>When looking at the problem we see the both sides blaming each >other, when it actually takes both of them for education to work. >Now as to whose place is it to actually inspire children to learn. >The obvious choice is the educators, after all why spend that much >money and that much of your life devoted to education, when you >can't even encourage learning. If all parents were qualified >educators, there would be no need for the public school system or >teachers at all. > > As for the parents, their role should not be supplemental, but > should be a compliment to the teachers role. The parents should not > take up for teachers "slack", but rather should have more > communication with teachers and see what and how they are teaching > the children.
As with OPM (Other People's Money - so easy for politicians, public schools, and often even corporations to spend), you must be talking about OPC (Children). Funniest thing about responsible parents, for some silly reason they want to make sure that their children are educated. You know, that mammalian instinct to teach offspring to survive - even thrive - in their environment.
The fact of the matter is, (before we dropped out) I tried very hard to help support my son's schools and beyond, my local public district improve its elementary school mathematics program and the committee was delighted to have a university mathematician participating. As long as they could use my name and not adopt any of my recommendations. The same was true in my first state-level function, a member of a subcommittee of the Credential Commission to assist ETS to prepare a new test for certification of teachers of mathematics and to make other recommendations to the Commission itself. I was the token mathematician of the committee and was trumped in almost every suggestion that I made. Surprising to me, was that ETS brought an example of the kind of mathematics competency test they had in mind complete with items and multiple-choice responses. It was written by an ABD in mathematics from nearby (for them) Princeton and my recommendation was to just give them our blessing and go home. "We" rejected every item suggested and came back with purely constructivist BS as an "authentic" assessment. That was in late 1988 with the NCTM "Standards" scheduled to come out the following March. What I did not know was that a draft had been circulating among these "experts" since 1987 and, if these folks could hardly wait for the final product, it had to be bad. Of course it was but I had the privilege of being opposed before it ever came out. The same crap I had been fighting the math ed folks over for decades. Fortunately the School of Education was diagonally across campus and neither of us could throw a hand-grenade that far.