OT again: Parents could be fined for missing school meetings

[Fly-by-Night CC]

In our district we have two scheduled parent/teacher conferences per school year. It's a time to learn where your child sits academically and how the teacher will be tailoring the subjects to their needs. Every parent is expected to sign up at a time convenient to them - unfortunately, many stand up the teacher.

BTW, the subject of teachers holding masters degrees came up in the last couple days in this thread. I just found out today - quite by happenstance - that my neighborhood elementary school has an instructional staff with 12.6 years average experience, 35% hold master's degree or higher and 96.2% meet the Federal "Highly Qualified Teacher" guideline.

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.

Overall, I think teachers are trying damn hard to do their best with the constraints they are under as well as the lack of support from many parents and some very vocal political activists. Instead of criticizing, get involved!

[Charlie Self]

I looked back and couldn't find anything about the fine coming after an appointment is made. It's slightly less retarded then, but still lacks brilliance.

There has to be some assumption the parent is forced to make an appointment, because otherwise it makes no sense whatsoever to fine them for missing a voluntary meeting. Sure, it wastes some of the teacher's time, but that's been going on for a long, long, long time and will continue regardless of sanctions.

Do you fine someone who had a blow-out on the way to the appointment, or simply got caught in traffic, or simply had a moment of forgetfulness?

[Charlie Self]

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(Mencken)

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.

[George]

J 'st did.

Wonder how our crotchety civil libertarian views the Arkansas obesity program? Think it's less about "constitution" and more about who's proposing the invasion of privacy?

[George]

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.

[Leon]

>I was going to comment with tongue in cheek that some one would cry out that it would be an invasion of freedom of expression if the state tried to require the school kids to see the results of their poor eating habits and lack of exercise.

Then I read the article and it seems to be endangered because of the poor esteem that it may inflict. Never mind the shorter life span and poor health will inflict in the long run.

[Leon]

If you go to the link and "watch and listen" to all 3 or 4 minutes of the report you will hear the comment that the fine is imosed after the parent has committed to 1 of 3 meetings and then choosed for what ever reason to not attend and not tell the school that they will not be there. In Texas we consider that phone call "Common Curtisity".

Less retarded, well lets certainly not impose any type of system to benefit out kids until it is perfect.

Yes the parent is probably required to attend 1 of 3 possible meeting dates when their child is in danger of further problems or failing a class. The fine can simply be avoided by providing a reasonable excuse and a telephone call. What is so unreasonable about that?

Sure, it wastes some of the

Maybe.

Do you fine some one that lies and uses one of those excuses. You can make up excuses all day long. Not every one was born yesterday. Sometimes life just bites you in the butt. If a parent has never attended a meeting previously, there is a better than good chance that the flat tire did not really happen. If the parent has been involved and goes to meetings I suspect that a missed meeting could be rescheduled. Its not a law yet so thousands of scenarios can be played out.

Bottom line, the state is trying to get the parents to be responsible for their kids actions. If any has a better way that would actually work better and be effective, please step up and provide that the answer. While I don't like government to be involved any more than the next person, something has to be done and right or wrong you have to start some where.

[J. Clarke]

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.

[Morris Dovey]

| While I don't like government to be involved any more than the next | person, something has to be done and right or wrong you have to | start some where.

The end justifies the means?

-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA

[Leon]

be.

[Swingman]

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.

[Swingman]

In law and religion it most often does.

[Morris Dovey]

One of the reasons we studied history in school is so that we can avoid the poisonous ones when they're offered.

I'm certain that your intentions are good; but being well-intended doesn't make this approach even a little bit less toxic.

I'd like to suggest that in the context of purely good intention, the distinction between "right or wrong" is of considerable importance. Would you have your state and your schools teach otherwise?

-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA

[Morris Dovey]

And the consequences have been ... ?

-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA

[Swingman]

_Irresponsibility_

Just think of the proposal as an attempt to break a cycle of irresponsibility when throwing money ("the means") hasn't resulted in a just end.

[George]

Can't teach "right and wrong," as we know. Can teach the concept, but even there you have to select your analogy carefully. Ten commandments bad, Supreme Court decisions good, as long as they support the most vocal faction.

Aren't "rights" about the end rather than the means and "obligations" about the means to the end? Of course those would _never_ be the inalienable rights granted by The Creator....

[J. Clarke]

Depends on the end. IMO inducing a parent to meet with some minor government official (and that, when all is said and done, is what a schoolteacher is) does not justify a whole Hell of a lot in the way of means.

[George]

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....

[B A R R Y]

My wife worked in the "Corporate World" for 13 years, and helped run the family business for 3 years, a very busy asbestos and lead abatement contractor, before becoming an elementary school teacher. I paid for her Elementary Ed. and Spanish degrees as she went.

My wife's best friend at work sold television advertising (commissioned, not salaried) for ESPN for 8 years before adding his education degree and becoming an elementary teacher.

A former employee / friend (still ) of mine recently quit the Fortune

50 corporation we worked for to become a high school physics teacher. He was here for 11 years as an engineer and technician, preceded by 6 years in the Navy as a reactor operator. He did almost his entire education at night and on weekends. Our state requires (2) Masters degrees to be a certified teacher. He built up personal savings so he could quit and do his last year full-time, as student teaching assignments and some major classes are not available at night.

Both of the men above were single and supported themselves while getting the education and performing unpaid student teaching assignments. Neither of them lived with relatives or had a spouse to support them. All three examples made excellent money in the careers they left.

No "real world" experience there at all...

[B A R R Y]

Typo alert!

That's two Bachelor's degrees.