OT again: Parents could be fined for missing school meetings

Leon wrote:

> "Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>So now your level of discourse is reduced to name calling. Yeah, that's a
>>persuasive argument. NOT.
>
> Name calling is usey to tease ot antagonize. Swingman is not trying to
> tease or antagonize.
>
>>To do wrong rather than do nothing, out of a sense that you have to do
>>"something," is wrong.
>
> And who is the judge of wrong? YOU? ;~) Doing nothing about a wrong
> situation is always wrong. Doing something always has a 50/50 chance of
> being right.
>

Name calling is also used as a cathersis for the name-caller, when he
runs out of reasoned argument, to make him feel that he is doing
something rather than doing nothing. Which, according to your
argument, gives the name-caller a 50/50 chance of being right. Which
illustrates the fallacy of your argument.

Another example. I see a woman in the mall, yelling at her child,
calling it names and telling it other spiteful things, until the child
breaks into tears. According to you, doing nothing about a wrong
situation is always wrong. So it would be wrong for me to do nothing.
So, I grab the mother's purse and take $500 out as a "fine." OR, I
punch her in the mouth. OR, I grab the child and run out of the mall.
After all, I'm doing something rather than doing nothing, so whatever I
do, according to you, I have a 50/50 chance of being right. Right?
According to you, of course right.

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:05:07 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>It's really sad that a LOT of parents view school as something akin to
>sending raw materials into a factory. They just want to pick up a
>finished part at the end, and they blame the school for the problems.
>
>My wife sees this even in Pre-K (She's a teacher for kids with special
>needs).

Trouble is that thanks to bussing kids all over Hell's half acre, some
parents can't _get_ to the frelling school. Poor people in the inner
city don't always have cars to drive to the suburban paradise that the
courts have decided is appropriate for schooling their kids, and the
school bus may be the _only_ bus that goes near there. Was the school
willing to send a bus to pick up the parent?

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>>
>> --
>
> I'd say it won't make a blind bit of difference to anyone or anything
> except the parent who is fined. Cost of collection is likely to exceed
> revenue, for one thing.

It may bery well not make a diufference. I suspect that it will work on
those that are part time participators more so than those that simply are
not going to participate. If ther were no penalty many would disobey the
speed limit.


> We're arguing about this as if all the school systems not using it are
> failing (or vice versa); I have to sit back and wonder just how big a
> problem broken appointments truly is. How many parents actually make
> appointments and then don't keep them, on a state-by-state basis? In
> other words, how many are extremely rude?

I am sure that a large percentage are doing just fine. The HS that my son
attended was by invetation only or if your borthers and sisters attended.
the qualifier was simply to have made passing grades 2 years prior to
attending and that your conduct grade be at least satisfoactory for those
years. The school did very well on state testing the drop out rate was
extrememy low. The community was mostly lower income.


>
> It strikes me, and this may be totally wrongheaded, that the problem
> exists mainly in inner city schools, with some slop-over into other
> urban schools, some suburban and a few rural. I've heard complaints
> here about parents not showing up for parent-teachers days.

I think it focused on a small town close to Houston in Brazoria county IIRC.

>
> In other words, how big a problem are they trying to cure with
> draconian measures that seem likely to be illegal or unconstituional
> to start, and to engender irritation otherwise.

In some areas I'm sure it is a big problem but to single out a few problem
schools tends to rub some people the wrong way.

>
> Someone commented that it would be nice to get the druggies' and
> topers' attention and make them responsible parents. That is
> particularly laughable in view of the general failure of almost all
> behavior modification programs for such behavior. Adding one more
> censure and fine is a ludicrous step, and one that's probably not even
> noticeable to the parent floating away--is that what happens?--on a
> crack cloud, or submerging in a wine fog.

I mentioned that and was hoping to get a laugh as the person I was
responding to was using the same extreme examples of why some would not be
able to attend the meeting. You and a few others "got it". It certainly
was a far fetched example as were the ones like the single mother of 8
working 2.5 jobs. Possible but very un likely.


>
> But we come back to the problem's size. How big is it? This time
> around, I'd think size really matters, IF the law turns out to be
> Constitutional.

In the community that it is being consider in, pretty large. The simple
solution is to simply get or stay involved in your child's education and
behavior. Don't let it get that far if a problem is beginning to show. If
you live in an area that most parents are actually tax paying US citizens
and speak English the problem may not be so much. If you have nothing to
hide you typically have fewer reasons to not attend your child's meetings.

On Feb 2, 8:59 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Only the Texas GOP could produce such a fucktard.
>
> Parents Who Skip School Meetings Could Be Fined

SNIP


> Rep. Wayne Smith said Wednesday he wants to get parents involved in
> their
> child's education.
>
> "I think it helps the kids for the parents and teachers to
> communicate.
> That's all the intent was," Smith said.

Well, even if the others here won't say anything, I for one am proud
of you for standing up for your rights as a parent. As there are many
just like you that feel that skipping part of your child's needs are
there prerogative, that is no doubt what brought this about.

My best buddy is a teacher in a disadvantaged district, and believe
me, people like you make his job easy. Less than 30% of the parents
that make appts. to see him show. That's right, less than 30%. The
students that need a parent/teacher/prinicpal conference are not his
star students, and he feels since their parents have sent them to the
school to be raised rather than taking that on themselves (hey... they
just pumped 'em out), the school should get a little help with the
kids. Most likely source in their unenlightened eyes are the
parents. Progress reports go unanswered; emails ignored; phone calls
are unreturned.

As he will tell you, most of >those< kids never make it to their
senior year.

But as we all know, the kiddos have rights, too. Their dumbasses have
a right to stay just as stupid, uncaring, and ignorant as their
uncaring parents. It is a tradition with some that has been passed
from generation to generation. And my buddy will tell you too, some
of the parents that do show up have a lot of bad attitude about their
day being interrupted by the school calling; the only reason they show
up is the threat of expulsion or long term suspension. Then the
school would no longer baby sit; the parents would be fully
responsible. Sensing the lesser of two evils (and impending
responsibility), the parent go to the conference. I know you see
their point; really, who wants to put out any more effort than you
need to to take care of your kid?

Imagine someone wanting to break that cycle.

Thanks for standing up for all the other that are too stupid and lazy
to take care of their kids. Without people like you to bravely speak
up about how stupid it is to get parents involved in the education and
affais of their children, we wouldn't even realize how far out of hand
this whole parental involvement bullshit has gotten.

Good for you!

I will say though, I am not sure what being a Texan has to do with
anything... you weren't by chance sticking your tongue out when you
said that were you? This is the internet, so if you were you need to
let us know.

Robert

On Feb 3, 12:28 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

SNIP of reference quote

Progress reports go unanswered; emails ignored; phone calls
> >> are unreturned.
>
> Nailshooter, you put that point a lot more eloquently than I did and wi=
th
> a lot more good humor.
>
> +------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--=AD------+
>
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
> +------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--=AD------+

I have a whole new outlook on teaching, teachers and parents with my
pal going to teaching than I did before. Talk about a look from the
inside. Simply having kids in school and claiming you understand
teaching and the school system is like building a birdhouse and
calling yourself a general contractor.

Until his new school super came on board, the teachers caught all the
flack for poor student performance. We all know there are poor
teachers, but according to him, there are also a lot of good ones.

He hasn't had to face the guy that work 2.5 jobs and lives out of
district because his child was bussed and he is afraid of child
protective services. Paul would probably drive out to meet that guy
personally. No... it is much more mundane. The excuses he hears are
"I forgot", "oh, was today?" and (my favorite) "I didn't do good at
math either, so why should he?".

The best though, is when it is time to pass/fail, and the parents are
sent a notification letter and very few respond. They do respond
though (magically finding the time!) when they find out their kiddo
will be held back a grade. Their response? No one told me. This is
the first I have heard of this...

And since the teachers didn't keep records of when they sent out
notices, emails, made phone calls, etc., they were held at fault by
the parents. How could their little angel be put back a grade? He
only missed 10 unexcused days in the whole semester... and he did turn
in something for an assignment... I don't know what it was or what
class it was, but I do remember that one day he was working on
schoolwork...

Enough teachers received discipline notices that they pushed the
principal and superintendent to come up with a new plan since they
felt like they were getting blamed for problems. Now, since the
school district has been SUED for not passing students, they have a
system that satisfies today's litigious requirements.

They are required to notify the parents (and keep records of same) if
the students start slipping in their grades, have unexcused absences,
or they are tardy too many times. They parents must be notified in a
time frame that allows the student to recover. If there is no
response, they do it again, all documented, this time with the
principal involved. If no response, they notify the parents again
with the assistance of the principal's office so that the school admin
is involved.

In other words, they are building a case against the parents.

And to address another aspect of suspicioned technophobia, here's how
phone notification works (according to my buddy):

"We called you twice to let you know about this"

"No you didn't"

"Yes we did"

"No you didn't"

"Oh yes we did!"

"Prove it!"

Although he likes that one, he really likes the parents that wind up
with the principal telling the admin staff they have never heard of
Paul, much less talked to him.

The parents if these children don't feel the need to keep up with
their kids, and they honestly feel like it is the job of the school to
assist them in raising their kids, not just to educate them.

What is truly sad is the fact that the kids know they face no
consequences from parents or school, and with a 47% dropout rate (2006
statistic as compiled by the school district) before graduation, they
don't care. Paul's students have told him, "yeah dude, I gave the
note to my parents but you know they won't call." He tries to do what
he can, but he is now at the place in his career where he realizes you
simply can't save them all. And without help from the parents -
impossible. According to him, the parents are usually 75% or more of
the problem.

But here is where the district is caught in the crack. If they have
XX % of dropouts or fails, they will lose their State funding first,
then their Federal funding, which means they are gone. Strange, isn't
it? It puts them in a position of trying everything they can to keep
butts in the seats, if for no other reason than to protect the jobs in
the school district.

I don't want this to sound like I am 100% all pro education, though.
Rest assured, I do see both sides of the arguement. If the parents
don't care about education and furthering the interests and well being
of their kids, who are we to say that is wrong?

And when I am trying to screw with Paul (who still has a little of
that "Welcome Back Kotter" them song running through his head) I
always tell him to calm down, and like water, let the situation find
its own level.

We live in South Texas, and in some areas of the state business is
mainly manufacturing and agriculture. So my questions to him are: if
all are educated, who will pick our lettuce? Who will pick the
grapefruits and pack them for shipping? Who will clean up my jobsites
and load the dumpsters? Who will prime and paint the bumpers at the
truck bumper plants? Who will clean the live animal pens at the meat
packing plant, and who will clean the guts up from the killing and
first gutting floor at the slaugher house? Who will hold the "SLOW"
sign that you see when going through a small road construction
project?

So if we educate them all, who will do those jobs? Certainly not the
immigrants that are coming over these days. They make work the fields
if they are illegals, but the legal guys that take piece work from me
are educated enough to do complex carpentry work, do some really good
paint/plaster work (including estimating material amounts and costs
for large jobs) and some even run their own small businesses. So
where would that leave us in the long run if we run out of people to
take the worst jobs? In one sense, those with lesser education hold
an important position in our economy. Would any of you want your kids
doing those jobs to support a family - your grandkids?

Thankfully, we won't have to make that decision for a while. His
school district will continue on as it has for many, many years, and
we will have a steady supply of feeble minded imbeciles that simply
cannot do better. Some have the native intelligence to do so, but
simply not having been encouraged or disciplined to do better, they
don't. These smarter guys make great drug dealers and the actual
leaders of some of our local gangs.

For me, the solution is easy. If the parents don't participate and
show an interest, their kids are doomed. If neither side cares, and
ample time, effort, tax payer's money and teacher attention is spent,
they should pull out both parents and kids from the school, and leave
the teachers with the parents that give damn and kids that want to
learn. There are still a few of those families out there, even in his
district.

Robert

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Feb 3, 12:28 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

We live in South Texas, and in some areas of the state business is
mainly manufacturing and agriculture. So my questions to him are: if
all are educated, who will pick our lettuce? Who will pick the
grapefruits and pack them for shipping? Who will clean up my jobsites
and load the dumpsters? Who will prime and paint the bumpers at the
truck bumper plants? Who will clean the live animal pens at the meat
packing plant, and who will clean the guts up from the killing and
first gutting floor at the slaugher house? Who will hold the "SLOW"
sign that you see when going through a small road construction
project?

If the jobs need to be done and you have no one to fill them raise the price
you are willing to pay and they will line up for the work. So currently if
lettuce is 89 cents a head with a $6 picker, the price might go up a bit if
they had to pay $10 or $20 for a picker but the market would find it's
price.

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

On Feb 3, 6:32 pm, "Roger Shoaf" <[email protected]> wrote:

SNIP

>> Who will hold the "SLOW"
> >sign that you see when going through a small road construction
> >project?
>
> If the jobs need to be done and you have no one to fill them raise the price
> you are willing to pay and they will line up for the work. So currently if
> lettuce is 89 cents a head with a $6 picker, the price might go up a bit if
> they had to pay $10 or $20 for a picker but the market would find it's
> price.
>
> --
>
> Roger Shoaf


Roger... judging by the lack of response here, you may be the only one
that didn't get that the particular paragraph you quoted was tongue in
cheek. Of course I don't advocate generations of mindless idiots
doing menial jobs for a living. I am one of those who still believe
you should be all you can be.

God forbid we raise more generations of lettuce pickers and sign
carriers simply because their parents are too lazy to take advantage
of the opportunities for themselves and their kids.

Sorry for the confusion.

Robert

On Feb 3, 6:36=EF=BF=BDam, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > My best buddy is a teacher in a disadvantaged district, and believe
> > me, people like you make his job easy. =A0Less than 30% of the parents
> > that make appts. to see him show. =A0That's right, less than 30%. =A0The
> > students that need a parent/teacher/prinicpal conference are not his
> > star students, and he feels since their parents have sent them to the
> > school to be raised rather than taking that on themselves (hey... they
> > just pumped 'em out), the school should get a little help with the
> > kids. =A0Most likely source in their unenlightened eyes are the
> > parents. =A0Progress reports go unanswered; emails ignored; phone calls
> > are unreturned.
>
> Yep, the ones who attend conferences are the parents of the kids whose
> effort and results are generally the best. =A0Can't say it publicly, or i=
n the
> lounge, which might be wired, =A0because it's not the position of the NEA=
, but
> over partitions in the john most teachers will confess to believing that
> parental concern may be the reason for the kids' positive outcome.
>
> Sometimes it's the village idiot who wants to raise your kids, what?

I have to agree with the intent of the law, but...first, sometimes it
is the village idiot who HAS the kids, and making that idiot attend
teacher/parent meetings or pay a fine they probably don't have the
money to meet is a typical asinine government response.

This is not a matter for legislation. When I was a kid, and belonged
to a Republican organization called Young Americans for Freedom (YAF),
the idea was to keep government out of the individual citizen's life
as much as possible. Today's Republican Party seems to be doing just
the opposite, from education to bedroom.

On Feb 3, 1:16=EF=BF=BDpm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > If one can take a long bus trip there's no problem. =A0The nearest bus
> > stop to any school around here is about 5 miles from the school. =A0One
> > has to walk both ways if one doesn't have a car.
>
> If you are truely interested in you child's welfare and don't want a $500
> fine you will find a way to get there. =A0Plain and simple.
>
>
>
> > So how does someone with no car and limited income get to a school
> > that does not have a bus stop nearby?
>
> Come on THINK, =A0the first thin that comes to mind is to ask for a frein=
d or
> neighbor for a ride.
>
>
>
> >>There are going to be a million other reasons this would be inconvenient
> >>for
> >>the parents. =A0My suggestion is to take steps to see to it that your c=
hild
> >>stays out of trouble.
>
> > Like what? =A0When some bully punches your kid out and your kid is
> > accused by the bully and his friends of starting the fight, how can
> > anything you do prevent that?
>
> Were you one of those people that always needed some one else to solve yo=
ur
> problems.

Are you one of the people who cannot understand that others do not
have the resources that upper-middle class families have, including
friends who can give rides? On one point, you want someone to ask for
help. On another, you want them to solve their own problems.

That doesn't make any more sense than does legislating attendance at
school meetings..

On Feb 3, 2:22=EF=BF=BDpm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> >>If you are truely interested in you child's welfare and don't want a $5=
00
> >>fine you will find a way to get there. =A0Plain and simple.
>
> > How.
>
> Think!
>
>
>
> >>Come on THINK, =A0the first thin that comes to mind is to ask for a fre=
ind
> >>or
> >>neighbor for a ride.
>
> > And why would any of them have cars?
>
> You are not thinking are you?
>
>
>
> >>Were you one of those people that always needed some one else to solve
> >>your
> >>problems.
>
> > If nobody needs anybody to solve their problems then why does the
> > teacher need the parent to solve her problems?
>
> You apparently don't get it. =A0It's not the teachers problem, =A0is the =
parents
> and child's problem.

I love it. You don't have a solution, so you demand someone else
"think".

Actually, it is the teacher's problem as much as it is the child's and
parent's problem. It is also society's problem, but legislation is not
the way to correct it, and may well be un-Constitutional. I know us
liberals are always tossing up the Constitution, Leon, but it's there
and is the basis for our laws. At least it it mostly was before Shrub
took office.

On Feb 3, 8:34?pm, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> I don't want to hear someone say that this isn't a solvable problem.
> All you're talking about here is getting teachers a little exposure to
> the world outside their classrooms!

I've long wondered where this "get the teachers a little outside world
experience" BS came from.

Every teacher I know has worked somewhere other than in a school.
Every single one. Most kids who go on to become teachers do not come
from wildly priviliged backgrounds, so have to find a way to fund
college. Most of us do that by working. Many years ago, the HS math
teacher I was engaged to for a time had worked her way through college
as a waitress. While I only did sub teaching, I did a lot of different
things to get through college, including, I guess you could say,
spending four years in the Marines, loading trucks at night and
running a corner grocery store at night. My oldest stepdaughter worked
summers at a McDonald's--long enough ago that it wasn't a thing to
sneer at--and my grandson is helping fund his time at UVa working
summers for our local city as a computer whatever, while he also pays
some bills at school working on student' computers--officially. He's
study computer science and may well teach aspects of that subject.

All these people need to get a touch of real life.

Or maybe they need to relate their subjects to what they're doing. The
oldest stepdaughter teaches Latin, and every other year takes a group
of her students to Italy, Greece and similar areas to look at what has
resulted from the Greco-Roman bit. I can't speak for my former
fiancee, as I haven't seen or heard from her in more than 40 years,
but...all the teachers I know have had a touch or two of real life
during their ivory tower years.

I could wish for better actual subject knowledge for some teachers:
English teachers are the ones I catch out most often (which probably
makes a lot of sense). But, in general, they know what they have been
taught by the preceding generation of teachers, good or bad. When you
see the number of wildly different solutions that come up to a
moderately complex engineering question here, and elsewhere, on-line,
you have to wonder if just maybe the liberal arts aren't the only
subjects in need of more intensive and correct coverage, but that
seems to result more from college education lacks than lacks in high
school.

But not all fields translate directly to work: it is difficult to take
teacher who handles algebra and plane geometry in high school and
place them in a job that uses those fields without other training.
Same with most HS lab sciences. Yes, there are related jobs and the
subjects are vital. But, as we find with getting kids to understand
the relationship, it's not easy relating those subjects directly and
without additions to any particular job.

All in all, not a subject that is easily covered or a problem that is
easily solved.

You're going to have teachers who don't have a clue. You will have
other teachers who are sharp, can motivate kids, and do a wonderful
job. When these people are first hired, it's usually impossible to
tell the difference.

I do wonder if merit pay is some of the answer, just to stick a really
rough oar into the water of controversy.

On Feb 4, 1:46?pm, Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> writes:
> > "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > Are you one of the people who cannot understand that others do not
> > have the resources that upper-middle class families have, including
> > friends who can give rides? On one point, you want someone to ask for
> > help. On another, you want them to solve their own problems.
>
> They should at least be able to attend a telephone conference.
>

Where did "telephone conference" enter the discussion?

On Feb 5, 6:33?am, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 1:46?pm, Bruce Barnett
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Leon" <[email protected]> writes:
> > > "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > Are you one of the people who cannot understand that others do not
> > > have the resources that upper-middle class families have, including
> > > friends who can give rides? On one point, you want someone to ask for
> > > help. On another, you want them to solve their own problems.
>
> > They should at least be able to attend a telephone conference.
>
> Where did "telephone conference" enter the discussion?

I think the discussion had to do with a Texas law that posits a $500
fine, and doesn't mention telephone, at least not as presented
earlier.

The phone concept might or might not work: it is close to impossible
to identify a voice on the telephone, for one thing, without some
fairly sophisticated gear.

On Feb 5, 11:28=EF=BF=BDpm, [email protected] (Larry) wrote:
> Perhaps my use of the word "truancy" was in error. At any rate, regardless
> of the reason, after a certain length of time, the school system under
> force of law demands documentation that an absent child is receiving
> an eduction that complies with state standards. My daughter was
> homeschooled for a few years so I have some familiarity with those
> requirements.
>
> The only point I'm trying to make is that a $500 fine for the
> failure of a parent to attend a meeting is possibly unnecessary
> legislation, if its purpose is truly to simply get the parent to
> a meeting. The scool jurisdiction may already have adequate,
> acceptable methods of persuasion, without resorting to a $500 fine
> and the socio-economic controversy it brings along.
>
> --
> =A0 =A0 There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
> =A0 =A0 plausible, and wrong." =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(Mencken)
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar=
.org

I tend to agree with Mencken here.

This is nothing but another attempt to install responsibility by
government fiat, and cannot work. Most of the people it is likely
aimed at don't HAVE $500, to start. And that's just the start of
problems they face on a daily basis that you and I don't even want to
hear about. Think of single mothers with several kids, inner city,
poor or non-existent bus service, in urban areas where keeping even a
clunker of a car is nearly impossible because of vandalism (and
costs), the need for at least two jobs plus WIC just to keep food on
the table and the electricity on most of the time, and on.

Yes, the result of bad choices, or not having visible choices. The
idea, though, is to keep the children from making similar choices--
we're not doing well at this--and not to keep the one parent who stays
around so broke and pecked at that she, or he should that be the case,
cannot pay attention in sensible areas.

On Feb 6, 8:55?am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> What hasn't worked is throwing taxpayer's dollars at the situation.
>
> You gotta break the cycle somewhere, so what the hell, I say make
> irresponsible parents get off their asses, turn off Jerry Springer, and pay
> through the nose for failing to live up to their responsibilities.
>
> Fuck'em ... what it boils down to is that I'm damn tired of paying the
> freight to pull their sorry ass wagons through society.
>

I think we'd all agree with that last, but if we don't break the
cycle, our kids, and their kids, will still be paying to haul someone
else's ashes--er, asses--down the road, with both sides bitching, one
because it doesn't get enough and the other because it pays too much.

I don't know what the break-step is, nor, as far as I can tell, does
anyone else, but if government is to intervene, it has to be
consistent, and reasonable--both of which seem to be problems for ANY
government after a program is in place for more than a year or so.
Reliability, doing it the same way each time, is probably a lot more
important than reasonableness in the long run, but I still don't
believe legislating morality, or common sense, ever works for any
period of time without draconian enforcement. And one thing needs to
be certain: the programs, however they are developed, absolutely must
be under local control. We've got far too many current and past
examples of Federal programs going places other than where they were
originally aimed.

Besides, if (if--you like that one?) someone in government is going to
steal from me, I'd as soon it was the guy up the road, so we keep the
money in the community.

Man, there is some really weird opinons here. So much vitriol... and
you can really smell the differevces in people and their respective
generations, and for those playing the rec.woodworking home version
for some time, it has to be fascinating to see the personalities
reveal themselves. It sure has been for me.

I am surprised to see here that so many think that the only ones
affected by this would be homeless Asian lesbian single mothers of two
that have 3 eight hour a day minimum wage jobs that they ride the bus
to every day. All of those folks seem to work for pitiless tyrants
that perch like vultures waiting for any infraction to fire them.

In the rough and tumble world of blue collar construction workers, it
works like this at my company: "Hey Robert... can I have a long lunch
on Wednesday? The boy got his dumbass in trouble again, and me and
the old lady need to go meet his teacher before he falls to far
behind". It is Monday.. they show me some consideration, so it is
mutual. "Yeah, go ahead... just get back as soon as you can." Or I
may have to ask him to move it up or down a day or move the time of
day. I am not blowing my own horn; it is good business and employee
relations in the 21st century.

Strangely, all the construction companies > I < know operate this
way. It makes good employee relations, and that almost always comes
back to you. But there is another aspect, too. If I said no, they
would go anyway. Many of them are like me, without a strong family
life, so the in turn have made the decision that they kid will have
what they did not.

Also, as a card carrying member of the great unwashed like me, those
same guys see the value of education. They tell their kids what I was
told as a kid by my father. "You listen to me... I go to work every
day to feed, clothe and put a roof over your head. So does your
mother. If you think you are going to barely slide through school
when all you have to do is pay attention and do your homework to get
by, you have another thing coming". I paraphrased, and left out all
the colorful metaphors.

My Dad went to one parent teacher conference, and after the special
consultation he had with me when we got home, I made myself scarce
around the house for about a month. It straightened me out for
another three, too.

Having done a lot of work for school teachers (you get referrals from
one, and they are a referring bunch!) I have had a chance to talk to
many of them across the economic range. Believe me, it isn't just the
poor, downtrodden, and economically disadvantaged that miss these
meetings. Busy soccor moms, cheerleader moms, football moms and
dads, moms and dads with more than one kid, all seem to have great
reasons for not wanting to meet. I love what these teachers of our
upper class tell me the responses are when meetings are missed.

"I thought you would call me and remind me of the meeting"

"Well, since I already missed it, can you email me something?"

"I talked to my kid and he says he will take care of whatever it is
you are calling me about"

"Do you have a supervisor? I think this is something we can handle on
the phone and I have just enough time right now"

I don't know about anyone else's community, buy in ours the well to do
have just as many problems as the not so well to do. In fact, I think
in my almost 35 years as a blue collar man, the blue collar system has
less problems with the kids.

Someway, some educators got in their minds that face to face is better
than telephone conferences, etc. That has been a long held belief
here in sunny Texas for years and years. Ever since I can remember,
and certainly when I was a kiddo, we had telephones and telephone
consultations would have been used if effective.

In some school districts, the teacher (!) want this fine, as THEY are
getting blamed when the parents don't show up. They are bound to ahe
a certain amount of contact with each parent of their (average in
Texas is I believe 164 in high school) kids every semester. They are
further bound by the rules of their district to approach parents when
they cannot control or teach their kids. So whether they want to or
not, they are actively involved in the contacting of parents whether
it is an innocuous update or for discourse on a subject of greater
gravity.

The guys here should know too, that no one here thinks in their hearts
the fines will provide THE key to parental involvement. It will
provide impetus for some, and not for others. But the guy that wrote
the bill is a bit of an idealist, surrounded by other idealists, and
he felt like they would be successful it they just reached a handful
of parents they wouldn't have otherwise seen. Really, his bill has
almost no chance of passing, but was meant to engage people in
constructive commentary and to draw attention to the problem. Also,
having heard the man speak, in his bleeding heart it is a cry of
concern for the children.

In one way, it sounds too thin to me as it will not doubt take
millions to implement the plan, fight off the lawsuits filed by the
ACLU, etc. and for me, I am at all sure these kids and their parents
are worth my tax dollars. You cannot legislate the interest of the
parents, nor undo years of culture and parental upbringing with a
fine. A fine or two probably won't change the parenting efforts of
most adults. If the parents are raised a certain way, chances are
they will raise their kids that way.
In years past, rich, poor, middle class, and all in between made time
for their kids when they wanted. I don't think the parents of this
school generation of kids are any different; they will be as involved
as they want to be.

And if parents want to ecourage their kids to be successful, and have
the courage to insist on the type of discipline that makes success
happens, they will do it on their own.

In Texas, they have tried all kinds of plans, programs, ideas, rules,
etc., to make the parents more involved over the years. Politicians
have thumped the podiums telling us of why we need more money and
ideas thrown at our education system, and how we need to get parents
more involved. "Parental involvement is the key to success" they
say. But none of the ideas they have are more than moderately (at
best) successful in engaging the parents into the process of
education. (But God bless 'em, I would have given up long ago. Some
of those guys keep pitchin' year after year.)

So I guess the real question here to me is this:

If we just save a few kids, and I mean just a few, is it worth it to
the average guy on the street? Should hundreds of thousands be spent
to make this a bill, then the same spent again to implement it as a
law, and maybe millions in attorney's fees to defend the state against
the lawsuits that will surely come?

I dunno. I don't think we will have a bill that becomes a law to test
that, but I am not too sure I am interested in finding out the results
for a few million bucks.

Now if someone could come up with a surefire solution that would work
without doubt, I might get behind it. I am sure others would, too.
But until then...

Robert

On Feb 6, 6:42 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Man, there is some really weird opinons here. So much vitriol... and
> you can really smell the differevces in people and their respective
> generations, and for those playing the rec.woodworking home version
> for some time, it has to be fascinating to see the personalities
> reveal themselves. It sure has been for me.

I read the rest of your post with great interest.

I have read all of the entries in here, also with great interest.

I saw a few fan a few flames, I saw a few with fire extiguishers, a
few from the left, a few from the right.... and of course a few shit-
disturbers who have nothing to add, so they decide to stir shit
instead; business as usual.
Yet, amongst the noise, a message seeped out that we all care for our
kids.
I have a niece, who taught inner-city in Witchita KS. Grade 5.
My niece is tough. Smart and tough. She would slam her fist on
somebody's kitchen table and demanded to know why Johnny/Suzy was so
tired in the morning. She took the parents head-on. One by one, slowly
things turned around...and why? Because somebody finally gave a shit.
None of the parents ever had to deal with a teacher who cared.
When the 5's went to grade 6, some came to talk to the new 5's and
were told not to fuck with Ms P.
She has told me a few stories which just blew me away. If a parent
couldn't make it to a meeting, my niece would call and make an
appointment to come see them...many of them suddenly found the time
and way to make it to school to talk to the teacher.

Parents and teachers need to show a united front. Neither should have
to wait for the other to make the first move. I have walked into my
kid's teacher's coffee room un- announced. Most of the time with a
bullshit excuse, but ALL pf the time to show the flag.

It must be hell to teach a kid, knowing his/her parents don't give a
shit.

Deadbeat parents will always be deadbeat parents. Legislation is NOT
going to solve that problem any more than jail-terms keeps crack off
the street. Ain't gonna happen.

All of this shit starts at home.

r----> who has managed to stay out of this thread. (It is all done
now, right?)

On Feb 6, 4:40?pm, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:

> | What we _do_ know as FACT: The current system, which does nothing
> | to hold an irresponsible parent accountable, is not working.
>
> Are you saying that the system _will_ be working after enacting this
> piece of legislation?
>
> --

I'd say it won't make a blind bit of difference to anyone or anything
except the parent who is fined. Cost of collection is likely to exceed
revenue, for one thing.

We're arguing about this as if all the school systems not using it are
failing (or vice versa); I have to sit back and wonder just how big a
problem broken appointments truly is. How many parents actually make
appointments and then don't keep them, on a state-by-state basis? In
other words, how many are extremely rude?

It strikes me, and this may be totally wrongheaded, that the problem
exists mainly in inner city schools, with some slop-over into other
urban schools, some suburban and a few rural. I've heard complaints
here about parents not showing up for parent-teachers days.

In other words, how big a problem are they trying to cure with
draconian measures that seem likely to be illegal or unconstituional
to start, and to engender irritation otherwise.

Someone commented that it would be nice to get the druggies' and
topers' attention and make them responsible parents. That is
particularly laughable in view of the general failure of almost all
behavior modification programs for such behavior. Adding one more
censure and fine is a ludicrous step, and one that's probably not even
noticeable to the parent floating away--is that what happens?--on a
crack cloud, or submerging in a wine fog.

But we come back to the problem's size. How big is it? This time
around, I'd think size really matters, IF the law turns out to be
Constitutional.

On Feb 6, 5:27=EF=BF=BDpm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Swingman wrote:
>
> > Might be getting a bit emotional here - I haven't heard anyone
> > advocate in favor of doing nothing to solve the problem - only
> > opinions to the effect that Rep. Smith's proposed solution is a bit
> > heavy-handed. If holding that opinion makes one a coward, then put me
> > at the top of the list.
>
> I think what makes it emotional is that this is a proposal that is in a
> state that has problems that others may not have. =A0Some of us are darn =
tired
> to educating illegal's children and them not participating physically or
> economically. =A0Then there are the gangs and the parents that do not car=
e=2E
> True, no one has really in so many words advocated that doing nothing wou=
ld
> solve the problem. =A0The fact is, NO one has suggested anything at all a=
s an
> alternative. =A0They have simply slamed this proposal and 98% will not be
> affected regardless of how it turns out in Texas.

snip

Oh, good grief. Problems "others may not have." The illegal alien
problem is spread across every state, with the possible exception--not
probable--of Alaska. It may be larger in Texas and SoCal and Arizona
and New Mexico...oh, wait. We are past the "other states" already.
Virginia has problems with it, NY has more problems with it, and on.
>
> No, nothing guarantees that. =A0There are no guarantees in life except th=
at if
> we do not get involved in our childrens education and behavior it will
> continue to get worse.

And that is the simple truth. Probably 90% of the problem with
American education today is lack of parental involvement, even to the
degree of making sure kids do their homework.

There are behavioral problems, even in rural areas in the Bible Belt
where you wouldn't expect a girl to get in-school (WTF is this?)
suspension for giving a guy a BJ in the high school hallway.

Do we blame that on the school? Parents? Church? Two out of three
ain't bad, and the school is not part of that of that equation.

Public schools HAVE to accept anyone within specific areas in specific
age ranges, at least until behavior becomes so bad they can be kicked
out. Private schools, and home schooling, get to cherry pick, taking
only the kids who are either interested in learning or who can be
motivated to learn without major problems. In the meantime, public
schools deal with the thugs, creeps and disabled and get dumped on
thousands of times daily for not "teaching our children enough" when
probably half the time, the complainer's kid has been urinating on the
books on the lower shelves in the library stacks.

Do public schools need to improve, on an overal basis throughout the
U=2ES.? You bet. Does splitting off money for other systems make it
easier for them to improve? Nope. Makes it easier for an already
established elite to go on about their business of further separating
themselves from reality.

On Feb 6, 8:11=EF=BF=BDpm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > RE: Subject
>
> > It is a given that the public schools are a mess; however, the last pla=
ce
> > to get ideas to fix them is from the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave =
and
> > his cronies.
>
> > They have created enough problems.
>
> > Lew
>
> And while I agree,
>
> Do we,
>
> A. =A0 Do nothing?
> B. =A0What do you propose?

I suggest sitting down and thinking of a solution that will work. What
that is, I don't know, but I do know an across the board fine for
missing a meeting is ridiculous.

Somewhere, somehow, parents need to be educated about children's
behavior, and how it affects them and their classmates, as well as
their later chances in the world.

How you do that with the severely uneducated, I don't know, unless
they already have a drive to have their children become educated to
escape their morass. Fining people with no sense of society for being
being rude is not going to work.

On Feb 6, 8:33=EF=BF=BDpm, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
> =A0> And while I agree,
> =A0>
> =A0> Do we,
> =A0>
> =A0> A. =A0 Do nothing?
> =A0> B. =A0What do you propose?
>
> IMHO, the problem starts with the litigious society we live in.
>
> If a teacher looks the wrong way at a kid, they get sued.
>
> More than once I got dressed down by a teacher and damn well knew
> enough to keep it to myself.
>
> If my parents found out, it was better than even money my dad would
> have kicked my ass into the next state, never mind county.
>
> Labor unions have and do serve a valid purpose; however, the teacher's
> unions have gotten out of hand.
>
> The school administrations have become lazy. There is no incentive to
> be good stewards of the monies they are given.
>
> The waste due to poor management runs rampant.
>
> There are two extremes of the chain of command.
>
> The shortest is the Catholic church. (The Pope to the Bishop to the
> Priest)
>
> The longest is the army. It is a long chain of command from the
> president to a buck private.
>
> Our schools need to be somewhere in between, probably closer to the
> Catholic church than the army, IMHO.
>
> To summarize, they is plenty of blame to go around.
>
> The schools, the teachers, and the parents are all at fault.
>
> When and if the parents are willing to assume some responsibility and
> thus be able to demand a better product, they will get it.
>
> Till then, good luck.
>
> Lew

Today, though, if my parents or yours were alive and using the same
techniques for child raising, they'd be in danger of spending some
serious jail time, and losing the kids. Somehow, we're better off
because of that, eh?

Your last line truly sums it up. Parents need to assume some
responsibility, but, because this is a free country, it's damned near
impossible to force them to do so. Too, parents in name and parents in
fact are two different things. What can you expect from the guy who
has impregnated half a dozen women, but keeps movin' on? Or the woman
who has six kids by six fathers--she thinks, though she can't remember
the names of all the guys she's slept with?

So, basically, the most important factor in the equation is simple
parental involvement, and that, at least in some cases, appears to be
impossible.

Can we always insist on hiring only inspired teachers? It would be
nice, wouldn't it? I met three in my school career, from kindergarten
through college. But simple competence should be enough, and,
obviously, it isn't. An inspired teacher can even get a horny, car and
motorcycle crazy lunk like I was to learn. There simply are not enough
of them to go around, nor will there ever be.

Myxylplyk wrote:

> You really think that good parenting, like morals, can be legislated?=
=A0=A0Wake
> up.
>=20
> People that habitually ignore the teacher will not give the meeting a=
ny
> effort.
> Attend or be fined?=A0=A0They'll=A0show=A0up=A0and=A0play=A0cards=A0o=
r=A0something.

He has a point, Leon. Sounds to me like that legislator's good intenti=
ons
went a bit awry.

--=20
It's turtles, all the way down

"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Yep, the ones who attend conferences are the parents of the kids whose
> effort and results are generally the best. Can't say it publicly, or in
> the lounge, which might be wired, because it's not the position of the
> NEA, but over partitions in the john most teachers will confess to
> believing that parental concern may be the reason for the kids' positive
> outcome.
>
> Sometimes it's the village idiot who wants to raise your kids, what?

The HS that my son graduated from had heavy parent involvement. At all of
the parent student meetings the principal an teachers preached that the
students that had parent involvement at the school were the ones that did
the best.
His graduation had 130 students of which half intended to go on to college.
His graduation class was awarded 1.5 million dollars in college scholastic
academic scholarships for those 65 students.

"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> We are not a middle or upper income neighborhood - quite the contrary as
> more then 62% of our 390-ish students are federally defined as
> economically disadvantaged.
>

You get more money that way. Federal money doesn't have to go through the
local taxpayers for approval.

Of course I never believed the "depraved on account of he's deprived"
argument, either. Some of the nicest and most motivated kids wore clothes
that St Vinnies had declared unsaleable.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 19:29:42 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>More importantly a one on one with teacher and or principal. I am not a
>>>teacher and believe that too many teachers are ineffective. If you fail
>>>to
>>>see the revelance you are probably one of those people that always points
>>>the finger.
>>
>> I see, you've made two attempt now to make this about me.
>
>HUH?
>
>
>>>> Personally I think that any teacher that can't handle the kids without
>>>> parental meetings should be fir^Hned.
>>>
>>>Where do you live, Dream land? What public school will let a teacher
>>>actually discipline a child without fear of a law suite?
>>
>> If that is what you see as the problem then you simply need to make it
>> lawful for teachers to discipline children without fear of a lawsuit
>> rather than fining parents for not kowtowing to teachers' demands that
>> they appear in a certain place at a certain time.
>
>Now you are making sense. The teacher should be able to dicepline the kids
>with out fear of a law suite just like a parent should be. If it goes too
>far then they can be punished just like any one else.
>Further, where did you get the notion that a teacher can demand that you
>show up in a certain place at a certain time? Appointments are made to
>suite both parties. If you make a commitment and do not show up then that
>again is a personal problem and deserves the fine.

So why would a parent make the commitment to begin with and risk the
fine?

>> But you are actually introducing Constitutional issues here. By what
>> authority does a teacher have the power to order a parent to be in a
>> certain place at a certain time? Teachers are not police or judges,
>> they have no power to issue warrants. I suspect that the courts would
>> toss any such law in short order.
>
>There you go assuming that the teacher can call all the shots again.

Someone is calling the shots. If the parent has the right to refuse
to make the appointment then what purpose is served by fining the
parent who for whatever reason manages to miss one? All you're
accomplishing is to guarantee that nobody in their right mind will
ever make such an appointment.

You keep saying "liberals this" and "liberals that". The hallmark of
liberalism is more and more laws that intrude more and more into our
day to day lives. If you want to espouse a _conservative_ solution
then ditch the forced bussing and the parent will be able to walk to
the school. But you're too busy trying to find new ways to harass
people who already have too much on their plate to be bothered with
doing anything like _that_.

Leon wrote:
> Sounds like a good idea to me. Your child is more important than anything
> else in the world. If it takes a $500 fine to get the parents to be
> responsible then so be it.
>

Fining them is easy. Collecting the fine is another story.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

George wrote:

>
> "Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> My point was that in this example, a system of punishing the parent
>> for not meeting with the teacher would not have benefitted the student.
>
>
> So, fining the owner will not keep a dog from barking or biting, either.
> Fond of making easy answers for imaginary issues?

Your attempt at an analogy is garbage. "This example" dealt with
behavioral problems of a sociopathic child. If someone owns a barking
dog, a fine might force the dogowner to solve the problem by putting a
muzzle on the dog, or giving it away, or even having it put down. Try
any of those solutions with a sociopathig child and see where it gets you.


> My experience was presented in support of the position that expelling
> troublemakers does not mean they're out of the system. Sorry to have
> confused you.

And my point was that using the heavy hand of government to take $500
from a parent for missing a meeting with his teacher would not solve the
problems caused by this particular sociopath. Did I confuse you?

>
> Did it ever occur to you that the law can only punish law breakers? All
> the traditional processes pertain toward determining that guilt. It
> would be nice if promulgating a law ensured compliance, but, sadly, not
> so. Even a good law.

I wasn't confused before, but I am now. Are you suggesting that the
solution to improving parental involvement in a child's education should
be to criminalize parental behavior that some low-level government
beaurocrat considers not sufficiently cooperative? And if you're not
suggesting that, then why defend the "fine" system discussed in this
thread?

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 19:34:02 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>Parenting is more than multiplying. If you cannot afford or take care of
>>>kids don't have them.
>
>
>> While I agree with this in principle, it is beside the point.
>
>Precicely ON POINT. The law to punish for making an appoint for your childs
>benefit and not showing up will like all other laws impress future parents
>that they have a responsibility to their future children.
>
>Don't be so short sighted.

Why don't you just arrest everybody who has a kid without having a
certain income then instead of coming up with yet another petty
annoyance.

>>>>>Where there is
>>>>>a will, there is a way. If the parent gets fined because he cannot
>>>>>attend
>>>>>to his child's needs he needs to do better parenting at home so that the
>>>>>child does not require a parent teacher meeting.
>>>>
>>>> If fining the parent means that he and the kid end up living in that
>>>> box then how have you helped the kid?
>>>
>>>How many people do you personally know that live in a box because of a
>>>$500
>>>fine?
>>
>> I've never known anybody who had to pay a $500 fine for refusing to
>> kiss a teacher's butt.
>
>There you go adding BS to the proposed law.

Hey, you're the one who proposed it.

>>>>>The parents are responsible for their children and the schools are not
>>>>>baby
>>>>>sitters.
>>>>
>>>> No, the schools are not baby sitters, they are surrogate parents--that
>>>> is what the doctrine of "in loco parentis" means.
>>>
>>>That is what liberals believe.
>>
>> No, that is what the _law_ believes.
>
>
>Give me a break. Do you often post under the name of Doug?

Hey, if you don't like the doctrine that has been well established by
the courts that the schools stand in loco parentis to the students,
then you should be worrying about getting legislation enacted to
change that, not finding new ways to harass parents. Sticking your
little ostrich head in the sand and denying that that is the law isn't
going to help anybody.

And I have no idea who this "doug" might be. Probably someone in my
killfile, who you have just joined.
>

On 4 Feb 2007 02:14:10 -0800, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 3, 6:36?am, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
... snip
>> Sometimes it's the village idiot who wants to raise your kids, what?
>
>I have to agree with the intent of the law, but...first, sometimes it
>is the village idiot who HAS the kids, and making that idiot attend
>teacher/parent meetings or pay a fine they probably don't have the
>money to meet is a typical asinine government response.
>
>This is not a matter for legislation. When I was a kid, and belonged
>to a Republican organization called Young Americans for Freedom (YAF),
>the idea was to keep government out of the individual citizen's life
>as much as possible. Today's Republican Party seems to be doing just
>the opposite, from education to bedroom.
>

I'm not sure why you feel that in this case, it's not a matter for
legislation when what is being addressed is a problem with beneficiaries of
a taxpayer-funded program (free education) whose lack of participation is
raising its cost and decreasing its value to those who are participating.
That is one of the areas where legislation seems reasonably applied.

What is funny here is all the people getting their panties in a wad over
attempting to address this problem but no ire has been addressed toward the
school district in New Jersey that is instituting mandatory urinalysis of
students to check for alcohol consumption. That seems to be a wee bit more
intrusive and abusive of individual rights, freedoms, and freedom from
unreasonable search and seizure.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Swingman wrote:
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Only the Texas GOP could produce such a fucktard.
> >
> > Parents Who Skip School Meetings Could Be Fined
> >
> > AUSTIN, Texas -- Parents beware: Miss a meeting with your child's
> > teacher
> > and it could cost you a $500 fine and a criminal record.
>


> $500?? ... Hell, I'd put'em in jail for 30 days!
>
> What on earth could be more important?

Working the 2.5 minimum wage jobs required to pay the rent and put food
on the table perhaps... Outside of that or being in the hospital or
jail, not much...

Leon wrote:
>
> "Pete C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Swingman wrote:
>
> >
> > Working the 2.5 minimum wage jobs required to pay the rent and put food
> > on the table perhaps... Outside of that or being in the hospital or
> > jail, not much...
>
> Well the parents should have thought of that before neglecting their
> children. You child is more important than any job or rent. Where there is
> a will, there is a way. If the parent gets fined because he cannot attend
> to his child's needs he needs to do better parenting at home so that the
> child does not require a parent teacher meeting.



> The parents are responsible for their children

Nah, it's just those wacko conservatives that believe that...

> and the schools are not baby
> sitters.

Of course they are, it's just that the rich parents who can't be
bothered with parenthood can afford to send their kids to boarding
schools...

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Sounds like a good idea to me. Your child is more important than
> anything else in the world. If it takes a $500 fine to get the
> parents to be responsible then so be it.
>

I was part of a school that wanted parents to get involved. They came up
with one activity that they got everyone to do, and that was take the
rule sheet home and have a parent sign it. That's really getting
involved now. (All it really did was create hassle for me, having to
remember to bring the thing home and back again.)

Puckdropper
--
Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sounds like a good idea to me. Your child is more important than anything
> else in the world. If it takes a $500 fine to get the parents to be
> responsible then so be it.
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Only the Texas GOP could produce such a fucktard.
>>
>> Parents Who Skip School Meetings Could Be Fined
>>
>> AUSTIN, Texas -- Parents beware: Miss a meeting with your child's
>> teacher
>> and it could cost you a $500 fine and a criminal record.
>>
>> A Republican state lawmaker from Baytown has filed a bill that would
>> charge
>> parents of public school students with a misdemeanor and fine them for
>> playing hooky from a scheduled parent-teacher conference.
>>
>> Rep. Wayne Smith said Wednesday he wants to get parents involved in
>> their
>> child's education.
>>
>> "I think it helps the kids for the parents and teachers to
>> communicate.
>> That's all the intent was," Smith said.
>>
>
Leon, I'm sorry but your credibility just nosed dived here.

This is SO beyond anything close to an acceptable answer that it's
laughable.
You really think that good parenting, like morals, can be legislated? Wake
up.

People that habitually ignore the teacher will not give the meeting any
effort.
Attend or be fined? They'll show up and play cards or something.

The idea that a civil authority thought this was a real way to do something
useful for
children's education is nuts. He should be impeached.

[email protected] wrote:

| Only the Texas GOP could produce such a fucktard.
|
| Parents Who Skip School Meetings Could Be Fined
|
| AUSTIN, Texas -- Parents beware: Miss a meeting with your child's
| teacher
| and it could cost you a $500 fine and a criminal record.
|
| A Republican state lawmaker from Baytown has filed a bill that would
| charge
| parents of public school students with a misdemeanor and fine them
| for playing hooky from a scheduled parent-teacher conference.
|
| Rep. Wayne Smith said Wednesday he wants to get parents involved in
| their
| child's education.
|
| "I think it helps the kids for the parents and teachers to
| communicate.
| That's all the intent was," Smith said.

Sounds as if the Texan educators are sufficiently technophobic that
they daren't punch up a phone number when they have something to say
to a parent. I'm glad that isn't so daunting to teachers everywhere.

Also sounds as if Rep. Smith hankers to appear important/powerful by
criminalizing and (perhaps further) economically handicapping those
who don't do what he thinks they should.

Since justice has to do with equity (hence the scales in Justice's
hand - along with the sword), it would be interesting to hear Rep.
Smith expound on the justice of his bill - and to establish that $500
is, in fact, a fair and reasonable valuation of the stood-up teacher's
time. Perhaps that valuation could be used, in turn, to arrive at a
new salary schedule for Texas teachers.

I'm not sure that I think much of that criminalization stuff, tho. But
then, perhaps the Texans - or the Texas Legislature - feels that they
really do need more citizens with criminal records. Presumably, a
person with a criminal record is easier to intimidate and control...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Swingman wrote:
| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
|
|| Sounds as if the Texan educators are sufficiently technophobic that
|| they daren't punch up a phone number when they have something to
|| say to a parent. I'm glad that isn't so daunting to teachers
|| everywhere.
|
| Hey, Bubba ... watch it! It's a statistical fact that most of the
| folks now residing here in Texas are not "Texans". ;)
|
| Besides, I won't defend the "educators" because they themselves are
| often the product of a successive generational increase in parental
| irresponsibilty which currently, and clearly, manifests itself in
| public schools in this country, and not just in Texas.
|
| The proposal is unquestionably distasteful, but it is an attempt to
| address a problem that is growing here to the point it that it will
| take distasteful action to solve.
|
| Got any alternative suggestions/solutions?

Yes I do; but I don't know of any _quick_ fixes. Parents who don't
believe or who don't recognize the importance of education for their
offspring constitute the /solvable/ part of the problem - the ones who
just don't give a damn constitute a part of the problem for which the
only solution is a change of parents.

The solvable part of the problem lies in a prior failure to properly
educate the parents to understand the importance of their kids'
education. It seems to me inappropriate to punish a person for being
inadequately educated. The quickest solution might be to remedy the
prior failure to educate the parent - but I'm not sure how that might
be accomplished; and I'm almost certain that the effort would not be
universally effective.

The longer term and IMO more effective solution is to ensure that all
students are imbued with an understanding of the importance of
knowledge - and of _why_ they are taught what they're taught - and
what value that knowledge has in their world beyond school. /This/ is
what too many parents missed out on; and it's what _must_ be remedied
in teaching their kids.

Need evidence? It's really easy to come by - just ask kids what
courses they're taking; then for each course ask each kid: "Why're you
studying /that/? What's it good /for/? How will knowing /that/ change
your life?" Every "I don't know" you hear identifies a candidate for
the next generation of non-believing/non-recognizing parents.

The problem is _not_ solved by criminalizing the parent nor by
imposing $500 worth of hardship on the family.

|| Also sounds as if Rep. Smith hankers to appear important/powerful
|| by criminalizing and (perhaps further) economically handicapping
|| those who don't do what he thinks they should.
|
|| Since justice has to do with equity (hence the scales in Justice's
|| hand - along with the sword), it would be interesting to hear Rep.
|| Smith expound on the justice of his bill - and to establish that
|| $500 is, in fact, a fair and reasonable valuation of the stood-up
|| teacher's time. Perhaps that valuation could be used, in turn, to
|| arrive at a new salary schedule for Texas teachers. \
|| I'm not sure that I think much of that criminalization stuff, tho.
|| But then, perhaps the Texans - or the Texas Legislature - feels
|| that they really do need more citizens with criminal records.
|| Presumably, a person with a criminal record is easier to
|| intimidate and control...
|
| Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping government out of daily
| life, but let's look at it at another angle:
|
| I just paid $6.3K and some change in 2006 HISD school taxes two
| days ago ... believe me, with a kid in college, it hurt financially
| to do that public duty, which I have no philosophical problem with
| doing.

Only because you recognize that there is an adequate degree of equity.
You forked out $6K and seem to feel that in return the HISD provides a
fair return - for which your hard-earned money was well (if painfully)
spent.

| Now, you tell me why irresponsible parents, whose kids disrupt the
| classroom so no others can learn and thereby rob me/my kids of the
| value of my hard earned tax dollar spent on education, should NOT
| have to pay in some manner for their irresponsible parenting?

Ok. I'll be glad to tell you as soon as you explain to me how each of
those irresponsible parents came to be that way. Clue: It isn't simple
ornryness.

| ... and _particularly_ when they REFUSE to show up to discuss the
| problem!
|
| Hell, you fine someone for not showing up at traffic court, why not
| a parent/teacher conference?

Because the person summoned to appear in traffic court stands accused
of having violated some law - which is a very different situation than
not showing up for a meeting. Not showing up for a mutually
agreed-upon meeting is an inconsiderate display of bad manners; but
it's not a crime.

| Which is more important?
|
| That something has to be done is unquestionable ... got any
| alternative suggestions?

I agree that something needs to be done. I'm neither legislator nor
educator; so my suggestions don't carry a great deal of weight - but
they're listed above.

| BTW, this is NOT personal, Morris ... the fact that you're a good
| guy shines through all the BS on both sides. :)

I taught high school math for about six weeks as a substitute (one of
the most exhilerating experiences of my life) and managed to get all
four years of students excited about coming to math classes every day.
I found out after the fact that a couple of the classes had asked for
a meeting and crowded into the Principal's office to ask that I be
made their permanent math teacher. The only thing I did differently
was to make sure they understood _why_ we studied each topic and how
mastering the course material might affect their lives. That tiny bit
extra was all they needed!

We're all mostly good guys/gals - the essential difficulty lies in
finding out what the problems really are; and in trying to puzzle out
how much of each problem /can/ be solved.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

J. Clarke wrote:

| The schools had those parents for 12 years and the thing that amazes
| me is that those parents are willing to let that system get its
| hands on _their_ kids.

Well, actually the parents don't have (or don't think they have) a
choice.

| First, shoot the "educators" and the education professors and the
| education theorists and burn all the education texts and start over
| with a clean slate--it would be difficult for them to do worse than
| what we have now.

Even in Texas I don't think you can do that. It's important to
remember that no matter where you're going, you can only start from
where you are. I suspect (but don't actually know) that Texas'
educators could do a lot worse than is being done now. I'll also guess
that there are ways to make *huge* improvements without spending very
much.

How many Texas school districts are tapping into local (volunteer)
resources to add substance to their programs? For example, the HISD
sits in what must be an ocean of "rocket scientists" and engineers
posessed of awesome math and computer skills - people who know for a
fact that with the right intellectual tools, not even the sky is a
limit. It's probably worth asking: "How many times in how many years
has the HISD tapped that wealth of knowledge and enthusiasm so that
it's students might catch fire?"

| And this won't happen until the teachers actually _know_ from first
| hand experience what value that knowledge has in their world beyond
| school. And that can't happen as long as most teachers go from
| school to teachers' college to teaching school without ever once
| having to find out how to apply that knowledge themselves.

I don't want to hear someone say that this isn't a solvable problem.
All you're talking about here is getting teachers a little exposure to
the world outside their classrooms! Perhaps it'd be worth developing
an internship program and mandating three months of participation in
field-related work prior to granting a masters degree in education...

| Oh, the kids know why they're taking the courses. Because each one
| takes them one step closer to escaping from durance vile.

Regrettably each step along _this_ path leads down, rather than up.
Kids need to know that they're not wasting their time in school. Being
kids, they need to experience some excitement in learning, they need
to feel the thrill of discovery - and, above all, they need to
recognize that they are capable of accomplishing worthwhile things.
_This_ is the path /up/!

|| only thing I did differently was to make sure they understood
|| _why_ we studied each topic and how mastering the course material
|| might affect their lives. That tiny bit extra was all they needed!
|
| And that's the difference between you and a typical schoolteacher.
| You actually _know_ how to apply that math to real-world problems.

So? Let's ask The Big Question: "What can be done to help
teachers-to-be gain that experience/perspective?"

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

J. Clarke wrote:
| On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:34:31 -0600, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
| wrote:
|
|| J. Clarke wrote:
||
||| The schools had those parents for 12 years and the thing that
||| amazes me is that those parents are willing to let that system
||| get its hands on _their_ kids.
||
|| Well, actually the parents don't have (or don't think they have) a
|| choice.
|
| Skipping country is always an option.

Well, I'm trying to figure out how we might improve our system.
Running away from problems hardly ever constitutes a solution. As much
as our educational system needs improvement, it's worth noting that
there are places in the world where universal education hasn't been a
priority. I left home after ninth grade because, at that time, there
was no tenth grade anywhere in the country where I was living.

||| First, shoot the "educators" and the education professors and the
||| education theorists and burn all the education texts and start
||| over with a clean slate--it would be difficult for them to do
||| worse than what we have now.
||
|| Even in Texas I don't think you can do that. It's important to
|| remember that no matter where you're going, you can only start from
|| where you are. I suspect (but don't actually know) that Texas'
|| educators could do a lot worse than is being done now. I'll also
|| guess that there are ways to make *huge* improvements without
|| spending very much.
|
| Of course there are, but does the theory on which educators are
| operating allow it?

I'm not familiar with "the theory". I am sure that at least some
states frameworks _do_ allow a certain amount of flexibility in how
educational objectives are met.

|| How many Texas school districts are tapping into local (volunteer)
|| resources to add substance to their programs? For example, the HISD
|| sits in what must be an ocean of "rocket scientists" and engineers
|| posessed of awesome math and computer skills - people who know for
|| a fact that with the right intellectual tools, not even the sky is
|| a limit. It's probably worth asking: "How many times in how many
|| years has the HISD tapped that wealth of knowledge and enthusiasm
|| so that it's students might catch fire?"
|
| Do any of those engineers and scientists have teaching certificates
| in math or "computer literacy"? If not then they aren't
| "qualified". My high school chemistry and physics teacher was
| associated with the Manhattan Project. One year she was not
| allowed to teach physics or chemistry because according to some
| piece of education-theoretical bureaucratic nonsense she wasn't
| "qualified", while Johnny Mac "the only physics I ever took was
| Ex-Lax" the football coach was according to the rules "qualfiied"
| and so he taught physics and chemistry.

In at least some states it's acceptable for non-certified persons to
contribute to the instructional program provided a regular teacher is
present. At least one state does not require the presence of the
regular teacher; and at least one state allows (or used to allow
non-certified persons to substitute on a limited-term (temporary)
basis for regular teachers.

This isn't new stuff. AFAIK, most schools tap their local police and
fire departments for help in presenting safety information - partly
because these people know what they're talking about; and partly for
the "wow" factor for the kids.

||| And this won't happen until the teachers actually _know_ from
||| first hand experience what value that knowledge has in their
||| world beyond school. And that can't happen as long as most
||| teachers go from school to teachers' college to teaching school
||| without ever once having to find out how to apply that knowledge
||| themselves.
||
|| I don't want to hear someone say that this isn't a solvable
|| problem.
|
| The trouble is getting there from here without going somewhere else
| first.

The route _may_ turn out to be indirect; and that's ok provided that
it doesn't lead the young folks into danger. I said early-on that I
didn't know of any quick fixes.

|| All you're talking about here is getting teachers a little
|| exposure to the world outside their classrooms!
|
| First you have to convince the educational theorists that the
| teacher actually has to have such experience, until then they'll
| fight you tooth and claw.

Not necessarily true (unless you're going for a quick fix by making
sweeping changes). First we need to convince teachers and school
boards that such experience would be of significant benefit to
students and teachers; and we need to find some way to reward teachers
for expending the time and energy required. Cash would be good; but a
"golden apple" and enhanced professional/community standing might go a
long way.

|| Perhaps it'd be worth developing
|| an internship program and mandating three months of participation
|| in field-related work prior to granting a masters degree in
|| education...
|
| How many teachers have a master's degree?

I've known a bunch; but have no idea of the actual number.

||| Oh, the kids know why they're taking the courses. Because each
||| one takes them one step closer to escaping from durance vile.
||
|| Regrettably each step along _this_ path leads down, rather than up.
|
| Unfortunately. Personally I maintained a good enough average to be
| accepted to Annapolis and Georgia Tech, but if someone had burned
| the school to the ground I'd have been the first to thank him.
|
|| Kids need to know that they're not wasting their time in school.
|
| To convince them of that first you have to be sure that they
| _aren't_ wasting their time.

They aren't wasting their time - perhaps that's difficult to grasp if
you haven't lived in a country with a 10% literacy rate - the problems
lie in delivering the best return on their time and energy and helping
them to perceive the value of both their investment and the lifetime
return on that investment.

It's a real challenge. Kids see things in the short term and have
difficulty seeing beyond the immediate. One remedy (the only one I've
found) is to "grow" their knowledge at a pace such that they find
excitement in their own progress. My experience has been that once
kids discover that learning can be exciting, it's difficult to hold
'em back and the teaching challenge is to keep 'em from running into
blind alleys.

|| Being
|| kids, they need to experience some excitement in learning, they
|| need to feel the thrill of discovery - and, above all, they need to
|| recognize that they are capable of accomplishing worthwhile things.
|| _This_ is the path /up/!
|
| Oh, they recognize that they are capable of accomplishing worthwhile
| things. The trouble is that instead of accomplishing worthwhile
| things they're stuck in school.

And so the problem becomes one of _encouraging_ them to do worthwhile
things _in_ school and to exert adult leadership in guiding them in
constructive directions while they're students. It's important to
always remember that kids are our intellectual equals - and that the
only "advantages" we have are the body of factual knowledge we've
acquired since we were in school and whatever wisdom (experience of
consequence) we managed to accumulate.

|||| only thing I did differently was to make sure they understood
|||| _why_ we studied each topic and how mastering the course material
|||| might affect their lives. That tiny bit extra was all they
|||| needed!
|||
||| And that's the difference between you and a typical schoolteacher.
||| You actually _know_ how to apply that math to real-world problems.
||
|| So? Let's ask The Big Question: "What can be done to help
|| teachers-to-be gain that experience/perspective?"
|
| And the answer, alas, begins with shooting all the education
| theorists.

I think you're too focused on these (remote) theorists and need to
refocus on how we can better meet the educational needs of the kids in
front of us here and now.

| Of course there's also the "them as can do, them as can't teach"
| issue--any teacher who can get a job that gains that experience and
| perspective is unlikely to give it up to teach school.

I won't argue with you on that. Instead, let me say a couple of words
about my high school chemistry teacher: Doc Johnson was a scrawny
shiny-headed old guy who loved chemistry and after a long career as a
research chemist for either Dow or DuPont (I can't remember which) he
retired to share his love with young people. About the time he arrived
I decided that I'd rather take chemistry than biology, so ended up in
one of his first classes. I struggled all the way through the course
and was probably a PIA to have in class - but Doc prevailed and,
somehow, I managed a passing grade. There were three points worth
noting on the last day of class: [1] Doc Johnson never gave any sign
of disappointment in how I performed; [2] I wasn't terribly proud of
the grade I'd earned; and [3] neither Doc Johnson nor I had difficulty
recognizing that my knowledge of basic chemistry had grown
considerably since the previous September. I was glad the course was
over and put the memory of it behind me the following year as I
started in on physics...

...until time for college boards. I needed to take a science exam and
was only partway through my year of physics. I opted to take the
chemistry test only because I'd already finished the course; but I
hope to tell you that I had some serious misgivings. I didn't feel a
bit better after taking the exam and wondered how much damage I might
have done to my chances for getting into college.

Results arrived an eternity (probably only a couple of months) later.
I ran into Doc Johnson in the hallway (not realizing that the results
had also been made available to him) and got a big smile: "Nice job,
Morris. Your 798 was about what I'd expected. Keep up the good work,"
and he walked away down the hall.

There's a point to all this: Doc Johnson did, indeed, have a doctorate
in chemistry; and, no, he had no teaching credentials - but the fact
is that it is possible to both do _and_ teach - and to do both well.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Swingman wrote:
| "Just Wondering" wrote in message
|
|||| I wonder what would have been the result if you had made an
|||| appointment with the parent, who faild to show and was fined
|||| $500 as a result? Would the fine have straightened out this
|||| problem child? Or would it have bred more resentment in him,
|||| leading to even worse consequences?
|
| To do nothing in fear of "worse consequences" is a cowards
| attitude, a non-starter for solving any problem, and a good way to
| guarantee their continuance.

Might be getting a bit emotional here - I haven't heard anyone
advocate in favor of doing nothing to solve the problem - only
opinions to the effect that Rep. Smith's proposed solution is a bit
heavy-handed. If holding that opinion makes one a coward, then put me
at the top of the list.

|| My point was that in this example, a system of punishing the
|| parent for not meeting with the teacher would not have benefitted
|| the student.
|
| Your "point" is actually blunt supposition/opinion, to which you are
| certainly entitled, but which provably has no basis whatsoever in
| fact.

Thus far, all that's been presented has been supposition/opinion (for
both pro and con) - including the notion that missing a parent-teacher
conference defines parental irresponsibility to an extent worthy of
criminal prosecution, the notion that a $500 fine is reasonable and
just, the notion that levying such a fine will solve the problem, and
the notion that this particular solution won't invoke the law of
unintended consequences.

| What we _do_ know as FACT: The current system, which does nothing
| to hold an irresponsible parent accountable, is not working.

Are you saying that the system _will_ be working after enacting this
piece of legislation?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Leon wrote:
| "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
|| Swingman wrote:
|
||
|| Might be getting a bit emotional here - I haven't heard anyone
|| advocate in favor of doing nothing to solve the problem - only
|| opinions to the effect that Rep. Smith's proposed solution is a bit
|| heavy-handed. If holding that opinion makes one a coward, then put
|| me at the top of the list.
|
| I think what makes it emotional is that this is a proposal that is
| in a state that has problems that others may not have. Some of us
| are darn tired to educating illegal's children and them not
| participating physically or economically. Then there are the gangs
| and the parents that do not care. True, no one has really in so
| many words advocated that doing nothing would solve the problem.
| The fact is, NO one has suggested anything at all as an
| alternative. They have simply slamed this proposal and 98% will
| not be affected regardless of how it turns out in Texas.

I'm sure that it won't surprise you to hear that the situation isn't
limited to Texas. Texas and California probably have the greatest
number; but it's become an issue everywhere - and I think more people
will be affected than you'd guess.

Interestingly, the illegals up here seem eager to participate; and the
general attitude toward them is anything but hostile. It may be that
the climate does some kind of sorting - or it may just be some kind of
(agri)cultural affinity.

|| Thus far, all that's been presented has been supposition/opinion
|| (for both pro and con) - including the notion that missing a
|| parent-teacher conference defines parental irresponsibility to an
|| extent worthy of criminal prosecution, the notion that a $500 fine
|| is reasonable and just, the notion that levying such a fine will
|| solve the problem, and the notion that this particular solution
|| won't invoke the law of unintended consequences.
|
| So what would you consider a fair penalty that would get the
| parrents attention and his active participation in the social up
| bringing of his child? I would be interested in hearing a better
| one.

I took a shot at this further downthread; but don't know whether my
suggestion would be an improvement or not. Some demographic/economic
info would certainly make thoughtful discussion much easier - and it
sounds as if there's a lot more heat than light being radiated.

| I think that if the parents would have not ignored the cry's it
| would not have gotten this far in the first place.

Agreed. Since you raised the issue of illegal aliens (I'm assuming
Mexican), I've been wondering if lack of proficiency in English and/or
fear of being deported might not be significant factors...

| How about impose the $500 fine but it can be paid out over 12
| months and all of the money goes directly back toward that childs
| education and supervision that he needs. Or the parent pays the
| fine and gets the money back after his child's behavior and grades
| has become acceptable.

If you're determined to get that $500 fine, how about payback when the
youngster graduates from high school - or payback with interest in the
form of tuition vouchers if the youngster has been admitted to a
college degree program? No high school graduation, no payback at all.
This approach might constructively address several problems at one
time.

| I am totally up for suggestions.
| The real shame is that it has had to come this far to get the
| parents attention.

I agreee - but it's important to not let pent-up frustration lead us
to produce problems worse than the one we're trying to solve.

||| What we _do_ know as FACT: The current system, which does nothing
||| to hold an irresponsible parent accountable, is not working.
||
|| Are you saying that the system _will_ be working after enacting
|| this piece of legislation?
|
| No, nothing guarantees that. There are no guarantees in life
| except that if we do not get involved in our childrens education
| and behavior it will continue to get worse.

The question was rhetorical. FYI, this parent made a point of getting
together with a group of his kids' teachers for coffee every Friday
after school. Poor kids couldn't do anything their dad didn't hear
about. :-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> Myxylplyk wrote:
>
>> You really think that good parenting, like morals, can be legislated?
>> Wake
>> up.
>>
>> People that habitually ignore the teacher will not give the meeting any
>> effort.
>> Attend or be fined? They'll show up and play cards or something.
>
> He has a point, Leon. Sounds to me like that legislator's good intentions
> went a bit awry.
>
>
> He is assuming a PTA or PTO meeting for a crowd. The proposal is more for
> one on one.
>
No, I was considering only the one on one typemeeting. Parents that cannot
be bothered would never go to a group meeting.
Legislating social morals has and will never work.
Showing up to a one one one with the teacher get them out of the fine.
Now find a way to legislate their active participation in those meetings and
you're all set.
Oh, except that laws with fines usually require options for jail time for
those unwilling to pay.

Maybe Texas should just skip the process and assume that all parents that
are no-shows are just those chronicly bad parents and throw them right into
jail. Then Texas can assume the wardship of the children and "bring them up
propperly".
We all have seen how well state run institutions function.

Happily, I don't live in Texas. I would be one of those mouthy people
calling for this dim witted congressman's impeachment.

Myx

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snip>
> That doesn't mean we don't constantly try. Prostitution, a strictly moral
> issue, is 'legislatated' in most places.

Yes. Thanks for illustrating my point. Works equally "well" everywhere, as
in doesn't work at all.
>

<snip>

>> Oh, except that laws with fines usually require options for jail time for
>> those unwilling to pay.
>
> Parking fines?

Get enough parking fines and someone in the DA's office get notified. Soon
after that the bench warrant with your name on it ... all for parking
tickets. (BYW - a "ticket" is an appearance ticket. A notice that you must
appear in court or plead guildty. This usually results in only a fine, but
it's not directly equivalent.

>
>> Maybe Texas should just skip the process and assume that all parents that
>> are no-shows are just those chronicly bad parents and throw them right
> into
>> jail. Then Texas can assume the wardship of the children and "bring them
> up
>> propperly".
>> We all have seen how well state run institutions function.
>
> Yep ... schools fall/fail right in there.

If your schools were really state run institutions, we wouldn't be having
this discussion. The state directs a curiculum that must be followed.
(Unless your school doesnt receive state aide)

>
>> Happily, I don't live in Texas. .
>
> We are happy, too. ;)
Amen!
I will be happy when Shrub finally finished fencing in Texas for Walt
Disney! :P

>

Myx

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

<snip>
>
> I don't know where you are but in the US most of the the schools _are_
> run by the state in the sense that "state"="government" rather than in
> the sense that "state"="one of 50 specific political subunits". There
> are schools that are not run by the government, in some cases those
> are run by churches and in others are private profit-making
> businesses, but for the most part they are run by the government.
>

That's not exactly right.
Here, in NY, the local "government", i.e. town/city officials, effective
handle only the school tax collection.
The school superintendant is NOT an officer within the local/city
government. That position
is controlled by a locally elected school board. The board's only
connection to the State government
is they're responsible for meeting the educational requirement the NYState
Department of Education set.
The intended roll for the school board is as a educational overseer, with
budgeting responsibilities.
The members get elected based on their abilities to meet the local
educational requirements within the state's guidelines.
The guidelines get more and more specific as the amount of state aide your
school system increases.
In current reality, school boards do little actual planning beyond how to
"maximize their state aide dollars".
Seems their primary budgeting role is now finding a way to get the next
levels "bigger pocket" to pay for local projects.

At no point can the local govenments be put into a position of choosing to
"raid" the school tax funds to pay the local street lighting bill. There is
no direct connection between town/city/county government and the school
board, beyond some sccountability for spending the school tax dollars
properly. (No home expansions for the school board member allowed. )

Private/church schools that provide the main stream education of children
are also held to the NY State Department of Education's curiculum guidlines
too. They get the lighter version due to their receipt of little to no
state aide.

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:21:08 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 09:44:03 -0600, "Leon"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Martin K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:h12xh.213$yI1.128@trndny01...
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Well, one thing for sure, parents will not agree to meet with the
>>>> teacher,
>>>> always with plenty of reason why they can't schedule the
>>>> meeting.
>>>
>>>Yeah, and another thing is for sure also. If the parents start being
>>>fined,
>>>99.9% of those excuses will start to disappear. The parents are going to
>>>have the opportunity to schedule the meeting.
>>
>> Why do you consider it so important that the parent appear at a
>> "school meeting"? Are you a teacher or something?
>
>More importantly a one on one with teacher and or principal. I am not a
>teacher and believe that too many teachers are ineffective. If you fail to
>see the revelance you are probably one of those people that always points
>the finger.

I see, you've made two attempt now to make this about me.

>> Personally I think that any teacher that can't handle the kids without
>> parental meetings should be fir^Hned.
>
>Where do you live, Dream land? What public school will let a teacher
>actually discipline a child without fear of a law suite?

If that is what you see as the problem then you simply need to make it
lawful for teachers to discipline children without fear of a lawsuit
rather than fining parents for not kowtowing to teachers' demands that
they appear in a certain place at a certain time.

But you are actually introducing Constitutional issues here. By what
authority does a teacher have the power to order a parent to be in a
certain place at a certain time? Teachers are not police or judges,
they have no power to issue warrants. I suspect that the courts would
toss any such law in short order.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Leon, you simply are not in touch with reality. I'll wager that you
> have a high income and/or no kids.

I am comfortable, retired at 40, 12 years ago, but certainly have not got a
high income. I quit my job to be at home for my son when he started
attending public schools. During the first 3 years of my retirement my
family had a negative cash flow every month. Needless to say, making ends
meet was difficult those 3 years.

My son, now 19, is an Honors student and has a 4 year academic excellence
scholarship that he earned that pays for 85% of his tuition at the
University of Houston. Additionally, he works part time and has had the
same job for most of the last 3 years.

The HS that he went to in SW Houston put up with no crap from the students.
Poor conduct resulted in the student being immediately transferred to one of
the other schools. Parent involvement at the school in this middle to lower
income community was high.

I am totally in touch with reality. I am just not one to sit around making
excuses for why I can't do this or can't do that. No one handed me
anything.

People that sit around blaming others, get no where. Lead, help, or get
out of the way.

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I love it. You don't have a solution, so you demand someone else
"think".

No, I gave a solution, hitch a ride with a neighbor, friend. public
transportation. I refused to keep presenting solutions because JClarke
spends all his effort being contrary and making excuses why he or some one
can't do this or that. I asked him to think rather than make up excuses.
Can't will always prevent a solution. Again, where there is a will, there
is a way and especially when my child is involved. If necessary, the $500
fine will certainly provide a mojority the will if it has to go that far.
If I were in a situation where I absolutely could not find a way to make ANY
meetings I would certainly start talking with my kids NOW about staying out
of and how to stay out of trouble.


Actually, it is the teacher's problem as much as it is the child's and
parent's problem. It is also society's problem, but legislation is not
the way to correct it, and may well be un-Constitutional. I know us
liberals are always tossing up the Constitution, Leon, but it's there
and is the basis for our laws. At least it it mostly was before Shrub
took office.

Because of the restrictions imposed on all teachers against disciplining
their students in Texas public schools the problem is getting worse. Too
many parents did not want their children disciplined but none offered any
possible solutions to getting their kids to act civilized.
The line needs to be drawn as to how much these kids are going to get away
with. Parental involvement is key whether the parents like it or not.

Leon wrote:

> And while I agree,
>
> Do we,
>
> A. Do nothing?
> B. What do you propose?

IMHO, the problem starts with the litigious society we live in.

If a teacher looks the wrong way at a kid, they get sued.

More than once I got dressed down by a teacher and damn well knew
enough to keep it to myself.

If my parents found out, it was better than even money my dad would
have kicked my ass into the next state, never mind county.

Labor unions have and do serve a valid purpose; however, the teacher's
unions have gotten out of hand.

The school administrations have become lazy. There is no incentive to
be good stewards of the monies they are given.

The waste due to poor management runs rampant.

There are two extremes of the chain of command.

The shortest is the Catholic church. (The Pope to the Bishop to the
Priest)

The longest is the army. It is a long chain of command from the
president to a buck private.

Our schools need to be somewhere in between, probably closer to the
Catholic church than the army, IMHO.

To summarize, they is plenty of blame to go around.

The schools, the teachers, and the parents are all at fault.

When and if the parents are willing to assume some responsibility and
thus be able to demand a better product, they will get it.

Till then, good luck.

Lew

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
> Swingman wrote:
>
> > "Just Wondering" wrote in message
> >
> >
> >>>>I wonder what would have been the result if you had made an
> >>>>appointment with the parent, who faild to show and was fined $500 as a
> >>>>result? Would the fine have straightened out this problem child? Or
> >>>>would it have bred more resentment in him, leading to even worse
> >>>>consequences?
> >
> >
> > To do nothing in fear of "worse consequences" is a cowards attitude,
>
> So now your level of discourse is reduced to name calling. Yeah, that's
> a persuasive argument. NOT.

Horseshit! ... nothing in that sentence refers to you. You imagined any
likeness, and only you know if the shoe pinches.


> > a non-starter for solving any problem, and a good way to guarantee their
> > continuance.
> >
> >>My point was that in this example, a system of punishing the parent for
> >>not meeting with the teacher would not have benefitted the student.
> >
> > Your "point" is actually blunt supposition/opinion, to which you are
> > certainly entitled,
>
> The example was that of a child who was a sociopath.

You on the right thread? Read the subject line to refresh your memory.

> > but which provably has no basis whatsoever in fact.
>
> Now who's dealing in rank speculation? Please explain how taking money
> from a parent who misses a meeting with a child will benefit a
> sociopathic child.

> You're losing sight of what this thread is actually about,

LOL ... never mind. Go back the first sentence and try again.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/02/07

"Charlie Self" wrote in message

>Makes it easier for an already established elite
> to go on about their business of further separating
>themselves from reality.

Well said!


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My best buddy is a teacher in a disadvantaged district, and believe
> me, people like you make his job easy. Less than 30% of the parents
> that make appts. to see him show. That's right, less than 30%. The
> students that need a parent/teacher/prinicpal conference are not his
> star students, and he feels since their parents have sent them to the
> school to be raised rather than taking that on themselves (hey... they
> just pumped 'em out), the school should get a little help with the
> kids. Most likely source in their unenlightened eyes are the
> parents. Progress reports go unanswered; emails ignored; phone calls
> are unreturned.

Yep, the ones who attend conferences are the parents of the kids whose
effort and results are generally the best. Can't say it publicly, or in the
lounge, which might be wired, because it's not the position of the NEA, but
over partitions in the john most teachers will confess to believing that
parental concern may be the reason for the kids' positive outcome.

Sometimes it's the village idiot who wants to raise your kids, what?

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Sorry, but putting a roof over the kid's head is part of taking care
>>> of the kid and failing to do so is neglecting the kid.
>>
>>Part of parenting is to see that the children are educated so they will
>>not
>>have to live in a cardboard box.
>
> And you think the public schools are going to accomplish that by
> fining the parents if they don't come to meetings?

No, but not showing up for other reasons is not good parenting either.
Fines or not, parents must take some interest and responsibility for their
children's education.

"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> My point was that in this example, a system of punishing the parent for
> not meeting with the teacher would not have benefitted the student.

Do you mostly look for immediate gratification? Think long term. Hopefully
the parent will get the message and start helping out more.

"Pete C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Swingman wrote:

>
> Working the 2.5 minimum wage jobs required to pay the rent and put food
> on the table perhaps... Outside of that or being in the hospital or
> jail, not much...


Well the parents should have thought of that before neglecting their
children. You child is more important than any job or rent. Where there is
a will, there is a way. If the parent gets fined because he cannot attend
to his child's needs he needs to do better parenting at home so that the
child does not require a parent teacher meeting.
The parents are responsible for their children and the schools are not baby
sitters.

"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Yes, many of our children are eligible for free or reduced breakfasts
>> > and lunches. We also receive additional State/Federal funds for part
>> > time in-classroom support over other schools in our district among
>> > other
>> > things.
>> >
>> > Is this fair that one school receives additional State and Federal
>> > support?
>>
>> Is any scheme for income redistribution "fair?" It's the law. That'll
>> have
>> to do for those of us who respect the principle of rule by law, if not
>> the
>> individual law.
>
> Well, George, how can you have equitable education for all if you don't
> redistribute? I know, let's fund all schools up to the amount the lowest
> taxbase neighborhood generates and eliminate all fundraisers - tadaah!

First, you try to get people like yourself to realize that while you can
teach a subject, the education comes from within. It's shouldn't be a
knowledge cafeteria out there either, ought to get some standard of cultural
continuation and comparability through use of the materials. My generation
all knows Dick and Jane, but the only current common culture comes from
sitcoms. Standardization.

Makes the _opportunity_ equal across the board. Which is the only thing we
should be concerned with. Doesn't take fancy buildings, small classes, high
technology, or any of the current educational Shibboleths, only a
willingness to learn.

Why is it always money? It's no substitute for effort, anywhere.

"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> I wasn't confused before, but I am now. Are you suggesting that the
> solution to improving parental involvement in a child's education should
> be to criminalize parental behavior that some low-level government
> beaurocrat considers not sufficiently cooperative? And if you're not
> suggesting that, then why defend the "fine" system discussed in this
> thread?

I see that you are confused. It's a civil fine for FTA, same level as a FTA
and bench warrant for same in the courts. Which is issued prior to a
determination of guilt or innocence, though this would be a civil penalty
requiring proof before the fine. End your confusion with some thought.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:21:56 -0600, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
/
>
> The schools had those parents for 12 years and the thing that amazes
> me is that those parents are willing to let that system get its hands
> on _their_ kids.

The school never saw the many of the parents. A large percentage of the
parents did not live in the US untill very recently.

>

>
> First, shoot the "educators" and the education professors and the
> education theorists and burn all the education texts and start over
> with a clean slate--it would be difficult for them to do worse than
> what we have now.

Brilliant, do you really expect any one to take you seriousely?

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>>More importantly a one on one with teacher and or principal. I am not a
>>teacher and believe that too many teachers are ineffective. If you fail
>>to
>>see the revelance you are probably one of those people that always points
>>the finger.
>
> I see, you've made two attempt now to make this about me.

HUH?


>>> Personally I think that any teacher that can't handle the kids without
>>> parental meetings should be fir^Hned.
>>
>>Where do you live, Dream land? What public school will let a teacher
>>actually discipline a child without fear of a law suite?
>
> If that is what you see as the problem then you simply need to make it
> lawful for teachers to discipline children without fear of a lawsuit
> rather than fining parents for not kowtowing to teachers' demands that
> they appear in a certain place at a certain time.

Now you are making sense. The teacher should be able to dicepline the kids
with out fear of a law suite just like a parent should be. If it goes too
far then they can be punished just like any one else.
Further, where did you get the notion that a teacher can demand that you
show up in a certain place at a certain time? Appointments are made to
suite both parties. If you make a commitment and do not show up then that
again is a personal problem and deserves the fine.

>
> But you are actually introducing Constitutional issues here. By what
> authority does a teacher have the power to order a parent to be in a
> certain place at a certain time? Teachers are not police or judges,
> they have no power to issue warrants. I suspect that the courts would
> toss any such law in short order.

There you go assuming that the teacher can call all the shots again.

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Are you one of the people who cannot understand that others do not
have the resources that upper-middle class families have, including
friends who can give rides? On one point, you want someone to ask for
help. On another, you want them to solve their own problems.

That doesn't make any more sense than does legislating attendance at
school meetings..


Yeah Charlie, I think that you are probably right. My child is now out of
public school and none of this really concerns me any more. My child did
well so that is all that really matters to me. We really should ignore the
problem with school violence and poor attendance because that is how it has
been and will always be. Lets not do some thing so drastic at to require
parents to be accountable for their kids actions. Heck lets not even make
the kids go to school because the family is too poor to make it with out
their kids contributing to the family income.

Further, this law that is being proposed in a city close to Houston seems to
be getting more support from the community that it will involve than those
that will not be affected.

All these dam laws just get in the way and cramp my style.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
> Only the Texas GOP could produce such a fucktard.
>
> Parents Who Skip School Meetings Could Be Fined
>
> AUSTIN, Texas -- Parents beware: Miss a meeting with your child's
> teacher
> and it could cost you a $500 fine and a criminal record.

$500?? ... Hell, I'd put'em in jail for 30 days!

What on earth could be more important?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/27/07

"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George wrote:
>>
>> After retirement I ended up tutoring a sociopath who had repeatedly
>> threatened both classmates and staff, resulting in expulsion. Twice
>> during the semester the police arrived and arrested him while tutoring
>> sessions were in progress. He did pass the two courses and get a
>> certificate, but the last few sessions were conducted in the county
>> lockup. One of the courses was the required civics course.
>>
>> He's currently in long-term incarceration in Arizona....
>
>
> I wonder what would have been the result if you had made an appointment
> with the parent, who faild to show and was fined $500 as a result? Would
> the fine have straightened out this problem child? Or would it have bred
> more resentment in him, leading to even worse consequences?

The parent (one, and female) was usually in the next room. What a sociopath
thinks of others was probably best indicated by one of the arrests having
been for stealing the wedding ring from this nearly blind and diabetically
disabled woman.

Nature of the sociopath that he has no consideration beyond his immediate
desires. Or "rights" if you prefer.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>>Parenting is more than multiplying. If you cannot afford or take care of
>>kids don't have them.


> While I agree with this in principle, it is beside the point.

Precicely ON POINT. The law to punish for making an appoint for your childs
benefit and not showing up will like all other laws impress future parents
that they have a responsibility to their future children.

Don't be so short sighted.



>
>>>>Where there is
>>>>a will, there is a way. If the parent gets fined because he cannot
>>>>attend
>>>>to his child's needs he needs to do better parenting at home so that the
>>>>child does not require a parent teacher meeting.
>>>
>>> If fining the parent means that he and the kid end up living in that
>>> box then how have you helped the kid?
>>
>>How many people do you personally know that live in a box because of a
>>$500
>>fine?
>
> I've never known anybody who had to pay a $500 fine for refusing to
> kiss a teacher's butt.

There you go adding BS to the proposed law.

>
>>>>The parents are responsible for their children and the schools are not
>>>>baby
>>>>sitters.
>>>
>>> No, the schools are not baby sitters, they are surrogate parents--that
>>> is what the doctrine of "in loco parentis" means.
>>
>>That is what liberals believe.
>
> No, that is what the _law_ believes.


Give me a break. Do you often post under the name of Doug?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> And I have no idea who this "doug" might be. Probably someone in my
> killfile, who you have just joined.

He'd be referring to me. I don't *think* I'm in your kf...

You've unfortunately had the same frustrating experience arguing with
him that I have had on a few occasions. Don't take it personally: he
just gets that way when someone demonstrates that he's wrong.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Your child is more important than anything
else in the world. If it takes a $500 fine to get the parents to be
responsible then so be it.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Only the Texas GOP could produce such a fucktard.
>
> Parents Who Skip School Meetings Could Be Fined
>
> AUSTIN, Texas -- Parents beware: Miss a meeting with your child's
> teacher
> and it could cost you a $500 fine and a criminal record.
>
> A Republican state lawmaker from Baytown has filed a bill that would
> charge
> parents of public school students with a misdemeanor and fine them for
> playing hooky from a scheduled parent-teacher conference.
>
> Rep. Wayne Smith said Wednesday he wants to get parents involved in
> their
> child's education.
>
> "I think it helps the kids for the parents and teachers to
> communicate.
> That's all the intent was," Smith said.
>

Swingman wrote:

> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
>
>
>>>>I wonder what would have been the result if you had made an
>>>>appointment with the parent, who faild to show and was fined $500 as a
>>>>result? Would the fine have straightened out this problem child? Or
>>>>would it have bred more resentment in him, leading to even worse
>>>>consequences?
>
>
> To do nothing in fear of "worse consequences" is a cowards attitude,

So now your level of discourse is reduced to name calling. Yeah, that's
a persuasive argument. NOT.
To do wrong rather than do nothing, out of a sense that you have to do
"something," is wrong.


> a non-starter for solving any problem, and a good way to guarantee their
> continuance.
>
>>My point was that in this example, a system of punishing the parent for
>>not meeting with the teacher would not have benefitted the student.
>
> Your "point" is actually blunt supposition/opinion, to which you are
> certainly entitled,

The example was that of a child who was a sociopath. Meaning the child
was not reasonably within the parent's control. There's nothing
unreasonable about concluding that when the problem is bad conduct by a
sociopath, the problem will not be fixed by taking $500 from the
sociopath's parent if the parent makes and then breaks a meeting with
the sociopath's teacher.

> but which provably has no basis whatsoever in fact.

Now who's dealing in rank speculation? Please explain how taking money
from a parent who misses a meeting with a child will benefit a
sociopathic child.


>
> What we _do_ know as FACT: The current system, which does nothing to hold an
> irresponsible parent accountable, is not working.


"The current system"? Every state, and for many states every school
district, is free to construct its own system for educating children
entrusted to its care. And, while I fully agree that parents are
responsible for raising their children to be productive members of
society, the idea that the administrators of a public school
(beaurocrats) should be able to wield the raw power of government "to
hold an irresponsible parent accountable" for anything is appalling.

If the problem is a need for face to face communication between a
teacher and a parent, and the parent won't come to the teacher, let the
teacher go to the parent. Problem solved.


>
> What we now have: An attempt at addressing the problem, distasteful as it
> may be, that may or may not work, but inarguably putting "accountability"
> precisely where it belongs, on the irresponsible parent.

The only thing it holds a parent accountable for is missing a meeting
with a teacher. No, it doesn't even do that. Under the scheme as
described in this thread, if the parent refuses to make an appointment
in the first place, there is no fine. The parent is fined only for
making an appoint, than failing to show up.

Say what you will, this "fine" plan isn't about parental responsibility,
its about power and money. And I for one find it abhorrent. Even
assuming it's constitutional (an assumption I am not willing to make),
you might be able to fine a parent into meeting with a child. But to
what end? You start out with a parent whose only offense was showing
discourtesy to a minor government official, and wind up with a parent
filled with resentment. Either the parent is already acting responsible
with respect to his or her parenting skills, or he/she is not. Either
way, this "fine" system is not going to improve the parenting skills one
whit.

>
> A novel concept, that has both conservatives and liberals in an uproar and
> in bed together, and, observably, a little too much for knee-jerks on either
> side.
>

Calling a concept "novel" doesn't make a concept worth trying.

You're losing sight of what this thread is actually about, which is the
notion of using the bludgeon of raw governmental power to confiscate a
substantial sum of money from parents, many of which can barely keep a
roof over the heads of their children as it is, as punishment for
showing discourtesy for a minor governmental official. That's wrong.

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And while I agree,
>
> Do we,
>
> A. Do nothing?
> B. What do you propose?

I suggest sitting down and thinking of a solution that will work. What
that is, I don't know, but I do know an across the board fine for
missing a meeting is ridiculous.

I have to think that this has been done time and again. The problem is,
NEVER, are you going to please every one and you will always get the people
that have excuses using others as an example. Valid excuses in some cases
but lets not assume that the unfortunate may not be on board also. Let
those that may be affected adversly voice their OWN openions on the matter.
Knocking the proposal because of why it might affect others is a cop out.
The under privilaged have the right to voice opposition if they feel the
need.

You think the fine is ridiculous, I don't. That is a wash.

Somewhere, somehow, parents need to be educated about children's
behavior, and how it affects them and their classmates, as well as
their later chances in the world.

Yeah, this proposal would address that. Not as perfectly as you might think
but it would make a difference in many cases. If you have a better way,
suggest one, perhaps it will be considered unless the naysayers shoot it
down.


How you do that with the severely uneducated, I don't know, unless
they already have a drive to have their children become educated to
escape their morass. Fining people with no sense of society for being
being rude is not going to work.

Yeah, um I don't think that the proposal says anything about being rude. I
mentioned calling to cancel an appointment a common courtesy because it is
common courtesy. Calling to cancel just so happens to be a requirement to
avoid an possible fine. So if you are a person that practices "common
courtesy" making a phone call to cancel will not be a big deal for you.

Provisions are made for those with valid excuses for missing the meeting. I
am sure a broken down car or stuck in traffic will be a valid excuse even if
the call is not made before the meeting. Not calling to go to the hair
dresser is not. And true, some people will lie and use a valid sounding
excuse but a grand mother can only die a couple of times before things start
looking fishy.

If we wait for a way to make parents come to the meetings that every one
agrees with it will not happen untill the second comming.

"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
:
>
Snip[
>>
> This "fine" system doesn't do that. All it does is take bread from the
> mouth of a child because a parent was discourteous to a teacher. And
> that's wrong.

More likely the beer money is taking from the child's meals already.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:C%[email protected]...
>
> IMHO, the problem starts with the litigious society we live in.
>
> If a teacher looks the wrong way at a kid, they get sued.
>
> More than once I got dressed down by a teacher and damn well knew enough
> to keep it to myself.
>
> If my parents found out, it was better than even money my dad would have
> kicked my ass into the next state, never mind county.
>
> Labor unions have and do serve a valid purpose; however, the teacher's
> unions have gotten out of hand.
>
> The school administrations have become lazy. There is no incentive to be
> good stewards of the monies they are given.
>
> The waste due to poor management runs rampant.
>
> There are two extremes of the chain of command.
>
> The shortest is the Catholic church. (The Pope to the Bishop to the
> Priest)
>
> The longest is the army. It is a long chain of command from the president
> to a buck private.
>
> Our schools need to be somewhere in between, probably closer to the
> Catholic church than the army, IMHO.
>
> To summarize, they is plenty of blame to go around.
>
> The schools, the teachers, and the parents are all at fault.
>
> When and if the parents are willing to assume some responsibility and thus
> be able to demand a better product, they will get it.
>
> Till then, good luck.
>
> Lew


We are mostly on the same page here Lew. Many changes need to take place.
I blame the parents for letting it go this far. After that no one is
innocent.

Leon wrote:
> "Myxylplyk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Leon, I'm sorry but your credibility just nosed dived here.
>>
>> This is SO beyond anything close to an acceptable answer that it's
>> laughable.
>> You really think that good parenting, like morals, can be legislated?
>> Wake up.
>>
>> People that habitually ignore the teacher will not give the meeting any
>> effort.
>> Attend or be fined? They'll show up and play cards or something.
>>
>> The idea that a civil authority thought this was a real way to do
>> something useful for
>> children's education is nuts. He should be impeached.
>>
>
> The schools simply want the parents involved and especially when the kid
> gets into trouble.
> You might as well piss your pants because you child has to go to school
> also.
>
>
Parent involvement is important for many students.
However, a law that would fine a parent for not
meeting with a teacher (excepting a meeting with a
teacher and a policeman or one set by a judge to
discuss a crime or illegal act) is not only stupid
but most likely illegal in any state.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>All you're talking about here is getting teachers a little exposure to
>>the world outside their classrooms!
>
> First you have to convince the educational theorists that the teacher
> actually has to have such experience, until then they'll fight you
> tooth and claw.
>
>>Perhaps it'd be worth developing
>>an internship program and mandating three months of participation in
>>field-related work prior to granting a masters degree in education...
>
> How many teachers have a master's degree?
>

Only a tenured one would try. The way union rules are constructed, people
with advanced degrees cannot be hired except at a higher rate of pay. Once
tenured, even with a guaranteed pay raise for life, only around 20% in my
state complete a masters. Teachers by and large are not academically
oriented.

Then there's the matter of what that advanced degree would consist of.
Having been there, it's a sorry set of feel-good no-fail most often no
research or paper courses designed to make it easy to get through, leaving a
money trail behind for the university. It's really disheartening to hear
the traditional "is this material going to be on the test" question posed
even in these classes by those seeking the most gain for the least effort.
If the teacher, and that's what they are, _teachers_, education is the
integration and internalization of knowledge, has this attitude, how can
they expect their pupils to react otherwise in their classrooms?

Even "professional development" courses which were conceived of as a way to
expose teachers to new methods rather than new information are going under
here, because the Intermediate School District tasked with providing them
has money problems, and won't pay for the subs and mileage. They're paying
for aides and special effort to teach the unreachable with that money.
Seems counterintuitive to spend increasingly on an individual kid, rather
than on the teacher who touches all of them, but that's what's happening,
and with the cooperation of the teachers themselves.

Then there are those like the people talking "constitution" and "law" to
deal with. They can't understand that with no obligation on those receiving
the money and effort to participate in obtaining a positive outcome, it's
merely sand down the rathole. Trouble is, such talk infects the parents and
kids with its arrogance and contempt for individual obligation every time
"rights" to the public purse, free of obligation, are mentioned.

Last time I checked, non-appearance in court resulted in forfeiture of bail
and the issuance of an arrest warrant. So the difference is?

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> So why would a parent make the commitment to begin with and risk the
> fine?

The appointmant will not be optional but will be fair to both parites.

>
>>> But you are actually introducing Constitutional issues here. By what
>>> authority does a teacher have the power to order a parent to be in a
>>> certain place at a certain time? Teachers are not police or judges,
>>> they have no power to issue warrants. I suspect that the courts would
>>> toss any such law in short order.
>>
>>There you go assuming that the teacher can call all the shots again.

>
> Someone is calling the shots. If the parent has the right to refuse
> to make the appointment then what purpose is served by fining the
> parent who for whatever reason manages to miss one? All you're
> accomplishing is to guarantee that nobody in their right mind will
> ever make such an appointment.

You assume that the parent will have the right to refuse that meeting. I
seriousely doubt that will be true. He will most likely be given the
benefit of attending that meeting when he can do so. The parent has to play
the gown up here and take responsibility for being a parent. What a
concept.

>
> You keep saying "liberals this" and "liberals that". The hallmark of
> liberalism is more and more laws that intrude more and more into our
> day to day lives. If you want to espouse a _conservative_ solution
> then ditch the forced bussing and the parent will be able to walk to
> the school. But you're too busy trying to find new ways to harass
> people who already have too much on their plate to be bothered with
> doing anything like _that_.

NO a liberal is one that wants more and more government and laws to cover
his butt, pay his way, and carry him along. A law requiring you to be a
responsible parent is not liberal thinking.
Go ahead and look the other way and throw stones at those trying to make a
change in this broken system.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Len" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:vT3xh.16153$p%[email protected]...
>
> >>
> >>
> >> You child is more important than any job or rent.
> >
> > Tell that to Social Services when they come to take your kids
> > away because you got fired for taking time off to attend one
of
> > these meetings, and you can afford to feed them any more.
> >
> > Len
>
> Has that happened to you? Don't make up a problem before it
exists.
>

No, it hasn't happened to me, but that doesn't mean it doesn't
happen.

One of my neighbors, a divorced mom, took time off from one of
her two jobs to take one of her kids to the emergency room. Even
though she called in to explain the situation, she was fired for
being late to work. One thing led to another, and Social Services
was called in.

So don't denigrate problems of a type that DO exist just because
they are outside of your experience.

Len

"Myxylplyk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Leon, I'm sorry but your credibility just nosed dived here.
>
> This is SO beyond anything close to an acceptable answer that it's
> laughable.
> You really think that good parenting, like morals, can be legislated?
> Wake up.
>
> People that habitually ignore the teacher will not give the meeting any
> effort.
> Attend or be fined? They'll show up and play cards or something.
>
> The idea that a civil authority thought this was a real way to do
> something useful for
> children's education is nuts. He should be impeached.
>

The schools simply want the parents involved and especially when the kid
gets into trouble.
You might as well piss your pants because you child has to go to school
also.

"Pete C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
>
>> The parents are responsible for their children
>
> Nah, it's just those wacko conservatives that believe that...
>
>> and the schools are not baby
>> sitters.
>
> Of course they are, it's just that the rich parents who can't be
> bothered with parenthood can afford to send their kids to boarding
> schools...


Woah is me, is not an excuse as far as I am concerned.

Go get 'em.
It would be a whole other story if one of the teachers was to strike one of
the students.....you wouldn't be able to keep the parent away from the
school and they would attend every meeting between their attorney and the
school!

"Myxylplyk" wrote in message

> No, I was considering only the one on one typemeeting. Parents that
cannot
> be bothered would never go to a group meeting.

For that we shoot them, here in Texas.

> Legislating social morals has and will never work.

That doesn't mean we don't constantly try. Prostitution, a strictly moral
issue, is 'legislatated' in most places.

> Now find a way to legislate their active participation in those meetings
and
> you're all set.

Hire a couple of prostitutes to attend.

> Oh, except that laws with fines usually require options for jail time for
> those unwilling to pay.

Parking fines?

> Maybe Texas should just skip the process and assume that all parents that
> are no-shows are just those chronicly bad parents and throw them right
into
> jail. Then Texas can assume the wardship of the children and "bring them
up
> propperly".
> We all have seen how well state run institutions function.

Yep ... schools fall/fail right in there.

> Happily, I don't live in Texas. .

We are happy, too. ;)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07

Even? What do you think preschool was created for?
"Bruce Barnett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> My wife sees this even in Pre-K (She's a teacher for kids with special
> needs).

Larry wrote:
> I think the $500 fine is ridiculous, but there are other ways
> to encourage parents to meet with teachers. Parents are
> "inconvenienced" (Certainly not the word I would choose, I think
> "obligated" is more accurate) in all kinds of ways while raising their
> kids. I would look at the way schools (in my area anyway) handle
> vaccinations as a guide. If a kid doesn't have proper vaccinations,
> he or she cannot attend school. If enough time passes without
> the child in school, the truancy laws kick in.


First, vaccination is a public health issue, the rationale for requiring
them is to protect al the students from potential epidemics. There is
no similar public health issue respecting parents meeting with teachers.
Second, at least in my state, parents can affirmative refuse to have
their children vaccinated, and the schools have to take them anyway.

>
> The $500 fine could certainly be construed as unreasonable, but IMHO
> keeping a child out of school until a parent meets with his or her
> teacher or a school official is certainly a reasonable action.

The goal of education is, well, to educate. Please explain how
suspending a child from school as a bludgeon to force parents to meet
with teachers furthers that goal.

> And most jurisdictions already have truancy laws on the books.
>

Which do not apply to the situation when a child does not attend school
because the government has ordered him not to attend. So what's your
poihnt here?

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> RE: Subject
>
> It is a given that the public schools are a mess; however, the last place
> to get ideas to fix them is from the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and
> his cronies.
>
> They have created enough problems.
>
> Lew


And while I agree,

Do we,

A. Do nothing?
B. What do you propose?

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
Myxylplyk wrote:

> You really think that good parenting, like morals, can be legislated? Wake
> up.
>
> People that habitually ignore the teacher will not give the meeting any
> effort.
> Attend or be fined? They'll show up and play cards or something.

>He has a point, Leon. Sounds to me like that legislator's good intentions
>went a bit awry.

While you can't legislate morals or good parenting, we do have a loooong
history of punishing the bad of both ... just more of the same.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/27/07

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I can see where this may be a good idea. Particularly in schools that
> are having "behavioral" problems with students whose parents are barely
> older than the children the school is trying to educate. What is a school
> to do when you have a discipline problem with a child and the parents
> continually avoid meeting with the teacher? Since education is mandatory
> and provided at taxpayer expense, there are some responsibilities that
> parents should assume.


This is what the local news suggested that the law is being considered for.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Sorry, but putting a roof over the kid's head is part of taking care
> of the kid and failing to do so is neglecting the kid.

Part of parenting is to see that the children are educated so they will not
have to live in a cardboard box.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:00:47 GMT, B A R R Y <[email protected]>

>
> It's a funny thing, but most parents agree that education in the US
> is in trouble but that the school _their_ child attends is one of the
> few good ones.


Not funny. Sad really. If only they would attend school meetings, see what
is going on, and learn how wrong they are.

Got any suggestions as to how to make that happen?

"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> So now your level of discourse is reduced to name calling. Yeah, that's a
> persuasive argument. NOT.

Name calling is usey to tease ot antagonize. Swingman is not trying to
tease or antagonize.


> To do wrong rather than do nothing, out of a sense that you have to do
> "something," is wrong.

And who is the judge of wrong? YOU? ;~) Doing nothing about a wrong
situation is always wrong. Doing something always has a 50/50 chance of
being right.

Leon wrote:
> "Martin K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:h12xh.213$yI1.128@trndny01...
>> Leon wrote:
>
>>>
>> Well, one thing for sure, parents will not agree to meet with the teacher,
>> always with plenty of reason why they can't schedule the
>> meeting.
>
> Yeah, and another thing is for sure also. If the parents start being fined,
> 99.9% of those excuses will start to disappear. The parents are going to
> have the opportunity to schedule the meeting.
>
>
Probably not. What will happen is a huge law suit
in which every person that pays taxes loses and
maybe a few educators also lose their jobs.

"Martin K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:h12xh.213$yI1.128@trndny01...
> Leon wrote:

>>
>>
> Well, one thing for sure, parents will not agree to meet with the teacher,
> always with plenty of reason why they can't schedule the
> meeting.

Yeah, and another thing is for sure also. If the parents start being fined,
99.9% of those excuses will start to disappear. The parents are going to
have the opportunity to schedule the meeting.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message

>>I tend to agree with Mencken here.

>>This is nothing but another attempt to install responsibility by
>>government fiat, and cannot work.

LOL ... that's pretty much the focus of both religion and government since
Moses came packing down that mountain. ;)

But you're right, it often doesn't work.

But only because of sporadic enforcement by any authority not interested in
doing the job ... and that goes for parents who fail to teach "responsibity"
because they have none themselves.

Parents are financially responsible for property damage caused by their
children in most places ... why not for damage to the education of others?

What hasn't worked is throwing taxpayer's dollars at the situation.

You gotta break the cycle somewhere, so what the hell, I say make
irresponsible parents get off their asses, turn off Jerry Springer, and pay
through the nose for failing to live up to their responsibilities.

Fuck'em ... what it boils down to is that I'm damn tired of paying the
freight to pull their sorry ass wagons through society.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/02/07

"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > We are not a middle or upper income neighborhood - quite the contrary
>> > as
>> > more then 62% of our 390-ish students are federally defined as
>> > economically disadvantaged.
>> >
>>
>> You get more money that way. Federal money doesn't have to go through
>> the
>> local taxpayers for approval.
>>
>> Of course I never believed the "depraved on account of he's deprived"
>> argument, either. Some of the nicest and most motivated kids wore
>> clothes
>> that St Vinnies had declared unsaleable.
>
> Yes, many of our children are eligible for free or reduced breakfasts
> and lunches. We also receive additional State/Federal funds for part
> time in-classroom support over other schools in our district among other
> things.
>
> Is this fair that one school receives additional State and Federal
> support?

Is any scheme for income redistribution "fair?" It's the law. That'll have
to do for those of us who respect the principle of rule by law, if not the
individual law.

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> My best buddy is a teacher in a disadvantaged district, and believe
>>> me, people like you make his job easy. Less than 30% of the parents
>>> that make appts. to see him show. That's right, less than 30%. The
>>> students that need a parent/teacher/prinicpal conference are not his
>>> star students, and he feels since their parents have sent them to the
>>> school to be raised rather than taking that on themselves (hey... they
>>> just pumped 'em out), the school should get a little help with the
>>> kids. Most likely source in their unenlightened eyes are the
>>> parents. Progress reports go unanswered; emails ignored; phone calls
>>> are unreturned.
>
> Nailshooter, you put that point a lot more eloquently than I did and with
> a lot more good humor.

And unfortunately those that he aimed that at will wonder what just went
flying way over their heads.
What is it with all the people that want some one else to take
responsibility for their kids?

"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'm sure that it won't surprise you to hear that the situation isn't
> limited to Texas. Texas and California probably have the greatest
> number; but it's become an issue everywhere - and I think more people
> will be affected than you'd guess.

No, not suprised, 90 years ago it was the Europeans and more of a notheren
exposure. The propblem does seem to be more concentrated in the souther
border states.


> Interestingly, the illegals up here seem eager to participate; and the
> general attitude toward them is anything but hostile. It may be that
> the climate does some kind of sorting - or it may just be some kind of
> (agri)cultural affinity.

Maybe it is a far from home thing. ;~) The illegals here are more
concentrated and many are into drug trafficing. They want to remain unseen.
In more isolated cases they probably mix better.
When they allow their kids to skip school and parade holding the American
flag up side down and raising the Mexican flag with the Viva Mexico chant
that they tend to get on every ones nerves. Anyway, they could at least
contrubute to their own welfare.

>
> || Thus far, all that's been presented has been supposition/opinion
> || (for both pro and con) - including the notion that missing a
> || parent-teacher conference defines parental irresponsibility to an
> || extent worthy of criminal prosecution, the notion that a $500 fine
> || is reasonable and just, the notion that levying such a fine will
> || solve the problem, and the notion that this particular solution
> || won't invoke the law of unintended consequences.
> |
> | So what would you consider a fair penalty that would get the
> | parrents attention and his active participation in the social up
> | bringing of his child? I would be interested in hearing a better
> | one.
>
> I took a shot at this further downthread; but don't know whether my
> suggestion would be an improvement or not. Some demographic/economic
> info would certainly make thoughtful discussion much easier - and it
> sounds as if there's a lot more heat than light being radiated.
>
> | I think that if the parents would have not ignored the cry's it
> | would not have gotten this far in the first place.
>
> Agreed. Since you raised the issue of illegal aliens (I'm assuming
> Mexican), I've been wondering if lack of proficiency in English and/or
> fear of being deported might not be significant factors...

I suspect that those factors are a big problem. I bet however if they
showed up at the school there would be no problem with translations since
Spanish a almost an offical language in Texas.

>
> | How about impose the $500 fine but it can be paid out over 12
> | months and all of the money goes directly back toward that childs
> | education and supervision that he needs. Or the parent pays the
> | fine and gets the money back after his child's behavior and grades
> | has become acceptable.
>
> If you're determined to get that $500 fine, how about payback when the
> youngster graduates from high school - or payback with interest in the
> form of tuition vouchers if the youngster has been admitted to a
> college degree program? No high school graduation, no payback at all.
> This approach might constructively address several problems at one
> time.

That sounds stronger than my thoughts but that would seem reasonable to me
also.


>
> | I am totally up for suggestions.
> | The real shame is that it has had to come this far to get the
> | parents attention.
>
> I agreee - but it's important to not let pent-up frustration lead us
> to produce problems worse than the one we're trying to solve.





>
> The question was rhetorical. FYI, this parent made a point of getting
> together with a group of his kids' teachers for coffee every Friday
> after school. Poor kids couldn't do anything their dad didn't hear
> about. :-)

Good for you Morris. My hat is off to you.