Teachers sometimes act like big know-it-alls. Perhaps it's a reflection of the fact that they face a great deal of insecurity, as well as the fact that they are pressured from many sources.

They often try to show that they know what is best for every parent's child, and they frequently disseminate unwanted advice.

Sometimes they happen to be right. That's not surprising, since the law of averages applies to them as well as to everybody else.

However, their blithe but mistaken guidance could lead to tragic results.

Under the existing circumstances, there is no reason why the situation should be different.

Nobody really tries to improve the system. The prevailing attitude makes the most of the existing situation, since teachers feel that there is no hope for a substantial improvement.

Teachers themselves have no background for offering guidance about the best classes, programs, activities, or courses to recommend for individual children. They only understand their own needs. However, those limitations do not stop teachers from using their authority to direct children and their parents.

The educational establishment also bases many of its decisions on its own convenience. Children may be assigned to certain classes for reasons that are less than ideal.

Consider the fact that schools have a need to distribute children evenly among the different subject or classroom levels. The principal may say anything that is necessary in order to convince a parent to send a child to a class that promotes or is convenient for his system. At some point, your child is likely to become a victim of this policy.

In other cases, teachers and administrators may base their feelings about a child's aptitude in a particular area on inconsequential, practical, systematic, or unprofessional issues. They will ignore or violate a concerned parent's intuition, even though it is often superior to the school's mis-guidance. After all, the parent does know her child better than the school authorities.

The true case studies in this article demonstrate how the stubborn demands of school officials and professionals are likely to conflict with the parent's knowledge and experience at some point, and how they can damage your child's future. That situation ultimately becomes your problem, not that of the school.

When a parent is faced with an intractable educational policy, it may be wise to move the child to a school that will be amenable to the child's concepts and feelings.

Case study

A child was pressured into joining a certain track in school. She was happy to join her friends in that track. However, the placement conflicted with the parents' knowledge of the best form and level of education for their child. The parents protested, to no avail.

The imposed class did not work out. In time, the child suffered a severe conflict between her real needs and the school's incorrect placement. However, the school would not back down from its decision:

• That would mean admitting that the parent's requests were justified
• If the parent's requests are justified, then the teacher's requests would perforce by unjustified
• It would also mean that the distribution of students in the classes would be uneven
• The school was also concerned that it would open a Pandora's box, with other parents requesting changes in classroom assignment.

The school authorities insisted that the child remain in her assigned track. The guidance counselor called the parents, and in a nasty, authoritative, and loud voice argued with the parents. Her claims were as follows:

• The school has professionals who know what to do
• The parent was incompetent

Following a meeting of the school faculty, the officials voted to take a strong hand against the parent.

The educational establishment felt insecure. They were afraid that they would lose some of their power if they let the parent have his way. They stood their ground firmly, but no single official took responsibility for the policy.

The parents did back down, in order to quiet the issue. However, the school was determined to escalate this issue in order to turn it into a test case. They wanted to prevent possible uprisings or repercussions from other parents. The school continued to take strong and definitive action.

Some teachers accepted the responsibility of handling the conflict with the child's home philosophy. They pressured the child to make a complete break from her parents, and to leave home! The child, who had been trained to accept and respect her school authorities, did as bidden.

Although the child's behavior in school continued to deteriorate after she left home, the school "leaked" messages about how she was now flourishing. The child was now instructed to refrain from any contact with her home. She complied, and arranged for an unlisted number, so that her parents could not contact her.

The child felt a need to rationalize the fact that she was now living under the aegis of an agency that dealt with at-risk children. She developed stories about her supposed suffering, and she praised the school's efforts to remove her from her "broken" home.

This entire crime escalated over a brief period of time. It was perpetrated in order to protect the school from a need to admit wrongdoing. The travesty deflected any potential vengeance that may result from the mis-placement of the child. Focus was now placed on her subsequent removal from home.

Unquestionably, the procedure served the interests of the school.

And the interests of the child? Well, since when was that an issue?

Did the child benefit in any way?

Many years passed. The school had enforced the break between the child and the home, and it was never repaired.

School officials had reason to meet the parents at various occasions, such as a simcha. They were clearly uneasy and embarrassed about the situation. They knew that they were guilty of a crime.

The parents, who had previously been active supporters of the school and who had volunteered their efforts, no longer offered their services.

The child suffered greatly. She required intensive psychotherapy, as a result of living the Big Lie under the tutelage of the school. After being brainwashed into feeling that the school was correct in its actions, she extended the concept to its logical extreme. She announced that her parents were wrong, bad, and wicked. This was a logical continuation of her previous pronouncements about her living in a broken home.

A further stage, promulgated by a consortium of teachers and psychologists, "helped" her understand that she, herself, and not the school authorities, had elected to leave her desperately "wrong" home environment, and that she selected the "correct" school environment of her own volition. This was another stage in the school protecting its own interests against a lawsuit for wrongdoing.

Halfway house officials assigned the child to a continuing series of civil service psychologists, each one operating independently of the others. Their treatment left the child more confused than ever, yet she remained convinced that the officials were trying to "help" her.

This tragedy could have been avoided if the parents had removed their child from the egregiously bad influence of incompetent and know-it-all officials and teachers in that school.

This case study does not imply that teachers, counselors, and principals are always wrong in their feelings about children.

However, it does prove that parents should not allow their child to remain in educational settings that support decisions that are patently wrong. It does mean that children in such schools are at risk, and they may suffer irreparable damage.

Immature children should never have to make independent choices between the school and the parent, or between right and wrong.

Afterword: All of these tragedies occurred because the school "almost" met the parents' philosophy. We'll elaborate on that issue in the next article.