On Feb 5, 11:28�pm, (Larry) wrote:
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)

* * *Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar..org

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.