Can someone explain to me in simple terms. USA elections

I think it sort of depends on what age X is, personally...if my 15 year old is getting condoms, etc, that's one thing, if my nine year old is I'd like to know what the hell for!

Because faith matters enough for many people that they would like it to be part of their child's daily life at school. But let's leave that one alone. It's complicated and nothing to do with an election in a country where faith schools are already banned from state funding by Constitution.

Apart from Piglet's puzzling direct contradiction to what I said upon asking me a question, which I hope to see resolved somehow, I'm out for now on anything that does not relate to the election. Sorry for the derailment if anyone was perplexed at why school policy was being debated for two pages of a US 2012 election thread...

So by govenment not interfering in family life, what you actually mean is that the government should intervene to force children back into the family's moral framework? Even if the child wants actively seeks outside influence.

Govenment-supported faith schools means the government is now interfering in faith. Why should the government grant-maintain a faith? Surely they should simply keep faith out of school and make sure that faith institutions (churches, mosques) can operate freely and without interference? Even tax-free.

I certainly don't think parents are entitled to know everything either... just this issue is one which is so critical to the moral framework of conservative families and very important all round, so it strikes me as an overreach for the school to provide secrecy without very good reason (risk of significant harm)

And I'm not right wing, I'm centre, as I said. Family life not being intruded on by the government is things like not forcing explicit sex ed and making sure faith schools stay legal and free.

I was unaware that parents needed further rights? I also don't think I am entitled to know everything about my DC - I assume that as they grow they will keep more and more information about their private lives... well, private.

No one can legislate you a good and open relationship with your kids. If your child wants to keep sex a secret from you, and the kids know that any school staff they tell are legally obligated to blab to you, then who do you imagine they will talk to?

Anyway isn't this precisely the sort of intimate government-legal intervention in family life that the right generally opposes? The government could always waterboard a 15-year-old who refuses to hand over her Facebook password or the key to her diary. Then you'd know all.

PigletJohn

I made it clear that I do believe in confidentiality so why obfuscate?

"snitch"? Report, surely? Snitch is something immature kids or criminals do on each other to avoid getting into trouble themselves. Ironically, when I was at school a few boys got into trouble for saying "stop snitching" (a common saying in the 20-25 years since hip-hop culture became mainstream here) to justify not reporting suspected child abuse. The issue arose when a group of older kids were picked one summer to mentor the new year 7s in the September and told to report any concerns to a specific staff member.

And that's a classic safeguarding argument. You are motivated by child-protection concerns here. There is nothing wrong with child protection of course and by its nature it must sometimes usurp parental control over the child at risk, but I think that people should use their judgment instead of a wide policy of being "approachable" and never informing parents. I know of Shafilea Ahmed and numerous other teenagers killed for the sake of "honour" so do not go into this naively. Teachers should be smart enough to know when a girl/boy is at risk and when they just don't want parents to know what they are up to.

Extro

I did read your post.

You do not believe they have a right to privacy and confidentiality.

Sounds like happy girls, happy in their families, lots of love all round.

Teachers' and schools' first responsibility is to their students. Can you see a situation where a phone call to snitch on a girl could result in that girl being murdered?

Piglet=- I do believe in confidentiality. See post in direct response to yours.

An "end run" would allow them to be unconcerned about their parents' reaction, boost their defiance of family values and cause them to not face opprobrium from their extended family and community, thus allowing them to avoid the social support pulling them toward abstinence.

What is their home life like? Frequently not good. Does this override parental rights to know, in the absence of strong belief that abuse is going on?

And secrets about sex or relationships ARE "intimate"... the very concept implies a reverence for human dignity which is the opposite of prurient. Prurience sees little intimate or private about sex and splashes it on kiss-and-tell stories, reality shows and billboards.

I think this tangential discussion should probably stop here though. So people can get back onto the election, and I'll contribute if I feel there is something of relevance (or to challenge any egregious lies by the Obama camp.)

OK, you don't believe that people of age X have a right to privacy and confidentiality.

I do.

Either your family culture is robust enough to survive no matter what your environment or it deserves to bite the dust.

Society does not have to pander to the sensibilities of the parents you have in mind any more than it has to pander to the wishes of parents whose tradition it is to mutilate the genitals of their daughters. Parents who are so disconnected from modern realities in the society they live in should not send their daughters to school, like the Irish Travellers I mentioned earlier.

Boys' schools no matter what foot they dig with do not judge boys for their sex lives or seek to keep tabs on them, or report to their parents. That is the special province of schools where girls are 'educated'.

'or are you going to defend a teacher with no medical role acting as "an experienced adult" for pupils to unload their intimate secrets on without parents having a hope of finding out?'

Yes, because there is always more to it than just the sex life of the teenage girl. Girls who settle for sex are unhappy, have nothing much going for them, are not 'feeling the love' at home and an approach to a teacher is often a cry for help that a teacher should not ignore.

'Intimate secrets' is an incredibly prurient term btw.

Math unfortunately yes, the sort of parents sometimes would hold a daughter to a higher standard. I cannot deny this and don't agree with it, but it is still a disconnect between the parents' views and what the school is using (moral framework for SRE only mentioned "respect" and "responsibility") They would normally want their children of both sexes to abstain, but be harsher on a girl for not doing so because it is seen as less "natural" and so less forgivable.

I mentioned girls because the school I was asking you about to gauge how far away your position was from the parental-rights view was an all-girls' school in England. Nothing sinister there. If I had heard of a boys' school principal pulling that stunt I would be railing at him/her, not being a misogynist myself.

How many students plan 'end runs' around parents? What could be the purpose of such an 'end run'?

What is the home life of such a student (assuming she exists) like?
Girls who act out sexually as you suggest are not happy and their homes are not nice places.

Where is this focus on teen pregnancy and the sex lives of teenage girls in the poorer parts of inner cities coming from anyway, and how is it relevant?

I'm not talking about bringing children up strictly. I'm talking about bringing them up equipped to make good decisions for themselves, to think about consequences for themselves and for others before they make a decision.

I do not live in fear of what my children will get up to behind my back. They are aware of my opinion on porn (feminist anti porn), drinking (nothing wrong with sensible drinking but DO NOT DRIVE), cutting class (highly unlikely -- all headed for Ivy League or equivalent), vandalism (the thought would not cross their minds - it is simply not done). However, they are not children once they get to 14 or so. They are capable of understanding right and wrong and making decisions based on that for themselves.

How come you are thinking of a situation where it is a girl who is engaging in sex and confiding in a teacher? Why not a boy? Would the parents you have in mind be more likely to police the sexual behaviour of daughters than sons?

'But "sophisticated... urban elite" is due to the fact that the more affluent and educated do not as frequently hold traditional values. They are generally more liberal in religious views if they have any at all. Most of them would prefer their dcs had a series of sexual relationships between mid/late teens and 30+ while going through high school/college/university and building their career then married at 30-something to a partner they'd already been living with for some time than bring someone home to meet them at 20 and propose without yet having gone further than a kiss ("You're way too young to commit, you haven't lived yet!" or similar). As few sexually functioning adults are going to abstain until 34 or thereabouts, there is little hope of those who see young adulthood as a time for footloose and fancy-free exploration, self-discovery, higher education and planning for a high end career being abstinent until marriage; this is exactly what metropolitan sophisticates would see it as unlike the cash-poor, deeply spiritual communities from deprived inner cities which send their children to the school in question. It's a disconnect between those who put spirituality first and so make sacrifices to follow the moral code and those who put worldly fulfilment first and do whatever gives them pleasure. '

Sweetest Jesus come and squeeze us...
Do you honestly believe that a child who is secure in his or her family would have sex just because that was the prevailing wind in society or because the principal of the school could be assumed to hold different beliefs from those of the parents? Where does that sort of fear come from?

@Piglet "confidentiality" is something I believe in to an extent but not when pupils are telling teachers/pastoral staff they're having sex or in a relationship as a blatant end-run around parents who they know quite well would not approve. That is just exploiting it. Confidentiality in school is supposed to be about preventing unauthorised access to data the staff require to do their jobs i.e. records/professional conversations not an excuse for people to pass secrets on.

If they are seeing a school nurse then that's different, it's a healthcare issue and there is a stricter level of scrutiny required before a health professional is allowed to break confidentiality. As I said in my example from UK it was the deputy principal and in the Amanda Marcotte I quoted it mentioned teachers doing sex ed in school (not healthcare workers).

or are you going to defend a teacher with no medical role acting as "an experienced adult" for pupils to unload their intimate secrets on without parents having a hope of finding out? That goes up to 11 on the Spinal Tap extreme liberalism meter...

Yeah, this won't swing the US election. Don't know if Romney even supports a parental rights amendment/ parental rights legislation.

If my 15-year-old DD were to get pregnant, and for whatever reason felt she could not approach me first with this, then I would FAR rather she sought information and advice from a qualified school nurse than from the internet. Which seems the likely place she'd turn to without a school nurse.

However, I really don't think this issue is going to swing the US election one way or the other.

that's far too long and rambling to follow, extro.

Is it your opinion that a person aged X years is not entitled to privacy and confidentiality?

(the question of what "X" might be is a different question)

Math "No, I'm not seeing it from a child prot. perspective"
So why did you say that you'd prefer a teacher who was a "professional with CP training" hear if one of your DCs wanted to discuss a sexual experience than someone else?

"I do see it as prurience and I am baffled by it. I see fear there too. Do parents have so little faith in the way they bring up their children that they think the minute they reach sexual maturity they are going to turn around and have sex?"
I never said all conservative parents expect this or even fear it, but no matter how strictly you bring a child up there is always a possibility they will have sex or do other things behind your back (drinking, using porn, cutting classes, vandalism, etc.- anything you have taught them is wrong.) So this is when the girl HAS done something and told the deputy principal who set herself up as "approachable" on these issues. When there is an actual disclosure, not just fear your DCs might be up to something you disapprove of.
I still can't conceive of how you would see wanting to find out if your children were living up to your standards is prurience... if you wanted to find out explicit detail then that would be creepy, but anyone in school who'd listen to that level of description in the first place seems unprofessional.

"How is it sophisticated, white (????), urban elite, liberal, Christian, or woman's morals or any combination of those adjectives..."
I was referring to the particular woman in charge of school sex ed policy, who also happens to be the child protection officer, in the example I mentioned. None of these are universal.

But "sophisticated... urban elite" is due to the fact that the more affluent and educated do not as frequently hold traditional values. They are generally more liberal in religious views if they have any at all. Most of them would prefer their dcs had a series of sexual relationships between mid/late teens and 30+ while going through high school/college/university and building their career then married at 30-something to a partner they'd already been living with for some time than bring someone home to meet them at 20 and propose without yet having gone further than a kiss ("You're way too young to commit, you haven't lived yet!" or similar). As few sexually functioning adults are going to abstain until 34 or thereabouts, there is little hope of those who see young adulthood as a time for footloose and fancy-free exploration, self-discovery, higher education and planning for a high end career being abstinent until marriage; this is exactly what metropolitan sophisticates would see it as unlike the cash-poor, deeply spiritual communities from deprived inner cities which send their children to the school in question. It's a disconnect between those who put spirituality first and so make sacrifices to follow the moral code and those who put worldly fulfilment first and do whatever gives them pleasure.

"White" as in the UK apart from Northern Ireland, those who hold to these sort of values are a minority: they are typically found either in white-dominated rural areas such as the West Country, north Wales and the Scottish Highlands and Islands or in inner cities and satellite towns where the population is mainly of first through third generation immigrants from Asia or Africa. The most active extremist Christian churches are nearly always in Black communities in every large city in the UK. The older fundamentalist establishments of Free Presbyterian, Bible Baptist, Gospel Standard Baptist, independent Bible Church, etc. set up by indigenous Brits centuries ago by those who thought the established Church of England to be heretically over-liberal are lucky see a small turnout of greying faces every Sunday. Unsurprisingly, the other faiths represented at the school were almost exclusively non-white though the odd Caucasian convert to Islam exists here.

"Christian" as opposed to Muslim/Sikh/Hindu/Adventist (quasi Christian). What I was getting at is between social class, ethnicity and religion the teacher has a very different profile to the parents so she may be imposing a mentality that differs dramatically from what they expect, abusing her authority as a senior staff member and the trust that parents implicitly place in her to do the job she is being paid through their taxes for.

IME, no matter how long ago issues have been 'settled' they are still there. Look at the fact that African Americans have had civil rights since the 60s and ask whether there are still people who hold racist views.

I'm a bit puzzled

If it's your duty as a Mormon to go evangelising, and it's your duty as an American to report for call-up, do you get to choose which duty you obey, or do you obey them both?

Well, Novack, you've already bent the truth WRT Romney's standing in the Mormon church structure, so you're hardly one to be criticising others about bending truth, are you?