OT again: Parents could be fined for missing school meetings

[Leon]

Snip[

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

[Leon]

;~) And apparently we have not learned from the recent history that an unruled class will be disruptive.

I am certainly up for a better suggestion to solve the problem. Some times you simply have to go with something and improve from there. Until parents take their kids education and behavior at school seriously, something has to be done to correct non participation of the parents. If the $500 fine helps to remedy the problem by getting the parents more involved then perhaps the parents involvement will lead to better answers.

I agree that the difference between right and wrong is totally what we are going for. If the kids see that non parental involvement is a problem perhaps the parents standing up to help with their kids will also teach what is right.

[Leon]

Says you. I would rather try and fail than to sit back and whine.

[George]

So, fining the owner will not keep a dog from barking or biting, either. Fond of making easy answers for imaginary issues?

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.

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.

[Leon]

How about taking that line from what I said out of context.

NO. Reread what I wrote. The parent chooses from 3 dates. Adter choosing a date and setting the appointment and they do not attend and do not call to cancel with a reasonable excuse the fine is then imposed.

The

And the teacher is probably grading homework while

Um, the teacher may be doing this on his or her time after hours. I know plenty that do. The parents no show costs plenty. The child learns that it is OK that your word meanins nothing.

And for that you want the government to take food off the

No I want the parent to be punished and take away his drug, and alcohol money. Maybe if the druggy parents lost their drug money he would spend more sober time looking after his kids. That sounds about as reasonable as the senario that you made up.

That is crap for 95% of the population. 95% of the kids could have 1 stay at home parent and move to a smaller house, drive a cheaper car, party a little less. I know plenty of peolpe that have done this including myself.

They are

Unless a parent is directly involved in what his child does at school a better school will make no difference.

What is

That still does not work.

[George]

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.

[Just Wondering]

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.

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.

[Morris Dovey]

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

[Just Wondering]

I'm not whining. I've explained in other posts, which I won't repeat hear, just a few of the reasons why I think the "fine" system is wrong. I've also proposed other solutions to the same problem.

But the fundamental problem is not the one the "fine" system even tries to address. It's the declining quality of public education as an institution. Yes, there are some very good teachers out there. But the system itself is in need of repair. You can't heal a broken leg with a bandage. And the "fine" system isn't even that. And yes, I am a concerned parent. I tried for years to effect some positive changes in the public school system, but the teachers' union is so entrenched that it is almost impossible. Just one example out of many: I have a son, who is actually quite intelligent, who flunked KINDERGARTEN. Now, how can a bright kid with motivated participating parents fail kindergarten? It happens because of the incompetence of the school teachers and administrations. By the end of second grade he could still barely read. We enrolled him in a private tutoring program, where he advanced nearly a year and a half in his reading grade level in SIX WEEKS. Which is one reason I've now got my children in private school. So don't try to tell me the problem in our educational system lies with irresponsible parents. From personal experience, I know better.

You say you would rather try and fail than to sit back and whine. Well, I have a proposal (not new to me):

Implement a way to give parents a meaningful choice in their children's education, rather than being forced to accept whatever they can get in their local public school system. Let the public education dollars follow the kid, wherever the parent wants to put him. Make the public school system compete with private schools for the children and the money that follows them. This will force public schools to clean up their act, and give the quality of education the children deserve. It will let parents vote with their feet. You want parental involvement? That will definitely lead to more parental involvement than punishing a parent for missing a meeting with a teacher would do. But more important, it would inject free enterprise into what is now a bloated beaurocratic monopoly.

[Leon]

Charlie you certainly read it they way you like. I do not recall insisting that the SawStop be legislated. I did say that I would not be opposed to it and thought it would be a good thing.

Do you see every thing as black or white?

Actually I am neither liberal nor conservative although if you have to label it I probably see eye to eye more with conservatives. I dont believe in siding with either side just because it is the popular thing to do. I can think for my self and can have my own openions. It shocks me how much my openion upsets certain people. Its only an openion. Like ass holes, every one has one. When I was in upper management my openions counted much more than they do today and while some of the time empoyees would not care for some of my changes it seemed to always work out the best for every one including the company. If my policy simply did not work out I would be the first to admit to it and make another change. I was never afraid to admit when I was wrong and my employees seemed to really appreciate that. They also knew that I was not one to put up with much crap. Playing games did not work with me.

Besides this discussion and the what you think I have said during a SawStop discussion, when do you think that I said that we should have a Nanny State? OK, I believe that if you speed you should get a ticket. I also believe that a red light camera used to give out fines for running a red light is a good idea. I am tired of risking my life when crossing an intersection. I am tired of waiting for 4 or 5 cars to clear out of the intersection after I have the green light.

Charlie I can think of a few places where you would not be bothered by a government, I don't think you would like it there. Unfortunately we live under a governments rule. All we can do is make the best of it.

I don't want more government power either. I propose that we rid the government of its power to require auto insurance and its power to increase taxes and trade those in on a 2 for 1 deal of making parents be responsible for their children's action in school.

You speak of no increases in power unless it is vital to the survival of the US as a nation. A nation with increasingly lower scoring students is one that is in danger of survival. It's the world we live in.

I agree with the 50% decrease in Federal power. Lets get rid of government aid programs and welfare.

[Leon]

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?

[Leon]

It's some times like getting caught up in a loop.

[Leon]

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.

[Leon]

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.

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 think that if the parents would have not ignored the cry's it would not have gotten this far in the first place. 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. I am totally up for suggestions. The real shame is that it has had to come this far to get the parents attention.

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.

[Leon]

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

[Just Wondering]

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.

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?

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?

[Morris Dovey]

If you're talking about kids in a class, my experience has been that teachers have a far greater role than parents in determining the amount of disruption. In saying that I don't intend to place blame on teachers nor diminish the role parents play - but I have seen classes that one teacher absolutely could not control be wonderfully orderly for another.

But the bill under discussion doesn't seem to be about students and classroom behavior. It's about controlling _parents'_ behavior.

|| I'm certain that your intentions are good; but being well-intended || doesn't make this approach even a little bit less toxic. | | I am certainly up for a better suggestion to solve the problem. | Some times you simply have to go with something and improve from | there. Until parents take their kids education and behavior at | school seriously, something has to be done to correct non | participation of the parents. If the $500 fine helps to remedy | the problem by getting the parents more involved then perhaps the | parents involvement will lead to better answers.

If fines are really a solution, then I'd cap the fine at the after-tax amount earned by the best-paid parent for a single day's work - as shown on the most recent pay stub(s) - perhaps reduced for work time lost due to the court appearance.

|| 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? | | I agree that the difference between right and wrong is totally what | we are going for. If the kids see that non parental involvement is | a problem perhaps the parents standing up to help with their kids | will also teach what is right.

Then please accept my assurances that the legislation, as proposed, will also hurt _kids_ - which IMO is _wrong_.

Further, if you teach the next generation that the end justifies the means, then you will have taught them the same rationale being used to justify the murder of innocent people with car bombs in middle eastern marketplaces and houses of worship.

-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA

[George]

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.

[Leon]

Absolutely correct. Unfortunatley parents do not watch what is going on. Parental involvement will initiate change in the system. The kids ARE part of the problem. Few with any sence want to baby sit disruptive illeritat children.

And the "fine" system isn't even that. And yes, I am a

With all due respect, you should have been on the spot long before he flunked that grade to remidy the situation. When my son ever was in danger om making a grade below an 80 on a report card I immediately scheduled a meeting with the teacher. My son was stricely an A,B student all through public school.

Now, how

I saw it happen with the same teachers as my son and with a child that may very well have had a higher IQ than my son's. He finished dead last in my sons graduating class. Unfortuantely he was not motivated. Both parents worked and he did not get the parental guidence that he needed. I am not saying that this is your case, I am only telling you how it can happen. Every child is an individual that no one knows as well as his parrent. The parents responsibility is to guide. I will confess that I was not the best student and while some classes were excprionally easy for me, standard classes some times were hard for me to even pass. I never had to study for my Physics class in college but English typically tore me a new one. I did not get a degree. I probably would have failed Kindergarten too. ;~) Although I did not do great in school, I managed to retire at 40, comfortably but certainly not in an affluent neighbohood. When my son started kindergarten I was not pro anything as far as school was concerned. I knew the system sucked but I did participated as a parent in my son's education. The more I participated the more I learned how important it is to take an active role in my son's education.

So do I.

I agree that the schools have problems but they are not all government problems. I agree with letting the tax dollars go to the school that you want. Unfortunatly even the great schools are not 100% with out parental participation.

[Just Wondering]

I understood what you wrote the first time. The parent's failure to call and cancel with a reasonable excuse is a breach of courtesy, nothing more. It is for that breach of courtesy that the fine is imposed. So what's taken out of context?

You need to define what you mean by "after hours." I thought the issue was a parent failing to cancel an appointment made with a teacher. Meeting like that are almost universally done at school before 6:00 p.m. I don't consider that "after hours" for a teacher.

Not in money, it doesn't.

Who says the child even knows an appointment was made, yet alone that it was not kept? If you start basing arguments based on all kinds of assumed facts like that, does it mean I can do the same thing?

And talk about exaggeration. A parent misses a meeting with a teacher, and the child learns it is OK that his word means nothing? Give me a break.

So the only reason a parent fails to cancel a teacher meeting is that the parent is too stoned to pick up the phone? You're not really that naive, are you?

If the parent is using drugs like that, the answer isn't a $500 fine for not canceling a teacher's meeting. The answer to that particular problem cannot be found anywhere in the public school system. If a child is misbehaving because his parent is too strung out on drugs to cancel an appointment with an teacher, no amount of teacher-parent discussion, or any other school-based intervention, is going to solve the problem. The answer to that problem is to bring the child into the juvenile court system for his own protection, possibly get the child and parent court-ordered psychological counseling, and other social services provided by Child Protective Services, and possibly, depending on the facts of a particular case, to run the parent through the criminal justice system and put the child in foster care.