OT again: Parents could be fined for missing school meetings

Page 3 of 11  


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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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? One thing I know is that it is common practice for the parent volunteer groups of each school to host two fundraisers during the school year. The funds go to technology purchases, playground equipment, field trips, assemblies, etc. I was made aware that a neighboring elementary school in our district commonly raises $25,000 at one of their events. Their neighborhood is comprised of McMansions and those families can apparently afford to sponsor/donate large sums of money to their kids. Our school, like I mentioned, is in a low income neighborhood in which we parents were lucky to top $13,000 for our "big" fund raiser this year. Given that the parent funds augment the school budget from the district, I ask again, is it fair that one school receives more State and Federal funds than another?
I agree absolutely that poor families are just as capable of supporting their child's education as higher income families are theirs. I don't mean financial, but by being participatory in the process and acting the role of the at-home teacher support. When parents are involved on a regular basis their kids can't help but succeed.
--
This Administration begs the question: WWJT?

_____
Owen Lowe
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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!
--
This Administration begs the question: WWJT?

_____
Owen Lowe
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

You have no way of knowing that.

other children's education, and make a parental conference to correct the behavioral problem a condition of letting the child return. But fining the child's parent is carrying Big Brother too far.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
--
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong." (Mencken)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 5, 11:28�pm, snipped-for-privacy@sdf.lNoOnSePsAtMar.org (Larry) wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Charlie Self" wrote in message

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

you can change your hat. But you can't change your government, except by revolution, or renouncing your citizenship, both pretty drastic measures.

mouth of a child because a parent was discourteous to a teacher. And that's wrong.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
:

More likely the beer money is taking from the child's meals already.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 04:28:10 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@sdf.lNoOnSePsAtMar.org (Larry) wrote:

If the school system has expelled the child from the schools then the school system no longer has the authority to demand _anything_. If the school system wants a child who has been expelled to be provided an education that complies with state standards it is up to the school system to either readmit that child to the schools or to provide tutors at home on their dime. They're not allowed to have it both ways--if they aren't willing to provide the child an education then they in general don't have the right to demand that anybody else do what they refuse to do.

Was she homeschooled because you removed her from the publuc schools or was it because the public schools expelled her? If it was the former then you are _not_ familiar with the situation involving a child who has been expelled from the schools.

Perhaps they do, but expelling the child from the school is not one of them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote:

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Just Wondering" wrote in message

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.

Your "point" is actually blunt supposition/opinion, to which you are certainly entitled, but which provably has no basis whatsoever in fact.
What we _do_ know as FACT: The current system, which does nothing to hold an irresponsible parent accountable, is not working.
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.
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.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/02/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.