In Search of Credence

So far, the "rights" posts about parents and teachers have focused on the negatives--the things both give up in a classroom setting.  Are comparable "Rights Parents and Teachers Have" lists even possible?  How about the veracity of a maxim I confidently put forth earlier:  Rights and responsibilities should always go together?  Should both parents and teachers have "responsibilities"  lists?

In the past 24 hours I've wondered a bit about my confidence in the above maxim.  Is that really true?

I first heard the expression in the context of employment.  One person referred to another who had found his role as an employee intolerable.  The observer felt that he understood the main problem:   the employee had been given heavy responsibility, but when he tried to accomplish what he was asked to do, his decisions were regularly overruled by his employer.  Most of us would agree that these working conditions were not satisfactory.  He was being given responsibility without rights.


My observation and experience tell me that the "rights and responsibilities" issue is indeed a problem for many classroom teachers and parents.  Lack of clarity about who the real employer is can enter in.  Is it the parents who donate to the school?  Is it the building principal?  Is it the school board?  All of the above?  So what happens if the signals from one of these entities differs from that of the others?  Parents also wonder sometimes about their role, or, even worse, perhaps never stop to think, but proceed confidently in the wrong direction--meddling in classroom matters, for example, in which they have no knowledge or experience. Perhaps they're also getting conflicting signals from the various people involved on the school side--the teacher, the principal, and the school board.  Puzzling out these matters can be a real challenge, but, in brief, I suggest that the crux of classroom school problems centers on parents, students, or teachers claiming rights without shouldering their own legitimate responsibilities.  

In Scripture, most of what we're taught is that rights must be yielded--not claimed,  (If a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die . . . it bringeth forth much fruit.) Dying, the ultimate yielding, is the picture Jesus gives us of what should happen in us.   "A Christian cannot be concerned with one's own entitlement" is how Andrew Schleicher put it.  With this background, it seems unwise to compile a "rights" list--even for the classroom, and expect it to provide useful guidance.

Scripture also teaches that responsibilities must be claimed and not cast away (To whom much is given, of him shall much be required.).    We know that a "responsibilities list" probably exists in the mind of God, so why do we have so much trouble discovering it and living by it--especially when it comes to operating classroom schools constructively?  I believe discovering and living by such a list is, in fact, possible and necessary, and we ought to be very concerned about getting this list right.  Without it, there's a lot of floundering in our future.

In searching this morning for teaching that addressed the rights/responsibilities matter from a Scriptural foundation, I came across Hebrews 10:19-25.  One teacher summarized the teaching there this way:  We have a right to two things--confidence and counsel.  We also have two responsibilities:  Come close (draw near) and cleave (hold fast).  While I don't see this passage as applying specifically to classroom schools, it does seem to apply in a general way, and add credence to the idea that rights and responsibilities should and do go together.