I think Amy and I went to the same high school!

There is no discretion in the land of bureaucracy.

I suspect that this is intended to inhibit that small minority of teachers who do discuss inappropriate personal topics.

For instance, my younger sister had a teacher who liked to tell the kids about her boyfriend, and how handsome and muscular he was, and that he was good in bed. My sister was in grade school.

I was North Farmington High Class of 1980, so we overlapped for a year. I looked you up in my 1980 Yearbook and vaguely remember li'l Amy. You might remember me as president of my class; I caused a bit of a ruckus with my Commencement speech.

It's a small world! I'm glad we both got out of there!

PS: Yes, everyone, 15 year old Amy was adorable!

JJ writes: "I suspect that this is intended to inhibit that small minority of teachers who do discuss inappropriate personal topics."

So deal with those teachers individually. Punishing the whole lot of them because of stupid ones like your sisters (did she REALLY talk about her sex life?!) is just stupid.

Whats next? Telling teachers they can't shop in a grocery store in the schools neighborhood at the risk of a student seeing you buying food, because you know, needing food would make them appear human. Or worse yet, the student might see you buying ALCOHOL?! Gasp!

My husbands students LOVE to hear about things other than school stuff from my husband. He likes to talk about football and basketball stats, trips he took in college, the time he lived in Washington DC, and even talks about me and some the shows that I am doing at the time (his female students LOVE that and I don't mind him sharing that). His students enjoy that because it makes him more relateable as a person. They also like that because it gives some of them common ground and that common ground makes the students feel more comfortable and if they are comfortable, then they safer. It humanizes him. Imagine that. Seeing teachers as human.

To most of us on this site, it is clear that prohibiting personal communication is ludicrous. Follow the link on FreeRangeKids to read about the original proposal - it's even worse that Amy describes.

Teachers use personal stories to motivate topics they are teaching, or to lighten up a difficult lecture, or one-on-one just because they have a good connection to a particular student.

Students discuss their personal lives with teachers they trust, because teachers are naturally in the position of mentors. This rule also seeks to prohibit such mentoring, stating that students are only allowed to discuss personal issues with designated counselors - with whom they have no natural relationship. Simply stupid.

In saying that, I hope that most people here agree that I am stating the obvious.

Now we come to it: what is really frightening are the comments from parents interviewed for the article. "Better safe than sorry", "It’s probably a good thing", etc. What planet do these people live on?

I live half an hour from Kelso. It is a strange town. This will be overturned. Or ignored. Whatever.

What happens if the teacher's child happens to pass through the subject/grade that the teacher is teaching? Do they have to pretend they're not related?

Kids love hearing about teachers lives, it adds a personal touch. I remember one teacher who would play the guitar for us sometimes. It's a very important teaching tool, getting the kids to see you as a person. This is a bad idea.

My kids went to a wonderful elementary school. Many of the teachers had grown up in our town and loved it enough to want to teach there. The principal knew my younger kids before they attended his school and I knew all of the teachers, even ones that didn't have my kids as students. It was a very friendly atmosphere where everyone cared about everyone else and the well-being of all the kids. We moved back to my home town and it was a huge difference. My son was in the school for 2 years before I knew who the principal was. The teachers didn't come out and mix with the parents at dismissal. The teacher/parent interaction was minimal. My preference was the first school. There was an overall feeling of community and I think that's missing today.

The proposal makes it a fireable offense to show students pornography, harass or touch students inappropriately, or to smoke or drink alcohol with students.

It's not already?

I've always had a sense of what feels "correct". Not Politically Correct, but true and real. Naturally what varies from person to person, culture to culture. To parrot a_random_guy, what motivates some adults to take such a chickenshit stand? I'm a bit of an iconoclast, and although I don't always enjoy standing out like a wolf among sheep, I'm willing to suck it up and risk embarrassing myself for the sake of sanity.

...Naturally "that" varies...

I'm a retired teacher. I retired early. In part, it was because as time went by, everything became mandatory or forbidden.

This is why teachers need unions... But wait a minute! Were these school board members endorsed by the teachers Unions?

Where I went to school, we had a dance/drama teacher who held parties for the cast after productions. I did lighting and sound stuff but got to go anyway :) We went to his flat and had fun, drinking included. Then he made sure everyone got home ok, calls when we got back, etc. I think I was 16 or so at the time.

Under these rules that would never have happened. Which would have been a shame.

Bureaucratic liberalism holds that all aspects of human life are to be directed by ever-more-comprehensive sets of formal rules. No human discretion is to be allowed (other than to the makers of the rules at the very top); society is to be programmed as one would program a computer.

One of the cruelest examples of this was at a housing project--I think it was in NYC--which was troubled by drug dealers and their vicious dogs. Instead of getting rid of the drug dealers, the officials issued a "no dogs" edict applying to **everyone** in the complex. They helpfully sent around a flyer with a phone number people could call to have their pets picked up and killed.

My guess is that someone didn't want a gay teacher telling kids about his gay family life, and the only way to prevent it was to prohibit any teacher from talking about family life.

Aside to Ltw, I'm definitely on the side of there should be fewer rules, but I'm not sure a teacher having 16-year-olds over to his flat and serving alcohol is appropriate, assuming they are under legal drinking age.

"Whats next? Telling teachers they can't shop in a grocery store in the schools neighborhood at the risk of a student seeing you buying food, because you know, needing food would make them appear human."

Sabrina, I'm with you: heaven forbid that kids should learn to see other people as human beings! (That was sarcasm, of course.)

And to Conan: I think what's happening here is that, by lumping the porn/drugs/booze etc. thing in with it is that they are trying to establish a false moral equivalence. Because, you know, telling the kids in your class which ball game you watched on TV last night is exactly the same as showing them pornography. The goal, pretty clearly, is to cut children off from all relationships not approved and controlled by the government. A page from the dictator's handbook.

They want to stop stuff like this:

On the first day of school a first grade teacher explains to her class that she is a Ravens fan.

She asks her students to raise their hands if they, too, are Ravens fans.

Wanting to impress their teacher, everyone in the class raises their hand except one little girl.

The teacher looks at the girl with surprise, "Janie, why didn't you raise your hand?"

"Because I"m not a Ravens fan," she replied.

The teacher, still shocked, asked, "Well, if you are not a Ravens fan, then who are you a fan of?"

"I am a Steelers fan, and proud of it," Janie replied.

The teacher could not believe her ears. "Janie, why pray tell are you a Steelers fan?" "Because my mom is a Steelers fan, and my dad is Steelers fan, so I"m a Steelers fan too!"

"Well ," said the teacher in a obviously annoyed tone, "that is no reason for you to be a Steelers fan.

You don't have to be just like your parents all of the time. What if your mom were an idiot and your dad were a moron, what would you be then?"

"Then," Janie smiled, "I"d be a Ravens fan."

I had a seventh grade math teacher that was an avid angler. He would go fishing year round. He also ran the fishing club at school. I'm now way out of practice -- but he would teach the kids how to tie their own fishing flies.

Should that be illegal?
--------------------------------------

Want to hear about some British school stupidity? They are banning swim goggles in British schools.

In opposition to the parental argument, BAALPE advice states: “Head teachers should inform parents carers that goggles can be a hazard and cause permanent eye injury. Wet plastic is very slippery and frequent, incorrect or unnecessary adjustment or removal of them, by pulling them away from the eyes instead of sliding them over the forehead, can lead to them slipping from the pupil’s grasp with the hard plastic causing severe injury.”

If they didn't have them when I was in school it would have been more dangerous for me. I wore contacts at the time and wouldn't have been able to open my eyes in the swimming pool.

Clinky - it wasn't appropriate at all, I agree. And with some relevance to your comment, the man was as camp as a row of tents. But it was still fun and none of us were in any danger. I agree it could have been different though.

One of my husband's favourite memories from school is a teacher in, I think grade 6, who used baseball statistics to motivate his students (especially the boys who at that age were having trouble paying attention) and even ran a class baseball pool with the prize being that he would take the top 2 winners to a baseball game - and my husband was one of the winners! It was his most exciting memory to go to a real live baseball game in Toronto (an hour and a half away from his home) with that teacher and classmate, and he definitely paid attention that year. I can just hear the shouts of "nooooo, the pedophiles..."

Oh, hey, waitaminnet - this isn't to keep the kids from talking to teachers.

It's to keep them from talking about the useless teacher! It's how parents find out about them!

If you can't do anything but talk in Newspeak, you will then bellyfeel Ingsoc. Unorthodox thoughts of ownlife will then rightly be seen as outside Party needs.

Doubleplusgood Radwaste!

First, we record the lectures, and have them screened before they are played back to the students.

That will keep them teachers from having any contact with the kids, and make sure only approved material is disseminated.

Then we fire all the teachers and re-use the lectures. Hire some part timer to come in and proctor tests.

The last step in this process it to get rid of the now unnecessary school board.

Really the big question is where in the U.S. Constitution is public education? How about the Department of Education?

The States constitutions have them in it. But I wonder where and when it came into being.

I wonder what would happen if a a state took it out and let the free market take care of it. In other words -- parents are required to ensure their child is educated in reading, writing, basic math -- but beyond that the state stays out of it.

Putting the responsibility back on the parents would make them sit up and look and demand results.

My partner is a teacher who is very careful about keeping private information private. He recognizes the importance of not trying to be students' friend. But with good judgment sharing a little information can be a good thing.

My favorite example was when he was teaching "The Crucible" and discussing the theme of adultery. One of the kids asked him, "What would you do if your wife cheated on you? And don't give us a 'teacher answer'!" He hesitated for a moment and said, "Well, I don't actually have a wife. I have a partner." The kids took a few seconds to process this and someone asked, "You mean like 'I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry'?" :-) He laughed and briefly explained how we had registered with NYC as domestic partners, and that we later got married in Canada. The response? "OK, what would you do if HE cheated on you?" (By the way, he'd be REALLY PISSED).

The world didn't come to an end, the subject of his being gay rarely if ever comes up, and only if someone else asks. His feeling is at the end of the day he's their teacher first.

"Plus ca change; plus c'est le meme."

("The more things change, the more they stay the same.")

OK, the teacher situation may not be the best example of that, since this isn't quite "the same" as what it used to be.

However, it reminds me of this "For Better or For Worse" strip from Sept. 12, 1983:

http://catalog.fborfw.com/indexdate.php?q=1983-09-12

(Keep in mind that when John refers to "my day," he is, of course, likely referring to the late 1950s.)