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
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.
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
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.
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
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)
On Feb 5, 11:28�pm, email@example.comNoOnSePsAtMar.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.
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.
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
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.
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 04:28:10 +0000 (UTC),
firstname.lastname@example.orgNoOnSePsAtMar.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
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
Nature of the sociopath that he has no consideration beyond his immediate
desires. Or "rights" if you prefer.
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
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
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
"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
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.
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.