Green Room

Video: No, it doesn’t take a village — it takes parents

posted at 10:12 am on April 14, 2013 by

From the Daily Caller, a short but spirited rebuttal to Melissa Harris-Perry:

In the first part of an exclusive six-part interview with The Daily Caller’s Ginni Thomas, William Estrada — director of federal relations for the Home School Legal Defense Association — sharply criticized Melissa Harris-Perry for her recent comments in an MSNBC promotional segment regarding children and education.

“Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said. “It doesn’t take a village to raise a child; it takes parents. Loving parents, in a home to raise a child.”

“This leftist ridiculous idea that children somehow belong to the state — I thought we defeated this back with socialism, back with fascism and other entities which said: ‘Children belong to the state, they will be trained by the state to be productive members of the state.’”

It just so happens that I attended a fundraiser last night for Chesterton Academy, a private Catholic high school in the Twin Cities that provides teenagers with a broad curriculum focused on classical education and especially the arts. The school has 80 students enrolled this year, many of whom I met in Rome, oddly enough. They had planned a pilgrimage to the Eternal City before anyone knew that a papal transition would take place, and I ran into them by accident at Mass the Sunday after the conclave ended. One of the chaperones is a good friend of mine, author Susan Vigilante, and the school invited me to come along with them to Assisi later in the week. I can tell you that these teenagers were remarkably self-assured, intelligent, engaging, and impressive.

It didn’t take the public-school village to produce these impressive scholars, and in fact the opposite is true. It took parents making a commitment to their education by making a choice and a sacrifice. The commitment, by the way, is less than one would imagine, as the school tries to raise enough funds to keep tuition low. “We cannot be pro-life and pro-family,” founder Dale Ahlquist said last night, “if we put families into debt for their children’s education.”

If you agree, and you have the means, think about sending a contribution to Chesterton Academy. This quartet made this pitch at last night’s dinner, too:

Update: I forgot to note that each student is required to take 4 years of art, 4 years of choir, and study philosophy and theology, too. The entire student body sang for us last night, and they sounded like a professional chorale group. Amazing.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Hitler Obama Youth movement soon to be the Hillary Youth movement. With the huge debt burden being placed on America’s innocent children, the Democrats best start using some serious updated brainwashing and mind-control techniques…real quick!

Karmi on April 14, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Great post. When evaluating educational outcomes, “a village” doesn’t crack the top 10 contributing factors to educational success. The top 2 you ask?? Well, parental involvement and parental level of education fill those slots. Not even funding overcomes those two factors.

Truth.

ted c on April 14, 2013 at 10:24 AM

A quantitative synthesis of 52 studies examining the effects of parental involvement on secondary students’ academic achievement addressed the following questions:

1. How does the academic achievement of secondary students whose parents are actively involved in their education compare to that of their counterparts whose parents are not involved?

The results of the meta-analysis indicate that parental involvement is associated with higher student achievement outcomes. This trend holds not only for parental involvement overall but for most components of parental involvement that were examined in the meta-analysis. Also, the pattern holds not only for the overall student population but for minority students as well. Although the influence of parental involvement generally holds across academic variables, it appeared to produce statistically significant effects slightly more often for grades and other measures than for standardized tests. For the overall population of students, the academic advantage for those whose parents were highly involved in their education averaged in the general range of about 1/2 of a standard deviation for overall educational outcomes, grades, and academic achievement when no sophisticated controls were used. What this means is that the academic achievement score distribution for children whose parents were highly involved in their education was substantially higher than that of their counterparts whose parents were less involved.
Conclusion
Taken together the results of this study are very enlightening. First, these findings are fairly substantial and support the notion that parental involvement has salient effects across various populations. Second, not only does voluntary parental involvement have an effect, but parental programs do as well. Third, this meta-analysis suggests that among the most important aspects of parental involvement are some of the more subtle facets of this practice, among them parental style and parental expectations.

/data.

ted c on April 14, 2013 at 10:28 AM

It comes down to who’s largely responsible for kids, the parents, or the government. Many on the Left really want it to be the government.

Paul-Cincy on April 14, 2013 at 10:33 AM

It just so happens that I attended a fundraiser last night for Chesterton Academy,

That is almost (in my opinion) the equivalent of meeting Mr. Gilbert Keith Chesterton himself. Dale Ahlquist has been a favorite of mine foe many years and my tablet is predominately filled with the works of G.K. Chesterton. I would love to see that academy spread across the country, those students will have a huge advantage over the publicly propagandized students.

fourdeucer on April 14, 2013 at 10:35 AM

So is it now wrong to say “take my wife, please”?

Shy Guy on April 14, 2013 at 10:48 AM

It comes down to who’s largely responsible for kids, the parents, or the government. Many on the Left really want it to be the government.

Paul-Cincy on April 14, 2013 at 10:33 AM

it’s the easiest way to turn them into democratic voters.

ted c on April 14, 2013 at 10:49 AM

It comes down to who’s largely responsible for kids, the parents, or the government. Many on the Left really want it to be the government.

Paul-Cincy on April 14, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Look at the logical inconsistency in their reasoning. The MSNBC chick says parents don’t own their children, and that “the community” should be responsible for raising them. But if “the community” has the right and responsibility to raise the kids, then it only makes sense that “the community” also has the right to say who should, and who should not, be producing children in the first place.

Can you imagine the MSNBC woman approving of laws that, for example, restrict the rights of crack-heads to become pregnant? Or how about laws that require a certain minimum level of IQ or educational attainment before someone can become pregnant? Or how about a requirement that would-be parents have no criminal background?

We all know this chick would be the first one screaming raaaaacism if anybody suggested such laws. She’d also tell us that it’s sexist to tell a woman what she can do with her body. How many times have these leftists lectured the rest of us that a woman’s “reproductive rights” are nobody else’s business?

Peoples’ reproductive choices are their own personal business and “the community” has no right to interfere, and yet the child that results from the exercise of those personal rights is somehow everybody’s responsibility.

AZCoyote on April 14, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Can you imagine the MSNBC woman approving of laws that, for example, restrict the rights of crack-heads to become pregnant? Or how about laws that require a certain minimum level of IQ or educational attainment before someone can become pregnant? Or how about a requirement that would-be parents have no criminal background?

AZCoyote on April 14, 2013 at 12:30 PM

-
I don’t think the average leftist tool has thought that far ahead, they’ve basically been told not to. Actually I believe that coerced abortion, and force abortion/sterilization is in the long term game plan with these control-freak commies.

There may be a few who see the long game, including the IQ, background check, voting/loyalty profiles required to reproduce… but they know better than to admit it… (sarc tag that last line… they might during Obastard’s second term become willing). Or maybe Biden will just blurt it out aamof…

On another angle of this Big.Gov owns your kids meme… Let’s look at how they’ve been doing with the kids that have been surrendered already. Yes, I’m talking about the Big.Gov dole rides’ kids.

They are the product of many years of Big.Gov acting as the bread winner, mommy and/or daddy to these kids. They are the project kids, and the big city school system kids, and the welfare mom kids (some kids fit all these defs).

All raised with an abundance of Big.Gov interference in the family. We see how well that has worked. There are so many things wrong with this notion that it amazes me that they are not ashamed to say it out loud… and it sounds like we are in the warm-up stages for Hillary to use it as a plank in 2016.

RalphyBoy on April 14, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Good message, wrong messenger.

Imo,you don’t counter an angry, entitled-for-life government uber alles marxist hater like Harris-Perry with a 30-year old right wing Ivy League hipster like this dude.

You do so with not angry multi-racial groups of parents of all ages, speaking from the heart in a natural setting that doesn’t look like a sterile above-the-clouds think tank drone is lecturing people.

C’Mon, man!!! Good idea somewhat poorly thought-out & executed im2bo.

Sacramento on April 14, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Our freedoms are largely being eroded bit by bit. Pretty soon prospective parents will have to apply and to have kids, go through training courses, go to government hospitals and see government doctors. The optional genetic screens will become mandatory and guess what happens when an abnormality is found?

We should reject the notion of sending our kids to public schools and universities where they get indoctrinated with this collective notion nonsense. It was freedom and personal responsibility that made this country great, but it is the “it’s everyone else’s responsibly” attitude that is destroying it.

nazo311 on April 14, 2013 at 4:10 PM

If kids don’t learn responsibility at home, they’ll never learn it.

ted c on April 14, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Hitler Obama Youth movement soon to be the Hillary Youth movement. With the huge debt burden being placed on America’s innocent children, the Democrats best start using some serious updated brainwashing and mind-control techniques…real quick!

Karmi on April 14, 2013 at 10:24 AM

They already are. Public schools, most colleges and the MSM and if the results of the past couple elections are any indication then their hard work is paying off and they’re winning. Just ask a progressive about the trillion plus deficits every year and they’ll tell you with a straight face that it’s still Bush’s fault and that Obama had no choice but to spend…. it’s complete bonkers of course but that’s a prog for you.

Us conservatives are the resistance at best right now. We’re losing if we haven’t already lost the fight to educate and inform our fellow Americans let alone our youth.

Yakko77 on April 14, 2013 at 4:37 PM

And pants. Someone’s got to wear the pants.

John the Libertarian on April 14, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Ed, what you’re describing is the ideal situation. And yet, we know that hundreds of thousands of kids are in homes where the situation is less than ideal, through not fault of their own. Isn’t this where the idea of a community would be a good thing?

SnarkVader on April 14, 2013 at 6:47 PM

How’s that government village doing raising those kids in Chicago Detroit, New Orleans, Flint, Trenton, etc?

Don L on April 14, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Isn’t this where the idea of a community would be a good thing?

SnarkVader on April 14, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Ed hasn’t responded, but I’m curious.
How would that work?
What would the steps be? The forced removal of those kids from those environments? What would the criteria be that would lead up to those actions? Special courts for that? What if the kids didn’t want to be “helped”, etc.

Mimzey on April 14, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Ed, what you’re describing is the ideal situation. And yet, we know that hundreds of thousands of kids are in homes where the situation is less than ideal, through not fault of their own. Isn’t this where the idea of a community would be a good thing?

SnarkVader on April 14, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Raised many decades ago by pro-life parents, I can assure you that the entire community was also watching kids and that phone rang when you messed up and the parents were thankful.

Community can’t raise children properly, but it sure can help. That’s what makes society tick–not government.

Don L on April 14, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Ed, what you’re describing is the ideal situation. And yet, we know that hundreds of thousands of kids are in homes where the situation is less than ideal, through not fault of their own. Isn’t this where the idea of a community would be a good thing?

SnarkVader on April 14, 2013 at 6:47 PM

South Chicago, now go make me a sandwich bitch.

tom daschle concerned on April 14, 2013 at 8:47 PM

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/14/5340078/nevada-buses-hundreds-of-mentally.html

nevada is taking this shizzat for literal, yo. No really, they’re shipping the mentally ill all across the country–but just to all the other 49 states so don’t worry– on Greyhound buses.

C’mon ya’ll. Get your community on.

ted c on April 14, 2013 at 8:55 PM

The Khmer Rouge pushed the same crap on children … their Year Zero is the same thing the Democrats are pushing now.

Karmi on April 14, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Ed, what you’re describing is the ideal situation. And yet, we know that hundreds of thousands of kids are in homes where the situation is less than ideal, through not fault of their own. Isn’t this where the idea of a community would be a good thing?

SnarkVader on April 14, 2013 at 6:47 PM

The problem with that, SV is that for the “community” to be the backstop for families is that it has to be united in favor of the country also.

I’m afraid we’ve reached a tipping point where the country isn’t united enough…and with families being shaped and flaked by the Progressives that’s the antithesis of traditional American Culture.

Can we come back? Sure; but it won’t be easy, and it sure as heck won’t be quick either….

BlaxPac on April 15, 2013 at 1:07 AM

Isn’t this where the idea of a community would be a good thing?

SnarkVader on April 14, 2013 at 6:47 PM

I was actually waiting all day for someone to make this argument. The difference is the same between voluntary and forced association. The “community” in this case doesn’t claim they own the children and can override parental authority. Instead, it supports the family as the basic unit of society and voluntarily acts to strengthen parents rather than having government undermine them by imposing control over the children.

As an aside, I’d argue that this is the reason charter schools perform better, too — more parental control and less influence by the government and especially the state-supporting public-employee unions.

Ed Morrissey on April 15, 2013 at 6:56 AM

Ed Morrissey on April 15, 2013 at 6:56 AM

But you’re assuming that these parents can be strengthened. How many kids have we seen that grew up in broken, dysfunctional homes and succeeded in spite of their surroundings? Those kids had someone outside of the family who believed in them and filled a void left by their irresponsible parent(s). It could be a coach, a clergy member, a teacher, a mentor…someone willing to embrace the potential that all kids have in spite of their surroundings. I’m not saying that these kids should be taken from their homes and forced into some government control situation. I’m talking about people in the community who don’t want these kids to fall through the cracks due to circumstances that are no fault of their own. Yes, parental involvement is the ideal. But we all know that there are people who are unfit parents. To ignore that reality because of some misguided notion that the government is going to swoop in and indoctrinate those children is nuts.

SnarkVader on April 15, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Please note that the template is already being set: “it takes a village” for all children except those of the power elite. I doubt Michelle is outsourcing decisions as to her daughters to any committee of parents in Washington DC. So the vision is indoctrination for the masses of children and freedom for the rich and powerful. If anyone does not know where that is going, I don’t know what to tell you.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on April 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM

It takes a village to produce: pimps, whores and crack heads.

esnap on April 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Yes, parental involvement is the ideal. But we all know that there are people who are unfit parents. To ignore that reality because of some misguided notion that the government is going to swoop in and indoctrinate those children is nuts.

SnarkVader on April 15, 2013 at 9:25 AM

.
Uhhh … no ….. huh uh.

Government has already (that’s past tense) swooped in, and begun indoctrinating our kids and grand kids.
For about forty some years now, I might also add.

Advocating that government should provide the “safety net” only reveals your philosophy/ideology for what it is, and your lack of faith in people.

listens2glenn on April 15, 2013 at 12:33 PM