http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/carseat_in_a_medical_emergency
I wish this was a joke. It's not.
Did I ever mention that my first child protection trial involved a baby who suffered broken ribs when the car was struck IN A PARKING LOT?
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
Cute kid-ism with a Biblical reference
2 years ago, I mentioned to my kids that the Dead Sea Scrolls special exhibit would be coming to a museum near us in the fall.
Before we went to the exhibit, we took a family trip to Israel. While there, we went for a hike in the Ein Gedi nature reserve, located near the shore of the Dead Sea. Along the trail, we noticed numerous rock hyraxes, on trees and rocks.
So, what did my then-6 year old daughter say?
"Look, Mommy! It's the Dead Sea Squirrels!"
Before we went to the exhibit, we took a family trip to Israel. While there, we went for a hike in the Ein Gedi nature reserve, located near the shore of the Dead Sea. Along the trail, we noticed numerous rock hyraxes, on trees and rocks.
So, what did my then-6 year old daughter say?
"Look, Mommy! It's the Dead Sea Squirrels!"
Sunday, August 14, 2011
New proposal for integrating faith-based schools into the public system
I've been trying to design a framework for integrating faith-based school with the public system, in a way that meets the goals and values of each. I call these "surround school" concepts, since the faith-based program "surrounds" the public school component.
Here are possible models:
Model 1 - Integrating existing faith-based schools:
The public school board would lease space from the existing faith-based school, and use it to run a public school program within the facility.
The schedules of the public and faith-based schools will be coordinated, so that students will attend one in the morning, one in the afternoon, and will have the same holidays.
Existing general studies teachers who meet the basic requirements for the public system will be absorbed by the public system.
While there is coordination, the public school will be a separate legal entity, subject to the policies of the public school board. The faith-based school will have no control over admissions, dress code or curriculum. There will be a parent advisory council, who may address cultural and religious issues (like explaining why students may wish to avoid Halloween, for example), but final decisions on curriculum will be made by the public school board.
All of the religious activity and instruction would take place in those parts of the facility that are not leased by the public school.
EXAMPLE:
Public school leases one side of the school.
Students may arrive at school for an early prayer service, then proceed to the public school side in time for morning classes. The lunch room will be on the faith-based side, while the gym, art and music areas will be on the public side. After lunch, the morning students proceed to the faith-based classes, while the other half of the students file into the public school side for their general studies classes. After those classes, students may go back to the faith-based side for more prayers or other after-school programming.
If a child in the area doesn't want the faith-based programming, they can simply attend the public school program. The hours may be a bit different, but the curriculum is essentially the same.
Model 2 - for new faith-based school programs:
There would be a facility, used by the public school to run its program. The school and its program would be designed so that special groups, including faith-based groups, could lease space for their programs before, after and even during lunch break of the public school program.
Again, there would be coordination of schedules and school calendar, and a parent advisory council, but the public school would retain control of admissions, basic policies and curriculum.
In addition - more than one faith could be operating in conjunction with a given public school, so students would have an opportunity to learn with those of different faiths.
Some of these schools may be single-gender, as long as a similar school for the other gender is located nearby.
The public school part of the curriculum may include language instruction.
EXAMPLE:
Faith-based students may arrive early, and go to prayer services in rooms leased for their particular faith - Jewish in room 101, Muslim in room 102, Hindu in room 103, Christian in room 104, etc. After that, the public school program would begin. If the schedule allows it to run in 2 shifts, faith-based programs can operate in their leased spaces at the same time so that student can do one in the morning, one in the afternoon.
ADVANTAGES:
1. Makes the public system more inclusive, by accommodating religious needs.
2. Reduces inequality (where I live, only the Catholic system receives public funding)
3. Reduces extreme financial burden of religious education for those communities.
4. Ensures that basic public curriculum is taught.
5. Public funding does not go to any program that is not open to all members of the public, nor to pay for religious content.
6. Preserves the ease of scheduling that makes parents choose religious day schools over public school plus supplemental education.
Here are possible models:
Model 1 - Integrating existing faith-based schools:
The public school board would lease space from the existing faith-based school, and use it to run a public school program within the facility.
The schedules of the public and faith-based schools will be coordinated, so that students will attend one in the morning, one in the afternoon, and will have the same holidays.
Existing general studies teachers who meet the basic requirements for the public system will be absorbed by the public system.
While there is coordination, the public school will be a separate legal entity, subject to the policies of the public school board. The faith-based school will have no control over admissions, dress code or curriculum. There will be a parent advisory council, who may address cultural and religious issues (like explaining why students may wish to avoid Halloween, for example), but final decisions on curriculum will be made by the public school board.
All of the religious activity and instruction would take place in those parts of the facility that are not leased by the public school.
EXAMPLE:
Public school leases one side of the school.
Students may arrive at school for an early prayer service, then proceed to the public school side in time for morning classes. The lunch room will be on the faith-based side, while the gym, art and music areas will be on the public side. After lunch, the morning students proceed to the faith-based classes, while the other half of the students file into the public school side for their general studies classes. After those classes, students may go back to the faith-based side for more prayers or other after-school programming.
If a child in the area doesn't want the faith-based programming, they can simply attend the public school program. The hours may be a bit different, but the curriculum is essentially the same.
Model 2 - for new faith-based school programs:
There would be a facility, used by the public school to run its program. The school and its program would be designed so that special groups, including faith-based groups, could lease space for their programs before, after and even during lunch break of the public school program.
Again, there would be coordination of schedules and school calendar, and a parent advisory council, but the public school would retain control of admissions, basic policies and curriculum.
In addition - more than one faith could be operating in conjunction with a given public school, so students would have an opportunity to learn with those of different faiths.
Some of these schools may be single-gender, as long as a similar school for the other gender is located nearby.
The public school part of the curriculum may include language instruction.
EXAMPLE:
Faith-based students may arrive early, and go to prayer services in rooms leased for their particular faith - Jewish in room 101, Muslim in room 102, Hindu in room 103, Christian in room 104, etc. After that, the public school program would begin. If the schedule allows it to run in 2 shifts, faith-based programs can operate in their leased spaces at the same time so that student can do one in the morning, one in the afternoon.
ADVANTAGES:
1. Makes the public system more inclusive, by accommodating religious needs.
2. Reduces inequality (where I live, only the Catholic system receives public funding)
3. Reduces extreme financial burden of religious education for those communities.
4. Ensures that basic public curriculum is taught.
5. Public funding does not go to any program that is not open to all members of the public, nor to pay for religious content.
6. Preserves the ease of scheduling that makes parents choose religious day schools over public school plus supplemental education.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Advice on future responses to internet idiocy
Warning: language
http://www.notquitewrong.com/rosscottinc/2011/08/03/so-youre-mad-about-something-on-the-internet/
Thanks Jill!
http://www.notquitewrong.com/rosscottinc/2011/08/03/so-youre-mad-about-something-on-the-internet/
Thanks Jill!
Monday, July 25, 2011
Problems in the Agudath position on abuse reporting
Here is the latest statement by Agudath Israel on reporting suspicions of child abuse.
In a nutshell, it says "yes, child abuse is bad and you may really need to report it - but you can't do so unless you speak to a rabbi first".
Here's my list of what's wrong with that position, written from my perspective as a family and child protection lawyer who has worked for a child protection agency and also worked with victims of abuse and parents accused of abuse.
1. HUGE potential for conflict-of-interest, at best, and cover-up of abuse at worst. Unfortunately, there have been cases of abuse by rabbis or teachers, where nobody did anything to stop the abuser.
I have to wonder whether these people are completely unaware of everything that has been happening in the rest of the world for the past 20 years when it comes to abuse awareness, particularly sexual abuse. Do they not know about the crisis in the Catholic Church, or about the multi-million dollar claims against religious organizations that ran orphanages and residential schools?
2. Nobody has identified who these expert rabbis may be, or what qualifications they have.
3. Assumes that followers are incapable of using their own brains to be able to know when there are clear-cut indications of abuse. The Agudath Israel could have just as easily said, "We have been in contact with child protection officials, and here are some guidelines as to when there would be an obligation to report".
4. There's no indication that they recognize just what child protection workers do, or just how important it is to make reports without delay. I really can't stress this enough. Child protection workers don't simply swoop in and take children just on the basis of a phone call from someone saying, "I think that child X is being abused". The phone call merely alerts them to potential problems and gets them to investigate whether or not there is in fact a reason to get involved. Now, in order to properly investigate, the concern needs to be reported ASAP to child protection officials - before physical evidence disappears, before a young child forgets what they have said, before too many people have spoken to the child. Any evidence really needs to be as fresh as possible.
5. Asking a rabbi first can easily lead to tainting or tampering with the evidence, especially if they speak to the child before police or child protection officials do. Again, it is vitally important for child protection officials to know EXACTLY what a child has said, to whom they have said it, and when they said it. Anything said to or asked of the child can make a difference.
6. Creates a suspicion that any religious Jewish professional or organization may not comply with mandated reporting requirements. This could in turn mean that child protection organizations won't be able to work with these people or organizations.
For example, where I live, Jewish Family and Child Services is licensed to act as a child protection agency. This means that a Jewish child is more likely to have a Jewish social worker, to receive services in Hebrew if needed, to be placed in a Jewish foster home, and to generally get religiously and culturally-appropriate services. I can't stress how important this is for Jewish families. I've handled cases where Portuguese clients were able to get Portuguese social workers, Portuguese counselling, and Portuguese foster homes, and it was wonderful because language, religious and cultural issues never became a problem. On the other hand, I've had cases where I had to explain why the Jehovah's Witness child couldn't celebrate Halloween, and why the Hindu child shouldn't be fed beef in the foster home, and dealt with suspicions of racism by Native parents, and even dealt with a social worker who told me with a straight face that my illiterate Somali client who spoke no English had just signed away her legal rights without needing to speak to a lawyer. In short, Jewish families and child benefit from Jewish services - but not if there are concerns that abuse won't be reported as required by law.
7. Eliminates potential safeguards for Jewish children, and puts the decision into the hands of just a few: With the mandatory reporting system, there are many people who may potentially report a concern - teachers, daycare workers, doctors, nurses, counselors, etc. Agudath's position would take these diverse potential sources of reporting, and force them to go through just a few gatekeepers. This is an enormous concentration of power, with tremendous potential for harm if mistakes are made.
8. It doesn't acknowledge problems that have occurred with a "culture of silence", aside from a simple statement that in obvious cases, abuse should be reported. Far more self-reflection is needed, far more education on the effects and dynamics of abuse (particularly sexual abuse) is required.
It doesn't talk about conversations that parents need to have with children about abuse prevention.
It doesn't talk about awareness programs for students and staff in schools.
It doesn't talk about making sure that students know which adults they can tell if there are problems.
It doesn't talk about methods to ensure that a potential abuser is not allowed around children pending an investigation.
It doesn't talk about ways of overcoming reluctance to report in a small, insular community.
It doesn't talk about removing old administrators who may have swept problems under the rug.
It doesn't talk about what needs to be done to ensure that victims are not re-victimized and that their families are not terrorized.
In a nutshell, it says "yes, child abuse is bad and you may really need to report it - but you can't do so unless you speak to a rabbi first".
Here's my list of what's wrong with that position, written from my perspective as a family and child protection lawyer who has worked for a child protection agency and also worked with victims of abuse and parents accused of abuse.
1. HUGE potential for conflict-of-interest, at best, and cover-up of abuse at worst. Unfortunately, there have been cases of abuse by rabbis or teachers, where nobody did anything to stop the abuser.
I have to wonder whether these people are completely unaware of everything that has been happening in the rest of the world for the past 20 years when it comes to abuse awareness, particularly sexual abuse. Do they not know about the crisis in the Catholic Church, or about the multi-million dollar claims against religious organizations that ran orphanages and residential schools?
2. Nobody has identified who these expert rabbis may be, or what qualifications they have.
3. Assumes that followers are incapable of using their own brains to be able to know when there are clear-cut indications of abuse. The Agudath Israel could have just as easily said, "We have been in contact with child protection officials, and here are some guidelines as to when there would be an obligation to report".
4. There's no indication that they recognize just what child protection workers do, or just how important it is to make reports without delay. I really can't stress this enough. Child protection workers don't simply swoop in and take children just on the basis of a phone call from someone saying, "I think that child X is being abused". The phone call merely alerts them to potential problems and gets them to investigate whether or not there is in fact a reason to get involved. Now, in order to properly investigate, the concern needs to be reported ASAP to child protection officials - before physical evidence disappears, before a young child forgets what they have said, before too many people have spoken to the child. Any evidence really needs to be as fresh as possible.
5. Asking a rabbi first can easily lead to tainting or tampering with the evidence, especially if they speak to the child before police or child protection officials do. Again, it is vitally important for child protection officials to know EXACTLY what a child has said, to whom they have said it, and when they said it. Anything said to or asked of the child can make a difference.
6. Creates a suspicion that any religious Jewish professional or organization may not comply with mandated reporting requirements. This could in turn mean that child protection organizations won't be able to work with these people or organizations.
For example, where I live, Jewish Family and Child Services is licensed to act as a child protection agency. This means that a Jewish child is more likely to have a Jewish social worker, to receive services in Hebrew if needed, to be placed in a Jewish foster home, and to generally get religiously and culturally-appropriate services. I can't stress how important this is for Jewish families. I've handled cases where Portuguese clients were able to get Portuguese social workers, Portuguese counselling, and Portuguese foster homes, and it was wonderful because language, religious and cultural issues never became a problem. On the other hand, I've had cases where I had to explain why the Jehovah's Witness child couldn't celebrate Halloween, and why the Hindu child shouldn't be fed beef in the foster home, and dealt with suspicions of racism by Native parents, and even dealt with a social worker who told me with a straight face that my illiterate Somali client who spoke no English had just signed away her legal rights without needing to speak to a lawyer. In short, Jewish families and child benefit from Jewish services - but not if there are concerns that abuse won't be reported as required by law.
7. Eliminates potential safeguards for Jewish children, and puts the decision into the hands of just a few: With the mandatory reporting system, there are many people who may potentially report a concern - teachers, daycare workers, doctors, nurses, counselors, etc. Agudath's position would take these diverse potential sources of reporting, and force them to go through just a few gatekeepers. This is an enormous concentration of power, with tremendous potential for harm if mistakes are made.
8. It doesn't acknowledge problems that have occurred with a "culture of silence", aside from a simple statement that in obvious cases, abuse should be reported. Far more self-reflection is needed, far more education on the effects and dynamics of abuse (particularly sexual abuse) is required.
It doesn't talk about conversations that parents need to have with children about abuse prevention.
It doesn't talk about awareness programs for students and staff in schools.
It doesn't talk about making sure that students know which adults they can tell if there are problems.
It doesn't talk about methods to ensure that a potential abuser is not allowed around children pending an investigation.
It doesn't talk about ways of overcoming reluctance to report in a small, insular community.
It doesn't talk about removing old administrators who may have swept problems under the rug.
It doesn't talk about what needs to be done to ensure that victims are not re-victimized and that their families are not terrorized.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
World perspective of my 8-year-old
I often get this feeling during a debate where I want to yell "don't you know..." or "don't you remember", and then stop myself as I realize that no, they don't know what I know, and/or they are too young to remember what I do.
My 8-year-old said a couple of things that drove home to me just how much her view of the world can be different than mine. She's a very bright girl - but she's only 8.
Those 2 things were:
"Mommy, what's are Jesus?", and "What's 9/11?".
Now, when I was her age, I was going to a public school where most of the kids were Christian, and as an adult I live in an extremely multicultural world. Our Jewish neighbourhood is just one part of my life. I like the fact that my kids have a strong identity and are able to feel "normal" instead of constantly feeling like a minority - but I forget sometimes just how different their upbringing is from what mine was, and just how much they are living in a Jewish bubble. Until she attended a camp on the Italian side of town last summer, she had never heard of Jesus. She wasn't actually aware that Jesus was a person - she just assumed that it was the plural form of jeez, and has no idea what that was.
The second question floored me even more. We were in New York last winter, and went to Ground Zero. My older daughter knew all about 9/11. She had been a toddler when it happened, and it's part of her earliest memories. Kids at daycare and school talked about it, and she saw us watching footage on TV. My 8-year-old, though, is 3 years younger, and was born 13 months after the attacks. Even though it was still all around us, from our books to conversations, she was in her little-kid world and never clued in, preferring endless Disney programs to CNN. It never occurred to me, however, that she DIDN'T know about it until she asked me that question.
My 8-year-old said a couple of things that drove home to me just how much her view of the world can be different than mine. She's a very bright girl - but she's only 8.
Those 2 things were:
"Mommy, what's are Jesus?", and "What's 9/11?".
Now, when I was her age, I was going to a public school where most of the kids were Christian, and as an adult I live in an extremely multicultural world. Our Jewish neighbourhood is just one part of my life. I like the fact that my kids have a strong identity and are able to feel "normal" instead of constantly feeling like a minority - but I forget sometimes just how different their upbringing is from what mine was, and just how much they are living in a Jewish bubble. Until she attended a camp on the Italian side of town last summer, she had never heard of Jesus. She wasn't actually aware that Jesus was a person - she just assumed that it was the plural form of jeez, and has no idea what that was.
The second question floored me even more. We were in New York last winter, and went to Ground Zero. My older daughter knew all about 9/11. She had been a toddler when it happened, and it's part of her earliest memories. Kids at daycare and school talked about it, and she saw us watching footage on TV. My 8-year-old, though, is 3 years younger, and was born 13 months after the attacks. Even though it was still all around us, from our books to conversations, she was in her little-kid world and never clued in, preferring endless Disney programs to CNN. It never occurred to me, however, that she DIDN'T know about it until she asked me that question.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
A simple comment and a great lady
4 years ago, we were going through a stressful time. We had a big move and renovation. In the middle of all of that chaos, several people close to us tragically died. With all of that, plus some negative experiences on a religious internet forum, I was experiencing a bit of a spiritual crisis.
In the middle of it all, one simple comment from a new neighbour made a difference.
We had been invited for lunch since we had just moved in, and we got to know each other. They mentioned that their child had gone to a school for kids with special needs when she was younger. I mentioned that my sister's mother-in-law had been the principal, and then informed them that she had just passed away that week.
They were shocked and saddened, and told us she must have gone straight to G-d in heaven because of all the great work she did.
THAT was the comment that moved me, simple as it was. You see, by some standards, my sister's mother-in-law would not have been considered "frum" (religiously observant), and I was worn out by online discussions blasting those who weren't maintaining the latest rules, and other fanatic remarks. I was also worn out by the casual disrespect that I often saw, where people would say that a non-frum person kept "nothing".
This family saw beyond that. They saw a lady who obviously recognized the holiness of every child's soul, regardless of that child's abilities, and who had dedicated her life to these children.
A great lady passed away 4 years ago, and we know that she went straight to heaven.
In the middle of it all, one simple comment from a new neighbour made a difference.
We had been invited for lunch since we had just moved in, and we got to know each other. They mentioned that their child had gone to a school for kids with special needs when she was younger. I mentioned that my sister's mother-in-law had been the principal, and then informed them that she had just passed away that week.
They were shocked and saddened, and told us she must have gone straight to G-d in heaven because of all the great work she did.
THAT was the comment that moved me, simple as it was. You see, by some standards, my sister's mother-in-law would not have been considered "frum" (religiously observant), and I was worn out by online discussions blasting those who weren't maintaining the latest rules, and other fanatic remarks. I was also worn out by the casual disrespect that I often saw, where people would say that a non-frum person kept "nothing".
This family saw beyond that. They saw a lady who obviously recognized the holiness of every child's soul, regardless of that child's abilities, and who had dedicated her life to these children.
A great lady passed away 4 years ago, and we know that she went straight to heaven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)