Should schools be in loco parentis? Cautionary thoughts

IF 0.7 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
J. Goodman
{"title":"Should schools be in loco parentis? Cautionary thoughts","authors":"J. Goodman","doi":"10.1080/17449642.2021.1970907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The jurisdiction of schools has long been contested. Initially, under the sway of loco parentis, parents delegated all authority to educators. With ascendency of the common school movement in the 19th century, however, the doctrine confronted reverses. As the student body increased in size and heterogeneity, families no longer spoke with a single voice. The courts granted parental requests for a more determinative role in their children’s education, prohibited schools from giving religious instruction, and guaranteed students some civil rights. This curtailment of school authority has been countered in recent years by the emphasis on educating the “whole child” with schools taking on responsibilities, such as character development and mental health, arguably a home preserve. While acknowledging the large overlap between school and home, I argue they have differing agendas and capacities. Schools stress the collective, cultivating “we-ness” and agreed upon norms, whereas homes cultivate privacy, individualism, and particularistic values; schools stress equality while homes stress equity; schools are constrained in their use of discipline whereas homes take more liberties. In urging schools to circumscribe and differentiate their role, I nonetheless recognize the problems of doing so.","PeriodicalId":45613,"journal":{"name":"Ethics and Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2021.1970907","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The jurisdiction of schools has long been contested. Initially, under the sway of loco parentis, parents delegated all authority to educators. With ascendency of the common school movement in the 19th century, however, the doctrine confronted reverses. As the student body increased in size and heterogeneity, families no longer spoke with a single voice. The courts granted parental requests for a more determinative role in their children’s education, prohibited schools from giving religious instruction, and guaranteed students some civil rights. This curtailment of school authority has been countered in recent years by the emphasis on educating the “whole child” with schools taking on responsibilities, such as character development and mental health, arguably a home preserve. While acknowledging the large overlap between school and home, I argue they have differing agendas and capacities. Schools stress the collective, cultivating “we-ness” and agreed upon norms, whereas homes cultivate privacy, individualism, and particularistic values; schools stress equality while homes stress equity; schools are constrained in their use of discipline whereas homes take more liberties. In urging schools to circumscribe and differentiate their role, I nonetheless recognize the problems of doing so.
学校应该代替家长吗?警示的想法
摘要学校的管辖权一直存在争议。最初,在替代父母的影响下,父母将所有权力下放给教育工作者。然而,随着19世纪普通学校运动的兴起,该学说遭遇了逆转。随着学生群体规模和异质性的增加,家庭不再用单一的声音说话。法院批准了父母在子女教育中发挥更决定性作用的请求,禁止学校进行宗教教学,并保障学生的一些公民权利。近年来,学校强调教育“整个孩子”,学校承担起性格发展和心理健康等责任,这可以说是家庭的责任,从而抵消了学校权力的削弱。虽然我承认学校和家庭之间有很大的重叠,但我认为他们有不同的议程和能力。学校强调集体,培养“我们”和一致的规范,而家庭则培养隐私、个人主义和特殊价值观;学校强调平等,家庭强调公平;学校在使用纪律方面受到限制,而家庭则享有更多的自由。在敦促学校限制和区分自己的角色时,我仍然认识到这样做的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ethics and Education
Ethics and Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
11.10%
发文量
22
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信