[rayiner]

The skepticism is mostly inappropriate in the context of public education. It is the purpose of public school educators to help their kids, and that often requires disclosure of information that would not be required of an adult in the same situation.

[crusso]

It is the purpose of public school educators to help their kids

Well, that's what they say. Looking at the way that the public school systems are run -- the way they fight school choice, the way they fight merit systems, the way they resist all efforts to measure teacher competence, the way they fight firing criminally bad teachers -- it seems that the purpose of public school educators is to protect their jobs and power base.

It's no coincidence that the NEA is the largest union in the country.

Naturally, there are some great teachers out there... but if you're going to generalize, at least cover the most obvious purpose of those you're generalizing. As a whole, the public education system itself is a self-serving disaster.

[ctdonath]

No, the purpose of public school educators is to EDUCATE. Disclosure of such information is NOT required for the educational process. These attempts to improve the process by probing and influencing behavior outside the classroom grossly oversteps appropriate boundaries.

The information being demanded (and, where possible, anyone advocating not complying is being punished) is subject to naive, ignorant, bigoted, and biased interpretation by people not trained, hired, nor authorized (by parents) to interpret that information, yet those same people are empowered to act on their interpretations with severe consequences up to and including "reprogramming"[1], expulsion, and prosecution. Some of the information revealed seems persuasively permissible ("are you currently a user of illegal hard drugs?"), but many are subject to gross misinterpretation of answers ("have you ever consumed alcohol?" "yes", not explained as in fact a tiny amount a few times during Communion at church). The context is inappropriate and veiled, the answers viewed without parental permission, a permanent record is made, and "anything you say can be used against you in a court of law".

tl;dr - none of their business. Teach the subjects assigned; don't pry unless there is objective reason to do so. What my kid is doing outside the classroom is my problem.

[1] - someone taught my niece that "gun" is a "bad word". She won't fess up to who, and I have reason to believe it's her "educators". In a culture where owning & using them is common family recreation & survival, this crosses the line.

[pfortuny]

Never has it been deemed necessary to educate a child by making him put into writing his misdemeanors. Ever.

If you want to educate a child or a minor, please please please talk to him personally. If you cannot do this, you are not going to educate him.

And never in your life ask him to write anything wrong about himself. Even less with his name on it. It is a useless exercise which can only have ill side-effects and help nobody.

[ynniv]

Really? Data that you don't control has effectively become a permanent record. On the one hand we say that any information on kids is private, and on the other it's being handed to third parties, and we all know that you can never really take that back. Sharing information about your crimes or abuses with the State or corporations is something that you will certainly regret in a couple of decades.

[ http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2013/03/inblooms-... ]

[JasonFruit]

I don't think there's anything about education that requires the sort of information they were requesting. I think it's a perfect occasion for skepticism. In fact, I think public anything is a good occasion for skepticism.

[csense]

> It is the purpose of public school educators to help their kids

Let's assume this statement is true, and public school educators are all saints who would never use the survey responses against their students in any way.

How do you know that only public school educators will have access to the information?

What if the surveys are sent back to the survey company for scanning, so that company now has the results as well? What if the information is stolen, leaked, or hacked, and posted on the Internet for anyone to read?

How do you know that some ambitious prosecutor who's looking for easy targets won't just find a lax judge who'll sign off on a subpoena of the survey results? School officials refusing to comply with a subpoena and going to jail to protect their students in this situation seems to be squarely in the realm of fantasy. Before you say something like "it is the purpose of prosecutors to serve the interests of justice, so they would never do crappy things," please read about Aaron Swartz. And really, by some definition, enforcing anti-drug laws in the most cost-effective manner may be an optimal use of a prosecutor's time.

[jstalin]

That's incredibly naive.

[warfangle]

A survey seems a rather crude method, though, surely.