You're asking a whole lot of teachers.

And frankly, no. It is a classic case of treating the symptom rather than the disease. When what you need is stronger parenting and better social structure and safety nets, substituting that with additional responsibilities and workloads for teachers who are arguably often already burdened outside of what could reasonably be expected of them is not going to be a recipe for success.

I'm asking teachers nothing, actually. Just wondering and asking the parent post's author...

And frankly, I've no idea what ought to be done about it.

What I do know is this much: in broad strokes, the US went from a household with a pop at work mum at home 50 years ago, to a pop and mum at work or single parent at work nowadays. In other words, it turned into a society where parents don't have the material time to parent their own children. Who should do so in their place?

I heard about something called "parental rights" - is it something that depends on the individuals having "the material time to parent their own children" or is it me understanding things wrongly?

Even stepping back from this teaching aspect and into the abstract, making essentially mid-level staff employees responsible for factors that are well out of their control and above their pay grade is the sign of an unhealthy business. As a developer, is it my responsibility when product drops the ball or the business mis-invests its money and goes under? Teachers play a very important role in a child's development, and there are rockstar teachers that will truly turn a child's life around and put it on a different trajectory than where it would have been otherwise. But it's not in their job description to be able to do that for every child, regardless of how seriously they take THEIR job of being a student, or a parent's job of raising a child that is prepared for the real world.

How do you propose a teacher protect a student who they just met Day 1 of the school year who is heavily indoctrinated in gang culture? You can blame the teacher the year before but that teacher never saw the student much because he wasn't in class. It's not about role models it's about survival.

I grew up in a rural area. Farmland. I now live in NYC. This place breeds a hardened tougher person and in the impoverished areas education and schooling are often second fiddle to money that is here, now, that will keep food on the table.

No. Not even remotely. Teachers do provide a good example for their students, but it's not their responsibility to watch children 24hrs a day to ensure good behavior, to inspect their home to make sure it's suitable, to watch their parents and ensure that they're not abusive or setting a bad example. If we give them a "fair share of the blame," then their share would be exactly 0%, because they are not responsible for the problems they and their students have to deal with.

> Wouldn't you agree that, in a society where kids are primarily parented by third parties in practice,

No, I would not agree that children are parented by teachers. A child has multiple teachers each year and many, if not all of them, change year-to-year. What more could we ask for such a transient figure to do beyond being a good role model?

> not being good role models

Where has anyone every said educators shouldn't (or aren't) be role models?

> keeping kids protected from that mess?

Yes, my petite, 110# dripping wet friend will protect her kids from gang violence. By the time school security responds, the damage is done.

Additionally, how does a teach protect their kids when they're not in school? How do they protect them from gang violence in their neighborhoods?

These are big issues. Seriously, huge issues that cities and our society face. Expecting teachers to be able to build a bubble is ludicrous when children are selling drugs or worse on the streets to stay fed, when they're being shot and beat in and out of school over gang affiliations.

As I wrote in my reply to mkohlmyr, methinks the bigger problem is that parents no longer have the material time to parent their own kids.

Who should step in to fill the gap? Gangs? Militarized cops? Someone else?

It seems to me that teachers and educators spend the most time with kids apart from parents (or one would hope), and are the least bad candidates to second parents in parenting kids.

> It seems to me that teachers and educators spend the most time with kids apart from parents (or one would hope),

You mean the hour, maybe two they see a child during the day?

> are the least bad candidates to second parents in parenting kids.

No, they're not even a candidate.

This isn't about your friend specifically. In elementary school, it's common for kids to only have two teachers for the entire school year. My sister, on one occasion, moved up in the grade she taught and ended up teaching the same kids for two years. Many of these kids spend more awake time around their teachers than their parents. Given how the government forces kids to attend schools I don't see how one can't think that they and their employees share a huge part of the burden.

On the other hand, my sister makes it seem like there are just a lot of bad parents out there. Even the ones that mean well, will often act in a way destructive to their child's education. Many of them are rude and self-righteous. Honestly I no idea what to do about that.

You cannot be a proper parent to 20+ kids (hell, I'd argue 5+ kids of elementary school age would be difficult) simultaneously. I just don't know what more you expect out of teachers. Additionally, teachers only have children for 3/4 of the year and then the parents have them, and then a new teacher has them.

Parents are important; if you see your parents acting bad, neglecting you, are even encouraging you to act in these manners, then what can someone who spends 1/2 of 3/4 of a year with you really change that?

> You cannot be a proper parent to 20+ kids (hell, I'd argue 5+ kids of elementary school age would be difficult) simultaneously.

Agree wholeheartedly. But that's the sorry reality today.

> Parents are important; if you see your parents acting bad, neglecting you, are even encouraging you to act in these manners, then what can someone who spends 1/2 of 3/4 of a year with you really change that?

But you're missing my entire point here: parents nowadays spend very little time with their children compared to a half century ago. Where they used to get half a day of parenting (typically from house moms), kids are now only getting a few hours per day -- and that's provided whichever parent comes back from work first don't sit them in front of a TV while making dinner.

Blaming bad society or whatever is akin to sticking one's head in the sand. The kids need to be parented somehow, and it's pointless to blame the parents considering they both need to work in both households to make the mortgage, tax burden, and various other fixed cost work out; but nobody has stepped in to fill the gap left by societal changes. Who should?