The Morning Call has an article today (read it here) on driver's education in schools.
The article notes that many schools have dropped drivers' education for budget reasons or because of No Child Left Behind which puts an emphasis on traditional coursework. Parents and the AAA are advocating for its reinstatement. The parents mentioned in the article indicate it is critical because of drinking and driving and AAA due to the high number of accidents in the 15-20 age group.
Now there is a state Senate Bill 512, in the Senate education committee that would make the program mandatory and AAA supports it.
What interests me most is the question what should the school provide? To what extent is it the parent's responsibility to provide this opportunity (ie sign child up for a private program) vs. the school's obligation to provide it.
Arguments like this could be made for or against many activities that are and are not supported by the school right now.
In the elementary schools we have Second Step to teach children how to behave in social situations and how to be safe (with strangers etc). Is this the parent's responsibility or the schools?
Some people have come to rely on the schools to raise their kids, while others are troubled by the thought that they do.
Some people look to the schools to provide the recreation facilities their municipality doesn't, while others don't want to see the additional funds being spent without 'need'.
The scope and role of schools is ever changing and as a result should probably be considered from time to time instead of simply creeping this way and that based on the latest interest group's petition.
What do you think? How far beyond core subjects should the school go? How much burden should the taxpayer bear in order to do so? When has the school gone too far?
4 comments:
This is a complicated subject. But lets dwell on the drivers Ed thing. I took driver ed back in 1979 at Freedom High School. Back then it was literally a joke. I think most of the kids skipped it and hung outside. I doubt it did anything for me. It was my father who taught me how to drive.
In a perfect world the parents would be the ones to teach this. It has no place in a academic world. BUT because there are alot of parents who are not responsible, I think the high school is a good medium to have this taught. I would vote for it to be funded, with lots of AAA support for two main reasons.
1) To reduce the numbers of accidents,deaths of these young people
2) To protect my family from these drivers who would not be taught by their parents
Whatever we are doing now is not sufficient because every spring/summer there is atleast one tragedy.
Personally, none of my kids will drive with other kids in the car until they are 18. They alredy know this.
Ditto!!!!!!!!
Nazareth actually has a very generous driver ed program compared to other area schools.
31 schools were compared in the MC article, 12 did not offer classroom instruction and 16 did not offer on the road instruction.
Of the 15 who offered on the road instruction 12 required a fee. Nazareth charged $40. Of those charging a fee one was less (Lehighton $25), one was the same (Panther Valley), one was close (East Penn $50), while the other 8 ranged from $150 to $325 and most were at $265).
I don't disagree there is value, my only point was where is the line drawn?
One could argue that safe handling of a firearm is essential to a child's safety in an area where guns are available in homes. The NRA offers a gun safety course. Should the school offer gun safety?
Some do, though I don't believe any
locally do any more. We close school on the first day of hunting season as a historic understanding that kids would skip to go hunting.
This is only one example and many strong passionate pleas could be made for many subjects and I'm not advocating only pointing it out as there are a great many social issues for the school to address. How do we determine which ones we should and which we shouldn't so there remains time in the day for academic coursework?
I am impressed to learn that NASD has what seems to be a good offering and that it cost extra to opt in. Unfortunately ( i know i will be crtiticized for saying this) but the kids who probably need the classes most, dont have the $40 extra dollars, and unlikely their parents will pay for it. Maybe there is something available for them, but its great to know something more about our HS, as i have 3 kids who will eventually be part of it.
WOW, the comment about having a gun safety course is so right in my opinion, but I am very surprised you brought it up. It is rocket fuel for flamers. But, bring em on!I think it would be great, but have no hope in hell that it would ever be possible. All in all, there are few gun mishaps, and people who own guns legally are very responsible with them, and teach their kids quite well about them. There are always the odd ball wackos and thank god, for now, we dont live in a society like colorado. Beautiful, but just plain stupid when it comes to oommen sense and values.
So, what do you all think, should we start a rally to let the NRA into our schools! I wonder how the politicians would handle that, how about the press? HA! I will go to bed laughing about that tonight. Its 10:25 and all is well in Nazareth (or Tatamy)
Just had another thought and couldnt pass it up. I think we should offer skateboarding safety and a class on how to put litter in garbage cans. Be nice now....
Post a Comment