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
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
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.
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. And most jurisdictions already have truancy laws on the books.
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.
When I was a kid we got vaccinated at school unless the parents instructed otherwise. And if the child is not in school because the school won't allow the child on the premises, then the child is not "truant".
"Keeping a child out of school until . . ." is called "suspension" and a kid who has been "suspended" is not "truant"--in this state if a kid is suspended or otherwise prohibited from attending school then the school is obligated by law to provide tutoring at his home.
And how did she apply what she learned in school to waitressing? How did going to school help her get that job? Has she ever done anything in which the subject that she is teaching was actually a bona-fide occupational qualification? If not then how is she supposed to convince the kids that it's useful for anything?
And how did your public school education prepare you for this?
And her public school education helped her get this job by . . .?
Using the computer skills he learned in public school?
And public school prepared him for this by . . .?
Nice if you've got the budget for that.
A touch or two of real life perhaps, but have they ever worked in a position in which knowledge of the subject they teach was of significant benefit in doing the job? That's where the problem lies.
One good one I had was an English teacher who was a former Marine Drill Instructor. He was big on acting. And he could relate that to the training of soldiers.
In engineering any solution that meet the specs is "correct". Where I see the problems arise _here_ is in misinterpreting or ignoring the specs.
And they should know math beyond algebra and plane geometry. However if they have worked a drafting job they'll know the value of both of those in their own right.
Of course plane geometry properly taught isn't about geometry, it's about the nature of proof--geometry class is the first and in many cases the only time that a student is required to actually produce a mathematically rigorous proof of anything.
And a trouble with those lab sciences is that the teachers generally don't understand the scientific method themselves and so the emphasis is on getting the right answer and not on the nature of experimental science. The kid whose experiment is wildly in error and who learns _why_ it is so far off gets more out of it than the ones who just do a procedure and get the expected result.
My _college_ physics labs were run by a delightfully devious woman who carefully contrived that the results be in error. She's file the micrometers and cut the specimens out of square and so on and do it just subtly enough that you didn't catch it by looking at the stuff.
And the sharp ones generally burn out on the politics of the job early on and either turn into mindless functionaries or find something else to do that involves less politics.
If it can actually be assigned on the basis of merit and not on who is the most skillful toady.
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 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.
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?
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.
Since the OP neglected to leave out the details and chose to reword in order to stir up the shit, see the link and play the local news coverage of the proposal.
formatting link
of all, the parent is NOT forced into dropping what he is doing to meet with the school about his child. The parent will get to choose from 3 different periods of time to meet with the school. The parent WILL be able to call and cancel if he or she has a reasonable reason to miss the agreed upon meeting time. Reasonable is defined as something like a medical emergency. The fine is imposed after the parent makes the meeting and does not show up.
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.
The fine is imposed after the parent makes the meeting and does not show up AND DOES NOT NOTIFY THE SCHOOL THAT HE WILL NOT SHOW UP FOR THE SCHEDULED MEETING.
Usually by having attending parents go through the school office, where they show ID if they aren't already known. Hard to do when a telephone is used.
Given that most likely the purpose for the "conference" is to resolve a behavioral problem, the suspending of that child's access to school is going to facilitate the education of the remaining children in that child's classes.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
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.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.