A letter recently wrote to a church because of poor decision making, the church name has been removed because it is irrelevant. This is just to show the hypocrisy that still exists in the church today. It also can be a tool of guidance on what not to do in a church. This is not to pass judgment on the church or any other person, it is to get the Bride ready for her groom, Christ. We need to the beacon of light and the salt. As Paul wrote, when the salt has lost it's taste...... What is left?????
Subject line: baby dedication denial
To whom it may concern --
The decision made by your church name is because it is an unwed couple. If it was a single parent doing the dedication, it could have proceeded, but since they are unmarked unwed, they were told no.
This is two people who are being held to the sin of their past by people, not God. They do not live together, they are not living in sin.
The father is trying to do right by this child, and at the same time, be a light to the women. The father has a desire to live a godly life, a few years ago he left the Catholic church because he felt like he had no relationship with God. He found your church name and really felt connected to God. He and the mother made a mistake and a baby occurred because of that sin, but they are not continuing on that path. They live two separate, but joined lives.
Because the father believes in the dedication and both families are staunch Catholics, he felt your church name was best route, to appease both families, but not have Catholic Church praying over child. Also, him involving the mother allows for an amicable relationship with her to maintain.
While no one can tell the church how to handle these situations, I find it odd that this is your church name's on baby dedications, but they allow people to serve when they are cohabitation with their boyfriend/girlfriend. Your church name will even baptise you while you are cohabiting with your boyfriend/girlfriend. This is not about those persons, but to ensure that your church name does not feel like this is unfounded, anonymous persons name, serves in name of ministry at your church and has been baptised by your church name.
So, from a your church name pew perspective, I can serve, be baptised, and take communion BUT be on the quick, straight path to hell. But, I cannot commit a sin, repent, and dedicate the product of my sin to God, making a declaration to God that I will raise the child to love God, fear God, and abide by God's commands! What a contrast.
The most interesting part of this contrast for me is on one side, by your church name not addressing THE sin in the church, the sin that is still occurring, your church name is helping the sinner on their path straight to hell. Then on the other side, by your church name denying this father the ability to partake in a baby dedication, a father who has repented for his sin and is trying to do right, now has no desire to go back to your church name, will probably have the Catholic Church perform their ritualistic ceremony and has made the mother's view of what should be true Christianity look worse than Catholicism..... Which may in turn lead all three lives to hell.
I hope your church name rethinks their approach in the future, with baby dedications, who can serve, and who can be baptised.
Kari
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Friday, April 27, 2012
God fortold the Law of Thermodynamics in Bible
Three thousand years before modern science, the Bible spoke about the Laws of Thermodynamics. Interesting to me how Biblical facts are seen in scientific laws, but not theories.
Facts Before the Rant-
The Bible (God's) First Law of Thermodynamics:
The writer, of Genesis writes "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished [arrived at; attained the end] Genesis 2:1-2.
The First Scientific LAW of Thermodynamics:
States that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. It can be converted to another, but the quantity stays the same (we cannot create new energy).
The Bible (God's) Second Law of Thermodynamics:
The psalmist writes "In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded" (Psalm 102:25-26).
Kari's Rant:
Fascinating how God, the creator of ALL things, knew He should inspire someone to write down the facts the heavens and the earth will perish. Oh wait, He did have the psalmist write "your eyes say my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."
He knew there would be non-believing people before they even existed and He knew everything that they would do!!
Haters -- go ahead and believe the global warming theorists, the big bang theorists, and the evolution theorists..... after all...... humans "theories" are highly credible. The likelihood that the theorist's brains were not on the down slope of the human decaying process, as it relates to the Second Law of Thermodynamics [Dementia - loss of brain function that occurs with certain diseases. It affects memory, thinking, language, judgment, and behavior] might be in your favor. DOUBTFUL!!
Facts Before the Rant-
The Bible (God's) First Law of Thermodynamics:
The writer, of Genesis writes "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished [arrived at; attained the end] Genesis 2:1-2.
The First Scientific LAW of Thermodynamics:
States that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. It can be converted to another, but the quantity stays the same (we cannot create new energy).
The Bible (God's) Second Law of Thermodynamics:
The psalmist writes "In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded" (Psalm 102:25-26).
The Second Scientific LAW of Thermodynamics:
States that everything deteriorates. Best put - "The universe is constantly getting more disorderly" (Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6.). Science has proven:- Earth's rotation is slowing,
- Earth's magnetic field is decaying,
- Earth's features are constantly worn down by erosion,
- Humans man-made objects (houses, cars, clothes) wear out,
- Human bodies wear out, die and decay, and
- Stars, including the sun, are all burning up billions of tons of fuel every second.
Kari's Rant:
Fascinating how God, the creator of ALL things, knew He should inspire someone to write down the facts the heavens and the earth will perish. Oh wait, He did have the psalmist write "your eyes say my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."
He knew there would be non-believing people before they even existed and He knew everything that they would do!!
Haters -- go ahead and believe the global warming theorists, the big bang theorists, and the evolution theorists..... after all...... humans "theories" are highly credible. The likelihood that the theorist's brains were not on the down slope of the human decaying process, as it relates to the Second Law of Thermodynamics [Dementia - loss of brain function that occurs with certain diseases. It affects memory, thinking, language, judgment, and behavior] might be in your favor. DOUBTFUL!!
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Braden River Elementary ignores the policies setforth by School Board
Dear Manatee County School Board (actual letter sent with only italic items changed):
I am requesting appropriate action taken in regards to the Braden River Elementary (BRE) Uniform policy and the administrative leaders of BRE for the handling of my son, (name omitted) on April 23rd, 2012, for being retained in the office the entire school day. My initial understanding was that only Mrs.Vice Principal, was involved, but my son brought it to my attention that Mrs. Principal did in fact come to school on Monday (late morning/early afternoon), she spoke to my son on Monday about wearing his uniform; therefore, she was in full acknowledgement of the situation surrounding my son and him being retained in the office. It is important to note that his attire on Monday was completely in compliance with the Dress Code set forth in the Manatee County Public Schools Code of Conduct.
I have received and reviewed the Manatee County School Board (MCSB) Uniform policy 5.12, Manatee County Public Schools Code of Student Conduct, and Braden River Elementary (BRE) Uniform policy. Listed below are a multitude of concerns that I have with the BRE Uniform policy and the actions they took on Monday, which is in violation of all three policies.
Important Definitions (in the order described in concerns):
Any - indiscriminately of whatever one selected without restriction to any extent or degree (i.e. ALL)
Suspension - the temporary prevention of something from continuing or being in force or effect
Fastened - close or join securely (i.e. Buttons, draw strings, etc.)
The MCSB Uniform policy 5.12 (3) Compliance Measures (b) states that “since the intent of the policy is not to inhibit or prohibit any student who is not in uniform from receiving the education to which he/she is entitled, no student shall be suspended from class or from school….” ( c) goes on to state that “prior to initiating any disciplinary action against a student not complying with the policy, a school administrator or counselor shall hold a conference with the parent or guardian to solicit cooperation and support.” Then (d) adds “disciplinary action is initiated only after all other means to support and cooperation as mentioned above has not succeeded.”
Myself, Kari, and an emergency contact for my son, Angeline, both spoke to Mrs. Vice Principal on Monday and gave explicit direction that my son was to return to class. Angeline went as far as stating that his education should be the top concern, not his attire. After being told by two different individuals that my son needed to return to class and the Vice Principal of the school refused leads me to believe either (a) she does not know the policies in which she is required to abide by or (b) she does not care. Then, Mrs. Principal, was present at approximately 11:00 am and she too failed to send my son back to class. As seen in both the MCSB policy on implementation of school uniforms and in their own BRE Uniform policy, the top two heads of the school did not follow either one:
“If a student comes to school out of uniform, the following actions may take place:
A verbal warning may be given from a staff member to the student and/or note may be sent home.
The st udent may be required to change into clothing that complies with the uniform policy.
Parent/Guardian may be contacted and required to bring appropriate attire to school for the child.
A conference may then be scheduled with the principle.
In the MCSB Uniform policy 5.12 (1) Initiation (d) “the school selected uniforms must comply with all respects with the other provisions of the district rules concerning the appropriate attire.” The BRE Uniform policy does not comply with the all the provision of the district rules concerning appropriate attire. I will provide two examples of how it does not comply (only needing one to show that it is not in compliance with all stipulations). BRE Uniform policy states shorts, skirts, skorts and jumpers must be 2/3rd length from the waist to the knee. Manatee County Public Schools Code of Conduct states that those items must be 2/3rd length from the waist to the middle of the knee. This variation allows for BRE students to wear much shorter clothing than that of non-uniform schools. Second comparison is that of the bottoms. BRE Uniform policy states the bottoms cannot be blue jeans or denim, except on Fridays, they are to be black, khaki, or navy blue in color. The only other stipulation is the length, as already discussed. The Code of Conduct Dress Code states the description of bottoms as being “fastened at the waist.” To note, BRE has allowed sweatpants, basketball shorts, and Sophie’s (to name a few) and not all of those items are “fastened at the waist.”
Out of curiosity, I would like to know who the members of the BRE Uniform Committee are. As stated in MCSB Uniform policy 5.12 (1) Initiation’s section ( c) “Uniform Committee must represent all segments of the schools community.” Since BRE neglected to follow so many other areas stipulated by the School Board to adopt and institute their own Uniform policy, cannot help but wonder if all segments of the BRE community were properly represented.
Next I will discuss the ambiguity of the BRE Uniform policy that may or may not be why BRE has such a compliance issue, since they have not had compliance starting week one in August of 2011. Parents nor staff may have an understanding of the correct interpretation.
Important Definitions (in the order described first in concerns):
Light blue - of a light shade of blue; a variation of the color blue; or a color defined as “light blue”
Any - indiscriminately of whatever one selected without restriction to any extent or degree (i.e. ALL)
Appropriate - suitable; proper
Oversized - of excessive size; unusually large; of a size larger than is necessary or required
Baggie - brand of plastic bag; any small bag or packet
Ill-fitting - garment not fitting well; not appropriate or suitable
Diameter - straight line through a center of a circle
Solid - continuous
Every - each excluding none; each member of a group, without exception
First ambiguous item is the light blue shirts that are in the BRE Uniform policy. What light blue definition would BRE be using to define their color scheme? My daughter, (name ommited), got a note sent home the week of April 22nd because of her light blue tank top that was under her polo shirt and it was not accepted as being within the BRE Uniform policy. However, according to 2 of the 3 definitions, it was abiding by the BRE policy.
BRE policy states “shorts, skirts, skorts, and jumpers must be 2/3rd length from the waist to the knee,” and mix that with the last statement of the policy stating “in addition to the guidelines above, Braden River Elementary continues to follow the Manatee School Board Dress Code policy.” So, as a parent when I refer to the Manatee County Public Schools Code of Conduct’s Dress Code that states that the length is 2/3rd from the waist to the middle of the knee, how am I or a staff member to know which one of the two apply?
BRE Uniform policy goes on to state “any items worn under uniform clothes must be solid appropriate uniform colors for the item under which they are worn.” As defined “any item” would then entail student’s undergarments. How would BRE be determining if a student’s undergarments were solid appropriate uniform colors? Also, how is BRE determining what the appropriate (suitable; proper) solid color those under the uniform items should be?
“Oversized, baggie, extremely tight, or ill-fitting clothing is not allowed” is the next ambiguous statement within BRE’s policy. According to the definitions provided, BRE felt that redundancy was key! But, it was not effective, unfortunately. Combining the definitions students should not wear any small bag or packet, extremely tight clothing or maybe too large of clothing, still leaves a lot of open interpretation by parents and staff. Who is deciding what excessive is or appropriate and suitable are, when related to baggy clothing? Assume BRE meant “baggy”, as it is defined as baglike or hanging loosely. Furthermore, if BRE went and asked the living generations within the community what was considered too loose fitting to be called appropriate or suitable, BRE would get a wide variety of answers. I will not even comment on “extremely tight,” other than this would be more of a health hazard, as it could lead to compartment syndrome.
Then the curiosity about these logos the BRE policy refers to when it states “any logos on clothing other than the official BRE logo must be less than 1 ½ inch in diameter.” First off the only logos discussed in the BRE policy is that of the “solid polo/golf style shirt with or without the BRE logo” and the “only acceptable T-shirts (except Spirit Days on Fridays) will be the uniform T-shirts with the BRE logo.” So, one should wonder where this logo would be located, since it cannot be located on the shirt of the student. Because if the solid polo/golf style shirt’s only stipulation about logos is if it will or will not have a BRE logo (because we know solid is a continuous color) and the statement about the only acceptable T-shirts are those with the BRE logo, then it only leaves the bottoms of the student’s attire. Which leads me into the next ambiguous statement of the policy, while the faculty of BRE are inspecting student’s bottoms, for non-uniform logos, how would they determine if the non-circular logo was within the student’s rights? I only ask because the definition of a diameter is a well known among the educational profession.
How is a parent to know if their child really applies to the policy or not? The policy states “our uniform policy is mandatory for every …..” Since every means all of one class, then we should be able to assume, with the stipulation of exceptions listed in the policy, it would be every other student that attends BRE. Unfortunately that is not the case, while the school has made “financial hardship” exceptions (instead of abiding by their policy), cold day exceptions (allowing students to wear jeans), they apparently have also made mental or physical disability exceptions. The same day that my son was sent to the office and was retained there the entire school day (in-school suspension?), there was a disabled student in his class who too was not wearing the school uniform. That student was in class, learning, not in the office.
Taking into consideration that it is a well known fact that have been known children not wearing the uniform (complete uniform head to toe) since the first week of school, it is blatantly obvious that it has never been enforced by all staff members. Then combine that will all the ambiguity of the BRE policy, how would a parent know when to take the uniform policy seriously and how would they know the proper uniform attire to spend their hard earned money on?
Sincerely,
Kari Rant's
I am requesting appropriate action taken in regards to the Braden River Elementary (BRE) Uniform policy and the administrative leaders of BRE for the handling of my son, (name omitted) on April 23rd, 2012, for being retained in the office the entire school day. My initial understanding was that only Mrs.Vice Principal, was involved, but my son brought it to my attention that Mrs. Principal did in fact come to school on Monday (late morning/early afternoon), she spoke to my son on Monday about wearing his uniform; therefore, she was in full acknowledgement of the situation surrounding my son and him being retained in the office. It is important to note that his attire on Monday was completely in compliance with the Dress Code set forth in the Manatee County Public Schools Code of Conduct.
I have received and reviewed the Manatee County School Board (MCSB) Uniform policy 5.12, Manatee County Public Schools Code of Student Conduct, and Braden River Elementary (BRE) Uniform policy. Listed below are a multitude of concerns that I have with the BRE Uniform policy and the actions they took on Monday, which is in violation of all three policies.
Important Definitions (in the order described in concerns):
Any - indiscriminately of whatever one selected without restriction to any extent or degree (i.e. ALL)
Suspension - the temporary prevention of something from continuing or being in force or effect
Fastened - close or join securely (i.e. Buttons, draw strings, etc.)
The MCSB Uniform policy 5.12 (3) Compliance Measures (b) states that “since the intent of the policy is not to inhibit or prohibit any student who is not in uniform from receiving the education to which he/she is entitled, no student shall be suspended from class or from school….” ( c) goes on to state that “prior to initiating any disciplinary action against a student not complying with the policy, a school administrator or counselor shall hold a conference with the parent or guardian to solicit cooperation and support.” Then (d) adds “disciplinary action is initiated only after all other means to support and cooperation as mentioned above has not succeeded.”
Myself, Kari, and an emergency contact for my son, Angeline, both spoke to Mrs. Vice Principal on Monday and gave explicit direction that my son was to return to class. Angeline went as far as stating that his education should be the top concern, not his attire. After being told by two different individuals that my son needed to return to class and the Vice Principal of the school refused leads me to believe either (a) she does not know the policies in which she is required to abide by or (b) she does not care. Then, Mrs. Principal, was present at approximately 11:00 am and she too failed to send my son back to class. As seen in both the MCSB policy on implementation of school uniforms and in their own BRE Uniform policy, the top two heads of the school did not follow either one:
“If a student comes to school out of uniform, the following actions may take place:
A verbal warning may be given from a staff member to the student and/or note may be sent home.
The st udent may be required to change into clothing that complies with the uniform policy.
Parent/Guardian may be contacted and required to bring appropriate attire to school for the child.
A conference may then be scheduled with the principle.
In the MCSB Uniform policy 5.12 (1) Initiation (d) “the school selected uniforms must comply with all respects with the other provisions of the district rules concerning the appropriate attire.” The BRE Uniform policy does not comply with the all the provision of the district rules concerning appropriate attire. I will provide two examples of how it does not comply (only needing one to show that it is not in compliance with all stipulations). BRE Uniform policy states shorts, skirts, skorts and jumpers must be 2/3rd length from the waist to the knee. Manatee County Public Schools Code of Conduct states that those items must be 2/3rd length from the waist to the middle of the knee. This variation allows for BRE students to wear much shorter clothing than that of non-uniform schools. Second comparison is that of the bottoms. BRE Uniform policy states the bottoms cannot be blue jeans or denim, except on Fridays, they are to be black, khaki, or navy blue in color. The only other stipulation is the length, as already discussed. The Code of Conduct Dress Code states the description of bottoms as being “fastened at the waist.” To note, BRE has allowed sweatpants, basketball shorts, and Sophie’s (to name a few) and not all of those items are “fastened at the waist.”
Out of curiosity, I would like to know who the members of the BRE Uniform Committee are. As stated in MCSB Uniform policy 5.12 (1) Initiation’s section ( c) “Uniform Committee must represent all segments of the schools community.” Since BRE neglected to follow so many other areas stipulated by the School Board to adopt and institute their own Uniform policy, cannot help but wonder if all segments of the BRE community were properly represented.
Next I will discuss the ambiguity of the BRE Uniform policy that may or may not be why BRE has such a compliance issue, since they have not had compliance starting week one in August of 2011. Parents nor staff may have an understanding of the correct interpretation.
Important Definitions (in the order described first in concerns):
Light blue - of a light shade of blue; a variation of the color blue; or a color defined as “light blue”
Any - indiscriminately of whatever one selected without restriction to any extent or degree (i.e. ALL)
Appropriate - suitable; proper
Oversized - of excessive size; unusually large; of a size larger than is necessary or required
Baggie - brand of plastic bag; any small bag or packet
Ill-fitting - garment not fitting well; not appropriate or suitable
Diameter - straight line through a center of a circle
Solid - continuous
Every - each excluding none; each member of a group, without exception
First ambiguous item is the light blue shirts that are in the BRE Uniform policy. What light blue definition would BRE be using to define their color scheme? My daughter, (name ommited), got a note sent home the week of April 22nd because of her light blue tank top that was under her polo shirt and it was not accepted as being within the BRE Uniform policy. However, according to 2 of the 3 definitions, it was abiding by the BRE policy.
BRE policy states “shorts, skirts, skorts, and jumpers must be 2/3rd length from the waist to the knee,” and mix that with the last statement of the policy stating “in addition to the guidelines above, Braden River Elementary continues to follow the Manatee School Board Dress Code policy.” So, as a parent when I refer to the Manatee County Public Schools Code of Conduct’s Dress Code that states that the length is 2/3rd from the waist to the middle of the knee, how am I or a staff member to know which one of the two apply?
BRE Uniform policy goes on to state “any items worn under uniform clothes must be solid appropriate uniform colors for the item under which they are worn.” As defined “any item” would then entail student’s undergarments. How would BRE be determining if a student’s undergarments were solid appropriate uniform colors? Also, how is BRE determining what the appropriate (suitable; proper) solid color those under the uniform items should be?
“Oversized, baggie, extremely tight, or ill-fitting clothing is not allowed” is the next ambiguous statement within BRE’s policy. According to the definitions provided, BRE felt that redundancy was key! But, it was not effective, unfortunately. Combining the definitions students should not wear any small bag or packet, extremely tight clothing or maybe too large of clothing, still leaves a lot of open interpretation by parents and staff. Who is deciding what excessive is or appropriate and suitable are, when related to baggy clothing? Assume BRE meant “baggy”, as it is defined as baglike or hanging loosely. Furthermore, if BRE went and asked the living generations within the community what was considered too loose fitting to be called appropriate or suitable, BRE would get a wide variety of answers. I will not even comment on “extremely tight,” other than this would be more of a health hazard, as it could lead to compartment syndrome.
Then the curiosity about these logos the BRE policy refers to when it states “any logos on clothing other than the official BRE logo must be less than 1 ½ inch in diameter.” First off the only logos discussed in the BRE policy is that of the “solid polo/golf style shirt with or without the BRE logo” and the “only acceptable T-shirts (except Spirit Days on Fridays) will be the uniform T-shirts with the BRE logo.” So, one should wonder where this logo would be located, since it cannot be located on the shirt of the student. Because if the solid polo/golf style shirt’s only stipulation about logos is if it will or will not have a BRE logo (because we know solid is a continuous color) and the statement about the only acceptable T-shirts are those with the BRE logo, then it only leaves the bottoms of the student’s attire. Which leads me into the next ambiguous statement of the policy, while the faculty of BRE are inspecting student’s bottoms, for non-uniform logos, how would they determine if the non-circular logo was within the student’s rights? I only ask because the definition of a diameter is a well known among the educational profession.
How is a parent to know if their child really applies to the policy or not? The policy states “our uniform policy is mandatory for every …..” Since every means all of one class, then we should be able to assume, with the stipulation of exceptions listed in the policy, it would be every other student that attends BRE. Unfortunately that is not the case, while the school has made “financial hardship” exceptions (instead of abiding by their policy), cold day exceptions (allowing students to wear jeans), they apparently have also made mental or physical disability exceptions. The same day that my son was sent to the office and was retained there the entire school day (in-school suspension?), there was a disabled student in his class who too was not wearing the school uniform. That student was in class, learning, not in the office.
Taking into consideration that it is a well known fact that have been known children not wearing the uniform (complete uniform head to toe) since the first week of school, it is blatantly obvious that it has never been enforced by all staff members. Then combine that will all the ambiguity of the BRE policy, how would a parent know when to take the uniform policy seriously and how would they know the proper uniform attire to spend their hard earned money on?
Sincerely,
Kari Rant's
Friday, January 27, 2012
School Uniforms
I am a concerned parent over Manatee County's manipulation of the Florida Statute giving local School Boards the right to institute uniform policies. The State instituted this Statute on the premise it would keep our children safe and it is to be instituted for this reason. But what is the School Board keeping my elementary school student safe from in a very safe rated school (prior to implementation of school uniforms)?
When I expressed my disapproval to the principal, (name removed), on the policy and how the teachers dress, I was told that her teachers could come to school in their bikinis and she could do nothing about it. So why has a School Board decided that the children should wear proper attire, but not the persons leading the students? I see unprofessional clothing every day I am at my child's school, from flip-flops to excessively low shirts, even my 7 year old son has complained to me about seeing some teachers "boobs." If school administrators want to talk about keeping children safe, let's think about the high school and middle school students who have raging hormones that they have never had to deal with, mix that with what children wear and their promiscuously clothed teacher. I think we are missing some vital steps in keeping them safe. Here is Manatee County School Board's own words:
What about the teacher dressing inappropriately, is that not distracting to our sons? This day and age with all of the teachers being arrested for inappropriate behavior with children, in addition to all the teenage/teacher crushes. Could this be curtailed by teachers having a dress code policy similar to that of the student uniform policy? Those teacher are a distraction for the young boys in her class, but we are only wanting to stop the "young ladies" from being a distraction and not the "women" with curves, far more endowed than a child?
The verbiage in the Manatee School Code of Conduct (see above indentation) is also mind boggling to me, who is determining what is "excessive" and "bizarre"? I find those to be rather loose terms. These terms could be vastly defined strictly based on the generation you are asking. GO ask an 80 year, a 60 year old and a 40 year old how to define excessive and bizarre attire, the answers will not be the same by any of the three.
It seems to me that we are teaching kids to do as I say, not as I do (grow up and be hypocrites). We do not lead by example. We also are instilling lawlessness, if any organization does not have the man power or ability to enforce a rule, it is better to not even create the rule. Because, when rules are created and not enforced, people are being programmed to ignore laws, ignore rules and do whatever they want because nothing will happen anyways. Then society finds itself baffled when it is forced to look at the ramifications of what it created. It is not only parents that are creating the next generations.
If a School Board has no control over their own employees, what gives them the right to have ANY control over my or anyone elses child? Further more, are we not teaching lawless behavior by voting in a school uniform policy, but not enforcing it until the school year is half over?
When I expressed my disapproval to the principal, (name removed), on the policy and how the teachers dress, I was told that her teachers could come to school in their bikinis and she could do nothing about it. So why has a School Board decided that the children should wear proper attire, but not the persons leading the students? I see unprofessional clothing every day I am at my child's school, from flip-flops to excessively low shirts, even my 7 year old son has complained to me about seeing some teachers "boobs." If school administrators want to talk about keeping children safe, let's think about the high school and middle school students who have raging hormones that they have never had to deal with, mix that with what children wear and their promiscuously clothed teacher. I think we are missing some vital steps in keeping them safe. Here is Manatee County School Board's own words:
Young ladies are expected to maintain a healthy, natural look avoiding excessive make-up; to have hair clean and combed and not wear hats, curlers, scarves, bandannas, etc.; to dress in a manner which is in good taste for the school environment and is neither a distraction or safety hazard to themselves nor to others. Bizarre clothing or styles, clothing which displays messages contrary to a positive school environment, or clothing (including dresses, shorts, skirts, and blouses) which is excessively short, tight, or revealing are not allowed.
What about the teacher dressing inappropriately, is that not distracting to our sons? This day and age with all of the teachers being arrested for inappropriate behavior with children, in addition to all the teenage/teacher crushes. Could this be curtailed by teachers having a dress code policy similar to that of the student uniform policy? Those teacher are a distraction for the young boys in her class, but we are only wanting to stop the "young ladies" from being a distraction and not the "women" with curves, far more endowed than a child?
The verbiage in the Manatee School Code of Conduct (see above indentation) is also mind boggling to me, who is determining what is "excessive" and "bizarre"? I find those to be rather loose terms. These terms could be vastly defined strictly based on the generation you are asking. GO ask an 80 year, a 60 year old and a 40 year old how to define excessive and bizarre attire, the answers will not be the same by any of the three.
It seems to me that we are teaching kids to do as I say, not as I do (grow up and be hypocrites). We do not lead by example. We also are instilling lawlessness, if any organization does not have the man power or ability to enforce a rule, it is better to not even create the rule. Because, when rules are created and not enforced, people are being programmed to ignore laws, ignore rules and do whatever they want because nothing will happen anyways. Then society finds itself baffled when it is forced to look at the ramifications of what it created. It is not only parents that are creating the next generations.
If a School Board has no control over their own employees, what gives them the right to have ANY control over my or anyone elses child? Further more, are we not teaching lawless behavior by voting in a school uniform policy, but not enforcing it until the school year is half over?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)