To stir the pot - I know we'd LIKE to believe this - it's very comforting. However, is it true? We all know the principal cannot answer to every parent. He does what is best in the interests of his school, not the individual student nor the individual family, nor the parents.

 

And if this is true, then isn't it more of a like it or lump it scenario? I certainly think his WORDING could have been more PC and fuzzy to the feelings of the parents, but at the end of the day, taking out the PC talk - doesn't he get to make the final decisions for your child while he/she is at school? And if you disagree then you essentially either deal with it or pull them out and go somewhere else? While your child is at his school you have precious little decision, input, or control. We're just not so accustomed to realizing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Public school personnel and politicians also use the phrase "our children" a lot. And the way they say it DOESN'T sound as though they mean "we respectfully watch over your children for eight hours each weekday and then give them back to you, their rightful guardians."

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parents and children don't like decision but were told it didn't matter. We told younger dd she can come back to hsing if she wants but it is her choice. The term was used in context of it being the principal's decision. And yes,the school is 99.5%white. Rural,upper to lower middle class mostly.

Eek. :001_huh:

So obviously he wasn't just trying to say he's responsible while they're at school.

 

If the parents already weren't happy with his decision, I can't imagine this made them any happier.

 

It sounds like, "I have the power, and I will do whatever I want".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe what he meant was just that he is responsible for them while they are in school, or even that he is responsible for educating the students in the school.

 

But he actually is responsible for more than just their education while they are in his school. He must take "ownership" of many aspects of their lives. From that perspective, and the fact that parents don't have a say in many aspect of the general curriculum or other school policies, he really does "own" those children much more than I am comfortable with. Just one reason I choose to home educate mine.

 

I'm curious too.

 

Let's be truthful here... He was just stating the truth rather than putting it in politically correct terms. He does. He will control what your children will be introduced to, what they will be taught, much of what values they will learn and absorb. He has them for 8-12 hours a day depending on their hobbies. You have them for 2-4. The public school does "own" them. It is what it is.

 

:iagree: If we had more open conversation about this truth, perhaps it would lead to real education reform...

Edited by Amy in NH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by BlsdMama viewpost.gif

I'm curious too.

 

Let's be truthful here... He was just stating the truth rather than putting it in politically correct terms. He does. He will control what your children will be introduced to, what they will be taught, much of what values they will learn and absorb. He has them for 8-12 hours a day depending on their hobbies. You have them for 2-4. The public school does "own" them. It is what it is.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parents and children don't like decision but were told it didn't matter.

What was the decision regarding? The truth is that sometimes TPTB have to make decisions based on far more information and experiences than the parents have knowledge about, for the sake of all the children in the school, whether the parents like it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parents and children don't like decision but were told it didn't matter. We told younger dd she can come back to hsing if she wants but it is her choice. The term was used in context of it being the principal's decision. And yes,the school is 99.5%white. Rural,upper to lower middle class mostly.

 

What was the decision? Is everyone going to abide by it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would object strongly. Ownership implies rights based upon his property interests. What he has is a passel of duties, and rights based upon his duties. A school, unlike parents, has no property interest in children (the fundamental right of families has roots in Constitutional protection of property rights--it's reciprocal, so it's interpretable as you own the relationship, rather than the person).

 

This would prompt me to read the school policies very, very closely, and put them on notice preemptively if I thought any of them infringed on my or my children's rights. Take an especially close look at any policies that infring on autonomy outside of school hours and school related activities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like a buzzword that get bandied about in professional meetings all the time. The word choice is not appropriate for parent-school interactions, but I can see district administrators nattering on about "taking ownership of the children's education" or "we need to own our efforts to press forward the new paradigm of teaching organically." Blech.

 

What he probably meant: your kids are my responsibility when they are at school.

 

:iagree:

 

Its a business term that means having a stake in something/taking responsibility for the success of something.

 

Employees should take "ownership" over their job. That does not mean they own the company. They take responsibility for success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oooh, it's like that quote from a Texas federal judge who said something (in court) like, "parents give up their rights when they drop children off at public school." Whatever the intention, it's not ok with me (particularly when I read what that case was actually over but even just in general it is still not ok with me).

 

:iagree:That sort of thinking by schools is probably somewhere in the top 5 reasons I homeschool. When authorities say things like that I am not inclined to trust them at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it matters in what context it was spoken. Only then can you decide if it was a poor choice of words, or intentional. This is how things get all out of focus. One sentence, a sound-bite, and everyone gets their bristles up and conspiracy theorists have their hey-day.

It seems so much more logical to hear the entire conversation of something. How can there be a intelligent discussion without content?

 

I mean this in the general sense, although it fits for this thread, too.

 

:iagree:

 

It's one line out of context spoken on one night. Too many variables, from a slip in grammar to poor wording to clarification in the preceeding or following sentences, exist for me to get worked up about this.

 

As it is it's just a rather useless statement that some of us can hang our own issues on and tells us nothing about the speaker or his intentions at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In our former school, it would have been a less benign meaning. They said outright, and told the kids that now that they were in school, the teachers and principal had more say over rules and their lives than families and parents, both in and out of school, and that in case of a conflict (in or out of school) to follow school rules, not parents. They were very particular about guns (we are in an upper class suburban area, not a gang area or violent area); they were not to even say, 'gun' or use their fingers to play guns at home, and Mom and Dad didn't have the authority, apparently, to say differently.

 

Needless to say, since my kids are Nerf armed to the teeth and DS the elder owns a BB gun, but hates violating rules this presented a conflict, resolved when I met with principal and teachers and explained that primary rule-making, at home or school, resided with ME. If they wanted easy compliance with homework, dress codes, and behavioral policies, they had better respect ME because my children behaved at school with MY support from home, which they would not have if they undermined the family.

 

Oooh, it's like that quote from a Texas federal judge who said something (in court) like, "parents give up their rights when they drop children off at public school." Whatever the intention, it's not ok with me (particularly when I read what that case was actually over but even just in general it is still not ok with me).

 

I'm curious too.

 

Let's be truthful here... He was just stating the truth rather than putting it in politically correct terms. He does. He will control what your children will be introduced to, what they will be taught, much of what values they will learn and absorb. He has them for 8-12 hours a day depending on their hobbies. You have them for 2-4. The public school does "own" them. It is what it is.

 

I live in Texas and this sentiment is, sadly, very much true for our suburban town. And probably even more strongly held to in the larger city school districts near us.

 

Early in his 8th grade year, DS14's algebra teacher called me to tell me that he had yet again not turned in a hw assignment. I told her I was aware of it not having been done b/c of the previous night's function and he would turn it in late the following day. She proceeded to tell me that even though he had XYZ concert, she knew for a fact that b/c of the time of the concert, he had plenty of time to have completed his worksheet. She also had the nerve to tell me that she didn't think DS should be in that class b/c obviously he wasn't capable of a pre-AP level algebra class. I laid into her something fierce and told her in no uncertain terms that she DID NOT live in my home and she DID NOT have any say so in what our evening schedule was like. I then reminded her that as I had already stated, I was aware the hw had not been done and would make sure it was done that evening to be turned in the next day.

 

Then, when DS14 got in trouble at school just a few months later, the principal and school district made it very clear to us that regardless of the circumstances, his age, and behavioral history in the school, they were going to follow the letter of their zero tolerance policies and any appeals we made would be denied. This included a mandate allowing the local alternative school the authority to send him to a county school for juvenile offenders if the a-school determined he was a "disruptive student" - without parental approval, consent, or pre-notification. This is also in addition to the school's rule that all incoming students are not allowed to talk on campus to another student for any reason at all during the first 3 weeks at school.

 

DH and I decided it was time to stop letting the village raise our child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view the "ownership" comment a different way than other posters, possibly. I would be afraid that it was chosen subconsciously to avoid responsibility. After all, you have great responsibility when you have stewardship. There is very little implied responsibility when you "own". I would take the comment to mean that he will not feel bad about a substandard education being delivered to you child. But then I listen to speeches for a living and read a lot into a few words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When anyone says something I consider to be totally ridiculous and inflammatory, I will stop them right then and there (if the meeting is a small one) or immediately after the meeting ends (if it involves a large group) and say, "You stated Blah Blah Blah. Can you please clarify what you mean by that?"

 

Then I can find out whether they are just an idiot or whether the sentiment was okay and the words just came out wrong.

 

I would ask the guy what his claimed "ownership" of your child entails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it matters in what context it was spoken. Only then can you decide if it was a poor choice of words, or intentional. This is how things get all out of focus. One sentence, a sound-bite, and everyone gets their bristles up and conspiracy theorists have their hey-day.

It seems so much more logical to hear the entire conversation of something. How can there be a intelligent discussion without content?

 

I mean this in the general sense, although it fits for this thread, too.

 

:iagree: I can't get all worked up about a brief, tightly-edited, context-free quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's one line out of context spoken on one night. Too many variables, from a slip in grammar to poor wording to clarification in the preceeding or following sentences, exist for me to get worked up about this.

 

I agree. My district's retired superintendent used to send out letters to parents filled with grammatical and spelling errors. I'll cut the principal some slack and assume he means responsibility of the children while at school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I could be optimistic regarding what the principal meant to say but...

when I taught I felt that I worked for the students and their families...my co-workers thought the students and families worked for the school/teacher.

 

In my experience, 'I have ownership of your children' is what he probably believes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in Texas and this sentiment is, sadly, very much true for our suburban town. And probably even more strongly held to in the larger city school districts near us.

 

Early in his 8th grade year, DS14's algebra teacher called me to tell me that he had yet again not turned in a hw assignment. I told her I was aware of it not having been done b/c of the previous night's function and he would turn it in late the following day. She proceeded to tell me that even though he had XYZ concert, she knew for a fact that b/c of the time of the concert, he had plenty of time to have completed his worksheet. She also had the nerve to tell me that she didn't think DS should be in that class b/c obviously he wasn't capable of a pre-AP level algebra class. I laid into her something fierce and told her in no uncertain terms that she DID NOT live in my home and she DID NOT have any say so in what our evening schedule was like. I then reminded her that as I had already stated, I was aware the hw had not been done and would make sure it was done that evening to be turned in the next day.

 

Then, when DS14 got in trouble at school just a few months later, the principal and school district made it very clear to us that regardless of the circumstances, his age, and behavioral history in the school, they were going to follow the letter of their zero tolerance policies and any appeals we made would be denied. This included a mandate allowing the local alternative school the authority to send him to a county school for juvenile offenders if the a-school determined he was a "disruptive student" - without parental approval, consent, or pre-notification. This is also in addition to the school's rule that all incoming students are not allowed to talk on campus to another student for any reason at all during the first 3 weeks at school.

 

DH and I decided it was time to stop letting the village raise our child.

 

I live in Texas. When I homeschooled, I had a job *at* local elementary schools providing before and after school care through the YMCA. I was the first non custodial point of contact each day, and the last.

 

I got there one day and the school was on "lock down." It turns out that a step Dad had killed a mother of 2 of the students, and he was still not apprehended. The kids had been at the school when it happened. Now, I only knew that because a teacher felt it was important that I knew. She mentioned that the students were going home with a notice about the lock down. I went to the front office (mind you, I was fingerprinted, background checked and vetted by the YMCA prior to hiring.) I had been there several months. I worked on campus, with permission. I was going to have *supervisory and care responsibility* over 26 students. I was going to be the one "open" door throughout the afternoon and until 6:30 pm. I asked to see a copy of the letter that was going home with students. After much drama on the part of the staff, AP and Principal, seeing that letter was DENIED.

 

I quit the next day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...