grampatom wrote:
I guess it's a church/state issue. The school is requiring kids to profess a religious belief.
And I think a majority of parents historically have expected this of public schools, sort of under the in loco parentis doctrine. I.e that teachers take on the responsibilities of kids's parents to act in the kids' best interests...and these parents include in that responsibility the duty to convey the community's religious and patriotism mores.
But is that necessary or desirable?
Interesting observation and question, gramps ~
In my own mind, the "
in loco parentis doctrine" is most appropriate for younger primary grades, when we expect teachers to keep kidlets safe during school hours ~ I am not suggesting that student safety should ever be neglected or that teachers ever stop "acting in the kids' best interests", but it becomes less a focus as the kidlets become more competent in knowing "right" from "wrong" and "safe" from "dangerous" ~ as the students advance and grow, I believe the role of good teachers' morphs into focusing directly on helping the kidlets develop more skills, definitely including inquisitiveness and critical thinking skills ~
I also believe that reciting the pledge of allegiance is a throw-back to an earlier time and an earlier mindset that kidlets should do as told, without thinking/arguing ~ and IS to a certain extent "indoctrination" as oskar says above ~ the kidlets are all individuals, with differing traditions, ideas, and beliefs, and we must recognize and respect that ~ we lose too many important [possibly life-altering] "teaching moments" by insisting on lock-step behavior in all things ~
Sooz