By Lindsay Smith, Intern
By now you have probably
heard the story: a single mom felt her daughter was being excluded from a
school function, and voilĂ , no more father-daughter dances or mother-son
baseball games in Rhode Island’s Cranston school district. According to the superintendent, these events
violate gender discrimination laws.
This mom, this superintendent, these
lawyers were probably just trying to prevent kids from getting hurt, at least
we will give the benefit of the doubt to their motives. However, I am all too concerned about what research
reveals: banning events like these harms the entire student body.
Parents are important.
Not surprisingly, abundant research supports this truth, especially in
education. On average, children from intact married families earn
higher test scores, have higher high school GPAs, are less likely to drop out
of school, and have better behavior than their peers. In addition, “adolescent children of
single-parent families or stepfamilies reported that their parents had lower
educational expectations for them, were less likely to monitor schoolwork, and supervised
social activities less than the parents of children in intact biological
families.” Based on these
findings, one can see parental involvement directly correlates with academic
success.
Sadly,
Cranston’s ruling reduces parental involvement, which at its core is fruitful
to the district. Cranston removed events
which promote positive interaction. I
have never been employed as a teacher, but I would imagine most educators are
thankful for engaged and helpful parents.
While I am not a teacher, I was a student, and can verify that involved
parents, whether my own or another child’s, positively impacted my classroom
experience. The student body benefits
when parents invest in education, in the school, and in the school’s
activities. The mayor of Cranston
summarizes these findings well when he said, “[The events] contribute to the well being
of our children as a whole.”
Fathers taking their daughters to a school dance is positive. Mothers taking their sons to a school
baseball game is good, not because it promotes a child’s exclusion, but because
it encourages parental participation.
I do believe every child
should have the chance to benefit from these activities. I do believe every child can have an equal
opportunity to attend – not by minimizing the traditional family (gender roles
included) but by promoting it. I heard
it said once, “The problem is not that we have too much of Christ in our
marriage; it’s that we don’t have enough.”
The same principle applies here. People
are not excluded because there is too little family love but because there is
not enough. Let me put some concrete
words to this theory.
Growing up, both sets of
my grandparents lived over 10 hours away.
It wasn’t practical for them to attend my school functions. However, when it came time for “Grandparents’ lunch day” at my elementary school, our sweet, elderly neighbor or my friend’s
grandmother would always show up to eat with me. Would I have liked my biological grandparents
to be there? Absolutely, but that
doesn’t negate the wonderful times I had with these women who sacrificed their
time for me. I felt special; I felt
loved; I felt included. I propose a better solution is not to
eliminate the event, but rather to embrace the child. Allow traditional families to show what love
and support look like and invite a child whose mom or dad can’t attend,
whatever the reason. Surely there are fathers,
grandfathers, uncles, mentors in this community who would gladly take this
young girl to the dance. I bet there are
mothers, grandmothers, aunts, teachers, who would gladly take another boy to
the baseball game with their family.
Support the family, and support these traditions not in spite of the
students but for their betterment. When
the family is stronger, education is stronger, and that’s something that should
make us all get up and dance.
Wait, how does that reduce parental involvement?
ReplyDeleteYour advice reduces parental involvement--ban the parents, but let somebody else do it.
Ban your way to inclusiveness. Yeah, that works.
Or you could just invite everybody, and *not* intentionally exclude children who exist wrong (and then point to statistics that show they've been hurt as proof that it was the right thing to do).